| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5058584 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Should Tai Hang Sai Estate still retain landuse=residential? afaik judicial processes are withholding reconstruction, which means this estate is technically still inhabitable. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Have they not lost all the cases? | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This is the part which I am out of the loop. The verdicts and the judicial arguments are convoluting. afaik the Company convinced a significant majority of tenants to leave, but the few remaining made a JR/appeal, which "pins" this estate as `landuse=residential` despite "obviously a construction yard". | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | OK, I read the news. Basically, the Company eventually got all the flats back after some verdicts + arbitration. de jure the Estate is still `landuse=residential` until (I think) Dec 2025, but me discovering this situation this late to the story, it would just be a technicality issue, and can't justify an OSM edit. I will just hold this note open until later with no action to take. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Hi there, we are long into December, I guess that means we can close this note with no actions to take? | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I have no idea why, but I seem to keep reading about new judicial resolutions way into December. I do not know whether there are more ongoing judicial cases. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Any updates on this note? | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | No updates, but I am very afraid to close this. Last time (December) I thought all cases were closed already, and then a few days later I read about a few of them freshly closed. Best bet would be to wait for the Company to do work. I think the news was that the Company would start partial work on this site as it waits for the several remaining cases to close, instead of doing work on the entire site at once. This should be a good indicator of what's up. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦29 | the sidewalk along wai chi street now has beams along it in preparation for demolition | |
| 10 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Apparently, legal process is still going. See below May 2026. Again, "I am very afraid to close this". https://thewitnesshk.com/%E5%B9%B3%E5%B1%8B%E6%8E%A7%E5%A4%A7%E5%9D%91%E8%A5%BF%E9%82%A8%E6%8B%92%E9%81%B7%E5%B1%85%E6%B0%91%E5%8B%9D%E8%A8%B4-%E5%B1%85%E6%B0%91%E9%9D%A2%E8%87%A8%E5%9F%B7%E9%81%94%E5%90%8F%E6%94%B6%E6%A8%93/ | |
| 11 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yes, but if you are "discovering this situation this late to the story, it would just be a technicality issue, and can't justify an OSM edit", what is this note for? | |
| 12 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This is an extremely shitty residential area. The reason why no changes are possible is because OSM is for long term usage, but we know this residential area will become a construction area soon, just that we don't know when, so it doesn't justify an OSM edit. This does not stop this area from being an extremely shitty residential area, which is different from OSM data, so this note is also not closeable. | |
| 13 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | The purpose of notes is to "assist others in mapping/editing". If no action can be taken, how is it not closable? Cf. e.g. we have previously closed notes from maps.me placed at the centre of large polygons, making the location inaccurate, on the basis that it is impossible to know where the action is needed, even though the text of the note is perfectly fine. | |
| 14 | ~ 15 hours ago | commented | HenryEK ♦29 | well man tai house is currently being demolished | |
| 15 | ~ 10 hours ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | On top of tracking demolition progress, I rather keep this note open than to have someone update the Estate to be a residential area, which is technically correct but contextually very inappropriate. We can keep this note open until we are sure the last of the JR processes are complete; the Company will likely make press releases when that happens, and then we will know. | |
| 5326149 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | concern: By survey and recent bus videos, the border control area is signposted as "Airport Control Area". Then, what do? Give to aerodrome? |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I haven't looked into the details yet, but first thought: airport control area =/= airport? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | @vectorial8192 Only the part in between belongs to AA (previously quarantine facility) | |
| 4 | ~ 4 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | @kingkingHK I did use `designation=` https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30774625 | |
| 5 | ~ 4 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209353389 | |
| 6 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The latest situation is that even this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/639679829 is already AA. That's clearly not the quarantine area. Or maybe I got something wrong again. It feels natural that everything controlled by AA is part of the airport. Then again, I do not recall any airport in the world other than this one that handles both air and land clearance (and possibly sea clearance re SkyPier), so we may need to figure this one out ourselves without asking at the global level. I am leaning towards giving the Bridge (and possibly the SkyPier) to the aerodrome. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Meant the part in between centered around the quarantine facility, not only it. The elevated section is out of Airport Area. Is the indoors and vehicles check plaza included though? | |
| 8 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I can't find exact details, but the vibe is that part of the Bridge Area is to be given / has already been given to the AA for future dev and maintenance purposes. As of writing we can see some works going on e.g. the enclosed bridge between the Bridge and SkyPier, but we can potentially wait for future opening to look into this in more detail. Or maybe we have immediately usable information that we are not aware of. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Is it not for Airport City Link only, and SkyPier only? The area around quarantine was for supporting Airport, Airport City, and Expo. | |
| 10 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Quoting District Council https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/island/doc/2024_2027/tc/committee_meetings_doc/DIDPC/29830/DIDPC_2025_2_TC.pdf para 9, 11, 12, 14; annex 1. Do those count as "attached to the airport" (me think yes)? For example, the Changi airport mall is still counted as "attached to the airport" and is therefore part of the aerodrome, assuming no "in/out multipolygon" laziness. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Skytopia only includes the quarantine facility, and waters. Doesn't say the Clearance Building belongs to AA. | |
| 4760944 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | Replace the Brazilian term "Ônibus" with "Autocarros" |
| 2 | ~ 7 days ago | closed | tengtiao ♦131 | ||
| 3 | ~ 3 days ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 5324037 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | opened | --- | Cheung Tung Estate Bus Terminus https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/island/doc/2024_2027/en/committee_meetings_doc/TTC/31505/TTC_2026_9_EN.pdf |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183639194 ; closing. | |
| 5324843 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: physical separation along median (check Mapillary) |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183777664 ; closing. | |
| 5240345 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: Where are the station exits? |
| 2 | ~ 7 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183557235 ; closing. | |
| 5323246 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | concern: What does the e.g. land deed say about the access rights/conditions of O King Road? Why not make it highway=tertiary for giving access to Tiu Keng Leng? |
| 2 | ~ 7 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | (Note: looking up land deed etc does not seem trivial, and should be tracked as longer-term discussion.) | |
| 3 | ~ 7 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Not too sure about the land deed stuff, but iirc non-residents of Ocean Shores are not allowed to use https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/914594331 , making O King Road a dead-end. | |
| 4 | ~ 7 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | A very simple proof is that if O King Road can be used as a through-road, then the traffic levels obviously won't be so low. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The tricky part is that, because O King Road is the first car-usable road into TKO, I feel like the land deed etc should have something which grants some limited public access to it. Or that the guys at Ocean Shores has to pay for road upkeep, or sth. Details are unclear. It interacts with the hypothetical Yau Tong - Tiu Keng Leng tunnel project. This is kind of the forgotten historical remnants that can really influence what tags to give to O King Road. What if the enforcement guys at Ocean Shores got it wrong and in fact O King Road should be highway=tertiary ? On-the-ground principle would use the as-is situation, but we can indicate the legal access level somehow. | |
| 6 | ~ 7 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | You didn't respond to the question. Regardless of how's O King Rd, vehicles aren't allowed between it and Chui Ling Rd, making it a cul-de-sac. At most `=residential` in general, might be `=unclassified` | |
| 5034361 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 7 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | By survey, this is a poorly-mapped single-purpose facility. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183548943 ; closing. | |
| 4957095 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | By pure coincidence, it is discovered that MTR is quite possibly using "vibe routing" here: TKL LOHAS branch LOHAS bound takes distinct paths per the vibes of the signaling system. Some instances may take the upper path while remaining instances take the lower path. This is highly unusual. Then, would the current mapping be correct? How should we map this situation in OSM? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Sorry I am not too sure what you mean, could you please elaborate? Specifically, which paths does the trains take? Which paths are the "upper path" and "lower path"? | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | So basically, one day in September I was irl-reviewing some stuff and noted that the train took the upper path https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485648069/history/8 Later, something else happened irl and I decided to visit this area again, but this time, the train took the lower path https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1428978599/history/1 This is highly unusual/unexpected. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I want to add that the OSM track layout near LOHAS Park has been confusing/wrong for a long time until the fateful 2-visits discovery that finally resulted in the current OSM track layout. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Disclaimer: I am not very familiar with railway tagging It seems like the direction of travel of railways is tagged with `railway:preferred_direction` and `oneway=reversible` (only on tracks with a clear normal direction of travel. Then, based on what you said, it seems like www.openstreetmap.org/way/32226078 is used for both train to and from LOHAS Park station, in which case it should get `railway:preferred_direction=both`, which you have already done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171679335 (although it also has `oneway=reversible` which should probably be removed). Add that with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485648065 having `railway:preferred_direction=forward` and `oneway=reversible`, it seems like the current mapping can express the situation well. | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175614946 | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Not too familiar with railway mapping myself, but it seems almost all segments implicitly have `oneway=reversible`; why this needs to be stated clearly idk. The idea is that at this moment, `oneway=?` is some value, but for another moment, `oneway=?` becomes another value, therefore `=reversible`. Trains may use "the opposite rail" depending on deployments and blockages. The concern is not on the physical rails themselves, but the logical "MTR service" relations. How do we even describe which rail is which direction when the pathway(s) is/are vibe-based? | |
| 8 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I think we can map the relations if we can somehow identify a more commonly used route/main route. | |
| 9 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Cf. island platform termini with reversing tracks before the station | |
| 10 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The rails were updated some time after my edits. I have a feeling the immediate sections outside of the x-rail is wrong, but that's way too long ago I cannot compare it from memory. What I can claim as "from memory" is that (from TKO) the train "switches to right side lane" without using any railway switch (ie the rails are curving like a proper x-rail), and then reach the real x-rail as entering on the west side. This does not seem to match what is currently depicted, which shows the curve as entering on the east side. aka memory says https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/22.298182/114.272152 should have the rail continue and merge into https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/22.297435/114.271097 | |
| 11 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Anyway, it does hint towards a possible fact that LOHAS Park station rails are not built in the "usual" symmetric way. We should (re)survey this. | |
| 12 | ~ 11 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Support a resurvey, but probably wait until we figure out how to properly measure railway curves (see e.g. Tuen Ma Line Hin Keng <-> Diamond Hill remeasurement; have you forgotten about that?) | |
| 13 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I still remember the Tuen Ma Line thingy, though admittedly with these many stuff going on (both on OSM and irl), that one simply doesn't "float back up" the task queue. For railway curves we can once again give to the ol-reliable Discord. | |
| 14 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Re too many stuff, understandable. I am certainly not immune from it either. But not sure what you mean by "ol-reliable Discord". What does giving to Discord do, when the OSM HK Discord server is largely just an echo chamber of me, you, and Kovoschiz? | |
| 15 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Discord is great for in-depth exploration e.g. images and long message chains and topic organization, which unfortunately OSM website / wiki is not too good at. I have general reservations against Discord ("closed web") but I have no effective alternative proposals. One mitigation would be we debate it to the very base level very intensely at Discord (so we cover almost all the possible cases and discover the relevant principles), and then post executive summaries to the OSM wiki for the wider OSM mappers to look at. Now hopefully people are not the kind of "intuition" guy like me and will therefore read the wiki... | |
| 16 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | A Discourse forum category requires 3 moderators. That doesn't make sense if all 3 are the main active members. It doesn't have a chat for short questions either. | |
| 17 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | It's possible to regularly make public Discord content, and Matrix should be possible, but can't see whether threads and posts are supported. May not be the best either. https://yui-kitamura.github.io/Discord2Html/index.html | |
| 18 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | In terms of FOSS: Matrix somewhat works (but no threads and posts) | |
| 19 | ~ 7 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I worded it poorly. Matrix is well-meaning but still "closed web". What I care is that e.g. Google Search can see our discussions and conclusions, for efficient info dissemination. Again, the mitigation / workaround is to discuss intensely at Discord, and then expand the HK OSM wiki page(s) with summaries. | |
| 5322545 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | opened | --- | Tung Chung East 21st Century Business Hub (aka Tung Chung East Business Hub) https://www.som.com/news/tung-chung-groundbreaking/ |
| 2 | ~ 7 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Unfortunately, this is only a descriptive name. As per usual real estate procedure, the real name is revealed very late into the construction work, basically right before completion. Nothing to do here. Closing. | |
| 5322199 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 days ago | opened | --- | 2 |
| 2 | ~ 7 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 5322197 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 days ago | opened | --- | 1 |
| 2 | ~ 7 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 5146803 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Duplicate funicular station "Garden Road". What is the standard for mapping funicular stations? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I think the station was moved recently? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Not sure if "moved" is the correct word. It be like this: For a long time the facility and the tram stop is co-located at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/636324517 . Then, afaik around 2020, the tram was closed for a major upgrade, which involved majorly extending the train formation for increased capacity. They found out the historic facility couldn't handle the extra length, and so the stop position was moved uphill to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2525250101 . However, all other stuff (e.g. ticketing) still takes place at the downhill building. Then, how should we describe this situation? | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Then, sounds like this stop has simply expanded, and the platform moved. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Upon further review, I am half-unsure how to deal with this. It seems the structures on both ends are tagged as "station" while midway locations are simply marked as "request stops"? | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | But the midway stations really are request stops though. I don't see the problem, or how it relates to this note. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Having 2 `=station` is obviously wrong. `railway=stop` should be used on the `railway=` track. The polygon should be enlarged as `area:railway=station` , and a `railway=station` point recreated. | |
| 8 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Please see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183154394 works. | |
| 9 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Late resume; several days have passed. Right now I see 2x Garden Road railway stations on the default renderer. The stopping position mapping seems right (I don't know how that works). The changeset almost got it right. I forgot where I read this, but basically, if we have an area for the feature, then we don't need a node for it. e.g. if we have a polygon for the bus terminus, we don't need to keep a single node alongside the (new) polygon. And most of the time we prefer the polygon because it shows the scope/extent of the feature, so what usually happens is e.g. I draw the bus terminus polygon and then transfer all the data from the bus terminus node to the polygon and then delete the node. | |
| 10 | ~ 10 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | I vaguely remember a similar discussion about MTR stations, and I think the conclusion is that railway stations can stay as | |
| 11 | ~ 10 days ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 12 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Sorry misclick. ...and I think the conclusion is that railway stations can stay as a node. | |
| 13 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Anyway, adopted Kovoschiz's suggestion of `area:railway=station`. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183397689 | |
| 14 | ~ 9 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Now it works. There is now explicitly a single railway station node alongside a single station area. (I am essentially using the default renderer for validation, but eyyy.) But it does seem like tradition to keep railway stations as single nodes. Thanks for the help. Me being generally uninvolved in public transport mapping has made progress slow. Closing. | |
| 5179032 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | --- | Learning Habitat Kindergarten (PSLP) |
| 2 | ~ 9 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183436619 ; closing. | |
| 5091914 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: bus stop placeholders, etc.? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Someone else dealt with the bus stops in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176007230 , but I guess we can also reroute the bus relations. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Community guides suggest doing it in JOSM, not in iD editor. I will leave this to the public transport mappers. | |
| 4 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Recheck: So far OSM only has CTB 793 and KMB 298E, so we will only check them. Unmapped relations give to general stream. Common issue is that the relations don't use the correct refuge island road. This seems like an omission mistake, but should only require minor work to fix. | |
| 5 | ~ 9 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Bus paths fixed via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183434646 ; general issues (e.g. unmapped relation, outdated details, etc) give to general stream. Closing. | |
| 1385516 | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | opened | --- | King Nga Court Playground |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | closed | Cypp0847 ♦189 | Location should be at 22.44032,114.16609 and marked already, resolved | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | The aforementioned coordinates point to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/545203291 , which is "Tak Nga Court Playground", not "King Nga Court Playground" as mentioned in this note. There is probably really an unmapped playground/park here. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Seeing it isn't open to the public (King Nga Court is probably walled with access=private ), I am leaning towards closing this note without survey. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I doubt it is walled with `access=private`; "gated communities" are rare in Hong Kong other than a few posh low-density estates. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Newer HOS estates (e.g. this) are not posh but are walled off and access=private . Try it yourself. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I didn't know about that. But this is built in the 1990s, no? I wouldn't call this a "newer estate". Anyway, survey recommended, especially as this place is not "extra rural". | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This is already new in the grander scheme of things. Look at older designs e.g. Wang Fuk Court next door, that one is old because it has a semi-open access control, which allows surveying and therefore has public interest. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Anyhow, this location is easy to get to. I see no reason to not survey this to make sure. | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Someone seems to be implying King Nga Court has no gates: https://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=2268280&pid=5395094 | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | By survey, as it turns out, King Nga Court is actually semi-open. Still, newer HOS Estates are indeed walled. There is indeed an unnamed park at this location, but of course it would have access=private here. Given the remote location of the park, are there any public interest in mapping this? | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I don't understand. What is "semi-open"? If it is open, how is it `access=private`? And how is an urban estate "remote"? Also, osm doesn't have a notability requirement, why can't one map it if one has the data? | |
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I invented this term "semi-open" to describe a place that is physically open (as in you can find a way in without crossing barriers etc), but have obvious indications that the place is `access=private`. This is different from `access=permissive` because fundamentally a semi-open place is not for the general public. In this case the playground is signposted to be `access=private`. imo this is quite remote; remoteness is a subjective measure, and my remoteness scale is heavily urban-favored. I do not recall OSM having any notability requirements for mapping, but I for one won't be mapping this. A concern is the possible wrong signal to the general public that the park is open for general public. -------- To explain this in advance, my personal policy is to never map private stuff unless I can clearly see them from aerial imagery. | |
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | > A concern is the possible wrong signal to the general public that the park is open for general public. Then tag it as `access=private`? If data consumers can't comprehend such a basic tag then it's their fault. OSM runs on verifiability; if the feature can be viewed from a public space then I see no problem in mapping it, even if not visible from aerial imagery. Also, I might be misunderstanding, but I thought `access=permissive` is used for "private area without physical barriers"? | |
| 16 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | `access=permissive` requires "is open for general public use" (OSM Wiki) but this Estate is obviously not for general public use, and is "residents only", so it doesn't satisfy "for general public use". (I call this "semi-open".) My understanding of example of "permissive" are the many universities in HK where it's indeed for general public use, but the guards there can kick you out anytime at their discretion. Things may have changed after 2019, but afaik CUHK requires registration/logging at entry so is still "permissive", while PolyU requires pre-approval so becomes "private". Physical constraints can motivate OSM access tag, but imo it's dangerous to think about OSM access tag only using physical constraints. -------- To clarify "wrong signal", a concern is that the many renderers (e.g. OSM Carto) doesn't render non-path features differently when it is `access=private`. | |
| 17 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | `access=` is only about whether you can use it legally, not physically. `=permissive` is publicly allowed/tolerated now, but no enshrined rights guaranteed. @vectorial8192 Carto renders at least some icons semi-transparently with different `access=` | |
| 18 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Without physical gates or guards, it is impossible to tell a visitor from a resident, so a visitor can't be kicked out unless a guard confronts him and finds out that he is a visitor, which satisfies `=permissive`. Don't tag (or not tag) for the renderer; make a PR if you want renderers to show `access=private` differently. | |
| 19 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | If no further comments I will map the playground and tag it as `access=permissive`. | |
| 20 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I am leaning towards access=private ("semi-open") but other than this point, I have no more effective comment. | |
| 21 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I have gave my points for making it `access=permissive`, if you have no more comments to justify `access=private` then I will keep it as `access=permissive.` | |
| 22 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Lack of enforcement doesn't mean absence of rules. Your point of access=permissive is ultimately not convincing and possibly unfounded. I once again reiterate with the Wiki page for access=private , that the park is *not* for general public use. Features need not be physically barricaded to be access=private , such as in this case. The guards being lazy has no link to the legal (access) status of the park; legally, the park privately belongs to the estate, and the estate has legally signposted that only the residents may use the park. If this is not access=private then you are probably suggesting only military bases can ever possibly be access=private when actually military bases are generally considered by OSM as access=no ; or that only full-closed estates are access=private (e.g. Yu Nga Court, Tung Chung), which the Wiki explicitly disclaims and disagrees as per "no relations to barricades" principle. With risk of personal injury and defamation, @kingkingHK the way you approach this by "they aren't actively blocking me from getting in anyway" is highly alarming and concerning. These days I have kinda come up with a handy thinking system in deciding the access tag of features, which may be discussed and elaborated on Discord later. | |
| 23 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Well consider this: private roads with no guards and gates is `access=permissive` (e.g. Cityone Shatin); how is this different? | |
| 24 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | As I have found out by I think it was @Kovoschiz , examples like Cityone Shatin with "signposted private road" are actually ownership=private , and has nothing to do with access rights. Then, afaik Cityone Shatin doesn't really signpost about who may use those roads, which therefore finally gives it access=permissive . The "private road" sign itself does not directly result in access=permissive ; extra reasoning is required. Ultimately the example is inaccurate but I can feel a point is being made. This example can be taken into consideration when I prepare the Discord discussion. | |
| 25 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Discord may or may not elaborate deeply what means by "signposted private road" but the quick takeaway is that, this is simply an act of "delegation" by Transport Department to delegate maintenance responsibilities to a private entity rather than the next-door Highways Department. | |
| 5036094 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | Family Medicine Clinic somewhere around here supposedly, but unclear how it is affected by the redevelopment works. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I went there recently, and saw it's in the old building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429468747 I would guess it's gonna be relocated into Phase 2 later, so we may choose to ignore this for now. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Upon website review ( https://www32.ha.org.hk/capitalworksprojects/tc/Project/10years/Kwong-Wah-Hospital/Introduction.html ), the Phase 2 reconstruction is scheduled to complete in 2029. In retrospect, not the best move to give this note to the future, because the future is too far away. Let's redo this. | |
| 7 | ~ 9 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183432974 ; closing. | |
| 5304280 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 18 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | issue: why suddenly highway=secondary ? seems can be just highway=tertiary all the way through. |
| 2 | ~ 18 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Connaught Road W -> QRW? | |
| 3 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | If say this, then I presume is actually Route 3 -> Queens Road. Mapillary is difficult to click in this area, but it seems Whitty Street is just a generic internal road and might be highway=unclassified instead. Also/Then, consider "[...] -> Western Street -> Queens Road", which seems to be planning-intended path. No matter what happens, having a free-standing highway=secondary among highway=tertiary segment does not fit into the overall "coherent hierarchy" principle. Low-resolution rendering would show this segment of highway=secondary with no obvious reason of existence. | |
| 4 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | What does mapillary have to do with this? Highway classification is functional, not physical. Don't understand why you mentioned Western Street, when it doesn't even connect to Route 3. This is also clearly not free-standing or violating highway continuity rule. The highway continuity rule only says highway classification shouldn't change without a junction, and here the `=secondary` is between two junctions. | |
| 5 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | If no further discussion after a week or two I will close this note. | |
| 6 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Western St: `=secondary` (incidentally) Whitty St: `=tertiary` What's the problem? And for leaving, Hill Rd is `=tertiary` , while there's Water St `=secondary` | |
| 7 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | To refocus the discussion, the core concern is: this section of Des Voeux Road West somehow got highway=secondary , which seems like a mistake, or somehow doesn't fit OSM Global standards. Either I missed something, or this is a real mistake. Disregarding my doubts on the "functional only" doctrine, it seems no problem if we demote this section (back) to tertiary level. Alternatively, which means I missed why this section should be secondary, do we have some elaboration on why this section is secondary? Hopefully this is not because "two tertiary roads join together to become secondary" which is just a very flimsy reason; tertiary roads can join together to form a wide network of tertiary-only roads, no reason why not. | |
| 8 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | "two tertiary roads join together to become secondary" is not necessarily true, but can act as a rule of thumb. | |
| 9 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | The 2 `=tertiary` have different functionalities. DVRW westbound is a roadway across the part of an area. Whitty St is connecting QRW. | |
| 5318728 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89595505 , etc. descriptive name |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183778116 ; closing. | |
| 5315594 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: fuel station duplicate mapping |
| 2 | ~ 10 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183412578 ; closing. | |
| 5296568 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 23 days ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | todo: physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Aerial imagery is showing something that looks like concrete slabs/kerbs. | |
| 3 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yes, which is physical separation. | |
| 5296579 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 23 days ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | ~ 18 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This is extra easy because no bus relations are directly involved. | |
| 3 | ~ 18 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Or not. The bollards (Mapillary) extend towards the non-bridge section. | |
| 4 | ~ 18 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We will start with the actual separation itself https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183032086 | |
| 5 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | > The bollards extend towards the non-bridge section. Are you talking about the east side or west side? | |
| 6 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Primarily the west side. It ends on the concrete platform which then intersects with Fat Kwong Street bus relations. Gotta do it by parts; I admit the task size estimation was wrong, but we will continue doing this. Still, I can notice the east side it ends right as the bridge section ends, but for traffic island leniency the changeset just continues the path separation to the traffic island itself. | |
| 7 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Lgtm now, after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183136566 ? | |
| 8 | ~ 11 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Lgtm; propose closing. | |
| 9 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I couldn't rotate back soon enough, my bad; though arguably Airport T2 has higher priority and importance than Hung Hom. I did intend to work on this, so I will pick this back up. Still, while the changeset is indeed lgtm, we still can't close this note yet because as I later discover while splitting the ways, this has two parts: the west side (by earlier changeset of @kingkingHK ) and the east side (todo). Ideally the east side should not take too long. | |
| 10 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | East side done with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183409060 | |
| 11 | ~ 10 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Now, truly, all is done. Therefore, closing. | |
| 5294038 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1505900060 descriptive name |
| 2 | ~ 25 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | probable motivation https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5276301 | |
| 3 | ~ 12 days ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦23 | could www.map.gov.hk provide a potential solution & description to the area nearby? It doesn't seem very precise and i just don't know how to deal with it | |
| 4 | ~ 12 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | No https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question | |
| 5 | ~ 11 days ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦23 | Fine,but i'll keep that name for reference only(since it's likely havin'a same name to the 岗下 parking area nearby yet i couldn't confirm it online so i'll assume it had an independent name as that anyways) | |
| 6 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Outside of the copyright concerns, it's actually ok for car parks to have no names. Either it really doesn't have a name (rural informal parking area), or it really does have a name but that it's too unobvious (e.g. urban area "unnamed" parking area in unused land). Alternatively, we could put the "name" into description, which may be more appropriate than a descriptive name. | |
| 7 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed. Further reading: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only | |
| 5312241 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 13 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: status? |
| 2 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | What is the status of this T2 concourse? | |
| 3 | ~ 13 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Under constrution. Read the news. | |
| 4 | ~ 13 days ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 5 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Bad move to instant-close this. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/775198090 - building under construction - already opened on "2026/03/01" I rechecked the news eg https://www.hk01.com/%E6%97%85%E9%81%8A/60270075/%E6%A9%9F%E5%A0%B4%E4%BA%8C%E8%99%9F%E5%AE%A2%E9%81%8B%E5%A4%A7%E6%A8%93%E6%87%B6%E4%BA%BA%E5%8C%85-t2%E5%8F%AF%E7%9B%B4%E6%8E%A5%E5%87%BA%E5%A2%83%E5%97%8E-15%E6%AB%83%E4%BD%8D%E9%81%B7%E5%85%A5-%E9%A4%90%E5%BB%B3-%E4%BA%A4%E9%80%9A > T2運廊登機預計和登機閘口預計2027年才正式啟用。 It mentions it will be opened in 2027. Then, we got an OSM data problem. | |
| 6 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Then, you should have made it clear that this note is for the `opening_date` problem. Bad move to imply the under construction status is wrong, while not mentioning at all the issue with `opening_date`. | |
| 7 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I mean, take a look, the `opening_date=` was added by a new user with a history of bad/wrong edits. It should be extremely obvious what is happening here. Just do it. | |
| 8 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Again, if I had the time to fully explore the situation, I would not make this note and would have just made a new changeset, as per my usual "just do it" call for action. You must at least acknowledge that "problem discovery" is iterative. At first post, I was not fully aware of the concourse situation, and was planning a detailed look later, which may or may not reveal OSM issues. At second post, I noticed that the data is inconsistent, which confirmed an OSM issue. At subsequent posts I am gonna fix the discovered issue(s) for real. | |
| 9 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | aka this pipeline: - could a problem ever exist here? (by experience or by semi-regular checking or by rotation); this is referring to possibility, and may generate false positives. - looking at the actual data, does a problem exist here? (self-think the tags) - how is "this" a problem? (check the specs) - can we explain this problem? (e.g. new user) - any known solutions to this? (check the specs again or ask at forums, etc.) | |
| 10 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | A good timing for "semi-regular rechecking" is when some construction completes, and then we can check the "adjacent" constructions or existing features to see if the construction is completed wholly or partially. The best rechecking is done by having absolutely no pre-knowledge of the irl situation. | |
| 11 | ~ 12 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I must reiterate that osm is not your personal notebook. All notes must thus be assumed to be complete and ****accurate****. You initially only said "status", so the only possible interpretation is that you are solely complaining about the osm tagging of the status of the concourse, but osm is tagging it as under construction, matching reality, the only logical explanation is that you wrongly thought it has been opened, hence "read the news". If I had the time to fully explore the situation, I would not instant close this note without any action, because I would then be able to see that there is indeed a tagging mistake. But you must not expect me to do this. You must at least acknowledge that notes are for pointing out issues, not a notebook for you to track your thoughts. | |
| 12 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Return to sender. If you and I both have not enough time for further investigation, then best to **not do anything**, such as: don't instant-close the note. For example, look at the many notes that I have commented in the past, and then left for later and still not closed yet. So far I have never viewed OSM notes as my personal notebook. All that I put up here, I have (partial) suspicion the tagging may be wrong. Imagine an alternative reality where T2 Concourse actually opened together with the T2 Hall. Surely your reaction would be different, and you might help update the building tags. Why is that? It seems you are just disappointed that I am consistently submitting "low-quality" notes, rather than concerned that my mind is seemingly "unable" to discern OSM notes from a hypothetical "personal notebook". Let it be known that my OSM planning (if any) does not happen in OSM Notes. | |
| 13 | ~ 9 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Ok we have gone wayyy too off-topic. Discussion on proper use of notes and better communication is better done elsewhere (e.g. Discord DM). The `opening_date=` issue is fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183451330 ; closing. | |
| 5309379 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 15 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | What's the purpose of closing a note only to reopen an identical one a few meters away? (Tbf one could blame me for still not mapping it months after surveying...) | |
| 3 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | At least we are making sure we know the FMC is at a separate building not affected by the reconstruction. | |
| 4 | ~ 9 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Fine, although I still disagree, this issue is so trivial and nonconsequential I don't even want to spend my energy debating, so whatever. | |
| 5166716 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | --- | the radar station ball thing is being dismantled |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14Znxy9BWRS/ agrees. | |
| 3 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The technically correct way is to actually walk up the mountain and look at it, but I am thinking we can follow the Facebook post and look at it from somewhere far but appropriate (e.g. Choi Tak Estate), to confirm whether the removal is temporary or permanent. How does that sound? | |
| 4 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I have seen with my own eyes from multiple different far-away places that the ball is removed, and it is still gone as of Monday. | |
| 5 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | According to local newspaper https://www.hk01.com/%E7%AA%81%E7%99%BC/240231/%E5%B1%B1%E7%AB%B9%E9%A4%98%E6%B3%A2-%E7%AD%86%E6%9E%B6%E5%B1%B1%E9%9B%B7%E9%81%94%E7%AB%99-%E6%B3%A2%E6%B3%A2-%E7%A9%BF%E7%AA%BF%E7%84%A1%E6%9C%89%E6%80%95-%E5%8E%9F%E4%BE%86%E9%97%9C%E4%B8%89%E8%B7%91%E4%BA%8B The radar ball is scheduled for removal anyway. This is believable info. | |
| 6 | ~ 15 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183159361 ; closing. | |
| 7 | ~ 15 days ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 8 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Isn't this note about the western radar? Your quoted article and changeset concerns only the eastern one. | |
| 9 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | OK, let's take a closer look to clear it up. There are 2 radar stations ("radar balls"). Aerial imagery, the east ball is the larger one, and the west ball is the smaller one. Also, aerial imagery, the west ball sits on top of a square platform / pad. Then > 民航處發言人回覆查詢時指，為配合日後機場三跑道系統工程放置及更換雷達設施，該雷達站亦將被翻新，因此並沒有雷達儀器在站內。即雷達「大哥」在颱風來襲前，早已撤退。 The attached image does show the big ball being damaged, while the small ball is still fine. Image and text are consistent. The article shows the big ball (east side) has been scheduled for removal many years ago. Removing the east ball should be correct. --------- Then, the confusion seems to be whether the west ball is *also* removed, which I did not consider. | |
| 10 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | By coincidence, the quoted FB post still agrees that the east ball is indeed removed. There is a hilltop pad which looks like the pad for the west ball, and there is no radar ball on this pad. | |
| 11 | ~ 11 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | What I mean is, the west ball is obviously removed. One should update that before closing this note. | |
| 12 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I see. This is my mistake, should have checked more onto this. Usually what happens is that OSM has the latest info, and then a note comes in describing something new has happened. In this case however, OSM has outdated info, and then a note comes in describing the latest situation. The fault / confusion stems from believing OSM has reasonably latest info. | |
| 13 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | aka note comes in saying "west ball was removed" but I misinterpreted it as "east ball was removed" because I was interpreting it as "only a single ball was removed". | |
| 14 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | One can see from 2025 Esri imagery that the eastern ball has been removed. But it's fine, we all make silly mistake sometimes; maybe you just didn't see the Esri imagery. | |
| 15 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Wait the wording is getting more confusing. To clarify, I did see from ESRI imagery that the east ball was removed, but the base still remains, which I then looked at ESRI Clarity for calibration and made the first changeset. As of writing, all 4 imagery still shows the west ball; this could be the source of confusion. We may only infer by combining with this note that the west ball was removed after the imagery timestamp but before our observation, i.e. removed after Aug 2025 but before Mar 2026. | |
| 16 | ~ 10 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Should be for real this time. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183398579 ; closing. | |
| 5180357 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | todo: station is too small |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | for the observers, iirc a question was asked at Discord about "station area" vs "(many) station building parts" for underground MTR stations. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed, I was trying to clarify on mapping underground `building=train_station`, but somehow that conversation ended midway. My plan for now is to buy some better indoor surveying equipment, indoor map a few shopping centres to gain some indoor mapping experiences, then deal with the various poorly drawn MTR stations. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I can't stop you, but face value looking at "better indoor surveying equipment" that does not sound like a good idea. Indoor surveying is either beacon-based (if exists, MTR likely won't expose the beacon implementation details) or rangefinder-based (potentially expensive equipment; LIDAR, laser, or what technology?) There's also a concern that the crowd may interfere with measurement. Also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2087499 But yes if you can somehow find a way to do this cheaply and conveniently then you can deduce exact range, and use dead-reckoning to add towards the real location, etc. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Malls can be guessed from the exterior, and interior layout. Stations can be guessed from platforms, exits, and shafts or buildings. Doesn't need equipment to get a sketch. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | There are motion-based measuring devices that creates drawings by walking https://www.moasure.com/ iPhone "Lidar" ToF camera might be the most common consumer device. Don't know how's the apps on Android. But they aren't cost-effective vs an actual lidar. Off-topic: Kwun Tong Line cut-and-cover stations may be exposed from aerial imagery (out-of-copyright now) | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | If no effective conclusion, then at least we can fix the station building size. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | "station building size" depends on "what is a station" building, which I still don't know. My plan for now is probably to indoor survey the station, make some drawings and send to Discord for someone else (might eventually be me) to deal with it. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Well imo the size of the platform is the minimum possible size of the station building; ideally this is true no matter what definition you may be using. What may seem like "unused" underground space could then be used as MTR internal-use office. It still checks out. | |
| 10 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Tsuen Wan Line uses the standard 8-car MTR train, which has total length of approx 180m. Station expanded to 180m length with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183151725 . Seems nothing more to do; potentially closeable. | |
| 11 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | My original plan is to use this note to track my indoor mapping, which I haven't done yet. But your changeset is fine too. I have got a little bit of experience in indoor mapping after surveying Tin Wing LRT; I can try doing the same here soon. | |
| 12 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | OK, leaving open, but imo doesn't seem too interesting here; e.g., road crossing need not enter the MTR station. Unsubscribing. | |
| 5312369 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 13 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1322030181 name:zh of building? or no name? |
| 2 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Website of one of the tenants https://www.avseco.com.hk/zh-hk/contact : "機場行政大樓2座" | |
| 3 | ~ 13 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Thanks for the finding. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183261119 ; closing. | |
| 5034406 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic (what should be happening here?) |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Probably at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1202258838 ? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed it is. | |
| 4 | ~ 15 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Redirect https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5309379 | |
| 5078374 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11620433869 What is this? Does this actually exist? |
| 2 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Thinking about this in further detail, I can recall that the somewhat well-known "banner place" originating from the 2019 protests is located somewhere around here. We may try to do some long-distance trigonometry to see if this is a reasonable hypothesis. | |
| 3 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | The quoted node was created in 2024 when everything from 2019 should have vanished. But you can try. | |
| 4 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | You never know. To some foreigners, the protests never stopped. We can do trigo. | |
| 4978548 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | Cypp0847 ♦189 | the bridge area got divided up into various pieces as to differentiate opening dates and features. this made the rendering of name is quite clumsy over here. could we try and hide some of the names? |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | This is more of a renderer discussion rather than an osm one, isn't it? | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | For implementation, there's `bridge:part=` proposed long ago without much attention, only mass added to a hundred. The fundamental conceptual problem here is how to define a `man_made=bridge` for twin , long, and multi-stage `bridge=viaduct` , as the eastbound on the west is new far apart, and longer span. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | (`bridge:part=` is not a good format either, as `bridge=` isn't a feature, unlike `building=` ) | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | 3. The `start_date=` is difficult to define. In OHM, the object's existing status is used. In OSM, often the oldest applicable is used. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | 4. Minor note: I didn't bother to draw the whole IEC western `=viaduct` , so doing this is also a lazy hack | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | 5. `ref=` is another factor that needs to be considered to define a `man_made=bridge` , aside from `name=` and `start_date=` (etc) | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 10 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,633 | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. | |
| 11 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | @Kovoschiz does https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181152791 resolve this note? | |
| 12 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | No, I didn't do anything on them, only `layer=` | |
| 13 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Tbh I don't really understand what this note is asking for / what can be done to resolve this note. | |
| 14 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | One way out is to start a discussion at Discord, to confirm the tagging method for individual bridge joint parts. Then, we will know how to tag these, and then apply the new tagging, and then finish. private guess it's probably gonna be many nameless parts linked up with a "IEC highway" relation. | |
| 15 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Actually, IEC is the name of the road, not of the bridge, which is nameless. Perhaps we can just remove the `name=`, which solves the "clumsy rendering" issue this note is complaining about, then at the very least this note can be closed. | |
| 16 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | That's a good question. But I thought IEC is effectively the de facto naming of the structure at the same time. | |
| 17 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Citation needed. If you ask 10 people what "IEC" is 11 of them will think of the road, not the bridge. | |
| 18 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | It's effectively identical here though? If I ask what's that bridge, they will still answer IEC. | |
| 19 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | I'm thinking of West Kowloon Corridor, where there are Stage II, and Stage III (Stage IV is folded into Stage I Gascoigne Rd Flyover) East Kowloon Corridor was East Kowloon Way translated into "East Kowloon Elevated Road" | |
| 20 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | So I didn't think it must have a bridge-related generic suffix. Cf although Fat Kwong St Flyover is gazetted as the street's extension, it's basically carrying Fat Kwong St. | |
| 21 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Looking at named `man_made=bridge` in Hong Kong it appears that (almost) all the names are names of the bridge, with a bridge suffix, including bridge names that are not as well known as the road, where if you ask what's that bridge people are likely to answer the road name. | |
| 22 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Clarifying names for @kingkingHK Some roads are not gazetted and currently hold descriptive names e.g. "Wuhu Street underpass" but then we can find ancient (government) documents using those names. This doesn't fully fit the OSM "map what can be seen on the ground" principle but we can't dispute the official informal endorsement. Re bridge/road naming: It's the same old "both sides intertwine" theme again. Planning wants a road, gives it to engineering, and then a bridge gets built. The road (logical / conceptual) shares the same name as the bridge / structure (physical), and both sides can't separate. Bridges (or bridge joints) can have refs but obviously refs aren't names. | |
| 23 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Or maybe I have misunderstood the bridge joint tagging. | |
| 5025035 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Sing Mun River has fixme, presumably about boat access. However, afaik, there are no legal restrictions about boat access. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Well, if boats are not allowed, then https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493816164 would not exist. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Indeed. My vibe is that, the guy is misunderstanding "physical constraints" with "legal restrictions". Clearly the river cannot support e.g. yacht-boats with their high sails, but one may always try. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Wait, fixme was raised by Kovoschiz; discussion needed. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Someone added `boat=no` in Fo Tan, which seems a mistake https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32559690 Originally it may have been `=drain` for being reclamation and channelized. That may not be considered accessible by default. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Well, at least for Shing Mun River, `boat=no` should be wrong. We can remove it, alongside with the `fixme=`. | |
| 7 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I will remove `boat=no` and `fixme=` from Shing Mun River if no further comments. | |
| 8 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | No comments from me. I will only add that at extremely low tides it does become physically boat=no because this just transforms into a ditch (this is technically / structurally an extra wide ditch), but this doesn't happen every year and so the info does not sound like good candidate to be put into OSM as if regular occurrence. | |
| 9 | ~ 11 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183345102 ; closing. | |
| 3145328 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | ckyu | there is a gate which is locked by villaget |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | At least when I attempted to visit the location of this note today, there was a guard dog stopping people from getting close. Might be difficult to verify this note if the situation persists. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | @kingkingHK do you vaguely remember where you encountered dogs? This may hint towards an area where everything within is `access=private`. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Ok, I actually didn't see the dogs, only heard loud aggressive barking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3741053486 , and I was too scared to go inside further (have previously been chased by dogs in indigenous villages while surveying before). I have recently tried to visit again via the other side (entering from Nam Sang Wai Road instead of Ho Chau Road), and encountered a gate at around https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5043794717 . Not sure if this is the one this note is referring to. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | They don't call it the Autonomous Region of Yuen Long for lulz and giggles. Re your 2nd paragraph, when you see a gate on the eastern side that's not on OSM, that alone is enough to motivate a changeset. The fact that the (new) changeset is not directly related to this note is not a problem, that's still a good contribution. | |
| 6 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | However, upon closer look, aerial imagery doesn't show any gate-like structure on the NE side as described. It seems not enough info to affirm or deny this note. | |
| 7 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I mean, a gate practically has negligible depth. I don't know why you expect to see in aerial imagery. But still, my finding of a gate seems to be unrelated to this note. | |
| 8 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Depending on the gate material/construction, I would expect a shadow line on the aerial imagery, but I could not find this. | |
| 5305499 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 17 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705233079 suspicious traffic signals |
| 2 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Same poor import. Imo just delete it. (Side note: why wasn't that undiscussed import reverted??? I think @Kovoschiz was there when it happened) | |
| 3 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | This is only outdated. There was an intersection here where Wui Man Rd is connected with Austin Rd. | |
| 4 | ~ 16 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Wasn't that intersection already closed at the time that import happened (2019)? Anyhow, it just shows how low-quality it was. Seeing the intersection has been removed, just delete it. Resolved viahttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109836 ; closing. | |
| 5286470 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: review petrol station (confusing layering) |
| 2 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | > `layer=-1` Classic. iD users picking a random option in the warning box to make the validator shut up. Same as what the maproulette users did in March. I would just fix it, without further thinking. | |
| 3 | ~ 19 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182981837 ; closing. | |
| 5286471 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: review petrol station (duplicate mapping?) |
| 2 | ~ 19 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Upon review, I read the graph/map wrong. Nothing to do here. | |
| 5141141 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | todo: this has been converted to a roundabout |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Aerial imagery has some hints of conversion work. Do you have more info on the specs of the roundabout, e.g. any slip roads for which directions? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | No slip roads; just a simple one-lane roundabout. And yeah, I guess you noticed that I really don't resolve notes very often, even for some of the more trivial ones. I just have too many things to do, both irl and in osm. Also, another thing is that updating this to a roundabout would require changing the bus relations, but many in this area are broken beyond repair and I simply have no option but to redo it entirely, and I really don't want to do that. You might have experienced how it feels when dealing with Wo Yi Hop Road recently. Anyway, I will deal with this note myself. Within one week max. I will try to spend more time on resolving notes. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Re "too many things", understandable. Re "change bus relation", my take is to limit the scope. If the relation is broken before we touch it, then we only need to ensure the part that we are editing (the segments at the roundabout) is not broken. We can have the generosity to also fix the entire relation (re "might as well") but again that's not a hard requirement. We have our own circumstances, but the team-aspect issue with "confirm but no action" is that e.g. I cannot decide the following: - you really forgot, and I can/should do it - you are already cooking at JOSM, so I should stay away and do another note | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yeah, now I do see the problems with "confirm but no action". Actually nowadays I am reluctant to even do the "confirm" part by sending a useless message (e.g. "yes" "correct" "indeed there is a FMC here") to prevent bombarding your email inbox. But I can tell you that I have no WIP note-related changesets outside of HKI, so you don't need to worry about the latter here in e.g. Yuen Long. In the long term, maybe we could somehow split our work area or coordinate beforehand to prevent conflicts? I could send you pictures from my surveys if you need them. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Coordination, splitting, experiences etc is best discussed e.g. in Discord. (Soon™) | |
| 7 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I have deduced a possible arrangement of the roundabout in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182749069 ; please see if it works. If it works, then the next step is to reroute the bus relations to use the roundabout and close this note. The old T-shape junction is kept because older imagery still describes them as such, to prevent accidental remapping. | |
| 8 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I completely forgot about this note. Sorry! Your sketch looks a bit different from my memory, but it's good enough. Still, from recent bus videos, it seems like quite a lot has changed since my last visit; we should probably either contact the video owner and ask for permission for using it in osm, or visit this place again ourselves. But topologically the current sketch is fine, so we can begin work on transferring the bus relations. | |
| 9 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Re irl changes, not too surprising considering the current trend/direction of developing Kam Tin. This can be done in the "general stream", so to speak. (It seems unlikely I will contact the bus video owners for this.) | |
| 10 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Eventually after some thoughts I decided to deal with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5296588 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4917522 first before transferring bus relations, as those two notes will also involve bus relations. Agree with your notion of "general stream". Whether bus video owners should be contacted really depends on whether one of us is able to survey this place. | |
| 11 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Desync! Bus relations cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182786155 ; all done. Holding open, but I think there is nothing more to do specifically for this junction, and this specific note is close-able. | |
| 12 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | quoted changeset lgtm, but as I said I suspect the geometry of the roundabout is off, so imo can't close it yet. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant with general stream) | |
| 13 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | To clarify, "general stream" is another term/topic that I am self-coining to understand OSM. Basically, it's the "every day mapping". Casual user clicks at e.g. StreetComplete. New building; draw it and done. Position slightly off; move it and done. It may not be fully correct but for most purposes it is passable. eg the exact coordinates may be a bit off, but map-matching / navigation won't notice it. These are the kind of situation where the changeset can be made in e.g. < 5 mins. Other situations may require escalation into e.g. OSM Notes because e.g. the way forward is not obvious. eg ancient note at the TST Space Museum trying to see what kind of museum it is. Specific to this note, if the note wants a roundabout, then we now have a roundabout. At minimum, whether the roundabout is too big / small seems like can be given to near future because map-matching won't notice it, and some time later we are expecting newer aerial imagery anyway and then it is doable by anybody very quickly / easily. | |
| 14 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | (Why do I feel like this has entered some sort of deadlock...) Basically, if @kingkingHK you can remember / provide the geometry in the short future, then nice, do add them and then we can really close this. If not, then not too bad because the as-of-writing geometry is OK, and future aerial imagery will show the roundabout anyway. This is located at a somewhat frequently mapped area (BBI) so I am not too worried we collectively "forget" about the need to provide updated geometry. I only hold open because of the desync, just in case there's something more to discuss. Or maybe the plan is to provide the geometry as part of the work on Pat Heung Road bridge, idk. | |
| 15 | ~ 18 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Ok fine, I was mainly worried that we would really collectively forget about this, but if you say we won't then we can close this. | |
| 5270549 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vbertola ♦4 | "Duplicate with no data" The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2026-04-04T03:36:32Z POI has no name POI types: amenity-restaurant #organicmaps android 2026.04.07-8-Google |
| 2 | ~ 19 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182979226 ; closing. | |
| 5164303 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | substation=substation seems redundant |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Taginfo says only 608 uses of `substation=substation` worldwide with no major data consumer using it; shouldn't have any effects if we just remove it. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Upon review via Overpass Turbo, there's a lot of this usage in Hong Kong. I may be onto something big: are all those usages redundant? How does this interact with e.g. OpenInfraMap? | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I wouldn't call 86 a lot. Also, most of them were added by the same few users (Xavier Fung and tommydragon). Not indicative of anything imo. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Can observe/confirm this tag is picked up by OpenInfraMap for display purposes. Hmmm. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | ...I can't notice how OpenInfraMap renders this differently than any other substations. May you provide more info? | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I have not really determined whether this tag positively influences rendering, or that OpenInfraMap already renders this feature due to power=substation. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Seeing that it renders identically with other `power=substation`s, I'd say it does not influence render. I.e. useless tag. | |
| 9 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | If no further discussion I am inclined to simply remove all `substation=substation`. | |
| 10 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I have nothing to add. This was only discovered while I was looking in detail at the railway. | |
| 11 | ~ 11 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183352652 ; closing. | |
| 5286291 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813139621 "Feoso" is not a known fuel company; data mistake? |
| 2 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | HenryEK ♦29 | is feoso not a fuel company? i remember a building with their name near lai chi kok | |
| 3 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | HenryEK ♦29 | see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/217283057 this station being feoso could be possible but il have to check some time later this week | |
| 4 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | (We have more info at Discord) The main issue is that I somehow cannot confirm whether Feoso is legit; they seem to be exiting the market, but some irl features still refer to it, and the website is basically "now WIP; check back later". And very unusually, no Wiki article for this. We can look at the 5 fuel company websites to determine which one(s) is/are running this petrol station. Will do this Soon™. | |
| 5 | ~ 19 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182978580 ; closing. | |
| 5264909 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | issue: Foot path(s) cutting into a construction area? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I guess simply a case of mapper mapping new stuff without caring about the existing features. By survey, yeah some construction work going on here, the entire park has been demolished besides a few trees. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The original plan was to armchair this by searching whether there are any publicly announced construction works for this address, and then clarify the area; but OK with the survey. | |
| 4 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Upon closer look, not enough information. How does this intersect with the parking area on the south side? | |
| 5286430 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736802187 "Eco" is not a known fuel company; outdated info? |
| 2 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I think, "eco" is referring to the dedicated LPG filling station? https://www.emsd.gov.hk/en/gas_safety/lpg_vehicle_scheme/auto_lpg_prices/index.html | |
| 3 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | @vectorial8192 It's you don't know. They existed before. Exited the market. It's Towngas. | |
| 4 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | @kingkingHK It's not an adjective "eco" for eco-friendly. It's a noun. `brand:en=Eco` | |
| 5 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Whatever happens, if this "Eco" company exited the market, then this "Eco" info is outdated and the fuel station should be updated with the info of the current operator/brand. This can be done by checking the (online) shop lists of the existing 5 fuel companies. | |
| 6 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | HenryEK ♦29 | I remember this gas station changed owners to some red and white brand a year or two ago. Last time I was down here was january and it was still red | |
| 7 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Red/white is SINOPEC or Esso, and the website https://www.sinopechongkong.com/retail_hk/driver_oil_network agrees. | |
| 8 | ~ 19 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182974426 ; closing. | |
| 5302548 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 19 days ago | opened | --- | Our Centre |
| 2 | ~ 19 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes > For example never create notes such as "I was here on Saturday" or "There was a crime at this location". > 例如，千萬不要創建諸如“我星期六來過這裡”或“這裡發生過犯罪事件”之類的筆記。 To share an OSM location, please see: 如需分享一個OSM的位置，請參考： https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 3 | ~ 19 days ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 4 | ~ 19 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | @vectorial8192 I appreciate the attempt at communicating, but seeing this note was created by an anonymous user, you are practically talking to the void here. | |
| 5 | ~ 19 days ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 6 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I am following @Kovoschiz 's practice. Not fully appropriate to claim "void". One possible scenario is that an anon made this note, and then use the note URL to give to people. Then, either the same anon or the recipients will see this note *and the extra comments "that's not how you use notes"*, and hopefully habits will change. Normally this note is instant-closed, but with this extended discussion, leaving this open for a bit longer then. | |
| 7 | ~ 18 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Ok, understandable. Close this? | |
| 8 | ~ 18 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | It's simply to close it with a comment. Not hoping for resposne. | |
| 5141822 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444187633 feels like a descriptive name, but I'm not sure. (Also, it should probably be "Ventilation") |
| 2 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | By survey, I can't get into here (poor/incomplete OSM data), but I intuitively believe the description. | |
| 3 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I have surveyed there in the past also can't get there. But seeing both government maps and wikipedia describe this building is a ventilation shaft for Tate's Cairn Tunnel, I think we can just move the `name=` into `description=`. | |
| 4 | ~ 19 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182963664 ; closing. | |
| 5150201 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171944114 `access=yes` but `foot=no` `bicycle=no` `motor_vehicle=no`? So who can use it? If no gate as https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4104680 said , how is it `=no`? Which one is correct? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I think there were ancient notes at this location which may be relevant to this. @kingkingHK seeing you can somehow know/check they exist and can revive them, go have a look at those ancient notes. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | There are https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4104676 https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4104681 https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4104680 which are indeed relevant, but I don't see any additional value they provide in clarifying the current confusing tagging. P.S. to check ancient notes, try getting better-osm-org from https://github.com/deevroman/better-osm-org , going to Layers > Map Notes > set "All Notes" | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | My armchair says that the road is ownership=private | |
| 5 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | My in-detail armchair says this is a mapping mistake. Water facilities are basically closed from the public. Checking feature history, we can see that the feature started as the internal road of the facility, and then was extended and clarified. The key is that the clarification describes the internal roads separately from the external roads but did not properly clean up the tags. | |
| 6 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182940740 ; closing. | |
| 5286465 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261873910 "Mobil" is not a known fuel company; did you mean "Esso"? |
| 2 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182936685 ; closing. | |
| 5286438 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: petrol station review |
| 2 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | e.g., duplicated mapping? | |
| 3 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | By website, there really is 2x same brand here. (wait for NSI preset) | |
| 4 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I suddenly remember, NSI update timings are generally unpredictable. For convenience and task progress, can use existing NSI data for now. | |
| 5 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182935120 ; closing. | |
| 5300387 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: physical separation / traffic island ------------- While we are here, an experimental junction tagging method may be considered. The proposed method involves drawing two oneway=alternating ways to form a triangular junction area, with appropriate turn restrictions. This preserves junction topology while maintaining reasonable GPS accuracy for navigation / mapmatching purposes involving Hang Shun Street (west side). |
| 2 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by your experimental tagging method. Can you discuss this on e.g. Discord first? | |
| 5297353 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 23 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7186040 Validator warning: unusual value of distance ----------- Also, this bus relation is very broken. |
| 2 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Actually I can't even reproduce that value for distance... Anyway, am cooking at JOSM. Will upload changeset tomorrow. Please don't touch the any bus relations or roads in this area in the mean tie in order to prevent a merge conflict. | |
| 3 | ~ 16 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109341 ; closing. | |
| 5294906 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/100824558 "Eco" is not a known fuel company; oudated data? |
| 2 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Can you update your description template, already explained in last https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286430 | |
| 5292869 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705014448 suspicious traffic signal |
| 2 | ~ 25 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Should be referring to the Shau Kei Wan Road / Chai Wan Road / Aldrich Street junction. Same poor import that we dealt with before. | |
| 3 | ~ 15 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183153560 ; closing. | |
| 5287505 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 29 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/558985076 , etc. |
| 2 | ~ 29 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | ? only connects to IEC, or is that not what you are trying to point out | |
| 3 | ~ 29 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | @vectorial8192 Can you please explain or be more specific than "todo/issue"? This is not your personal notebook. | |
| 4 | ~ 29 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | It's almost "don't ask to ask". I have to guess what you are asking to explain it. This wastes our time waiting that could be used to directly answer you. | |
| 5 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I can't always immediately reply/do stuff. Normally I will make the changeset myself, but when at that moment I do not have time, and I believe I have noticed a mistake, then I make a note, and hope that someone else (future me, or present others) can do that while I do something else. I believe this is standard practice, and I am not treating OSM as a personal notebook. | |
| 6 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Specifically, @Kovoschiz you should know what this note is referring to because you just did the same thing in another place within these few days. Actual issue: `highway=trunk` cannot produce `highway=motorway_link` without a "supporting" `highway=motorway`. I am pretty sure this is a "too large; didn't notice" mistake from the recent (multiple) highway reclassification. | |
| 7 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Upon closer look e.g. by @kingkingHK, are we trying to justify this motorway link with the east-side Route 4 motorway? Seems very unusual when e.g. there is a section which is `highway=trunk` already. | |
| 8 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Sigh. If you hope others can help, then at the very very least explain what help is needed. We can't read your mind. When you are leaving what is practically giberrish, it should be expected that others are annoyed. Re issue, extend motorway rule. If you disagree, please take it elsewhere (e.g. existing Discord thread). We don't need notes to track our discussions. I am inclined to closing this note with no action. | |
| 9 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | @vectorial8192 No, we are asking you to be clear what the problem is. Not "todo/issue:", simply "`=motorway_link` ?" would do. "Don't use notes for yourself in a way which is useless to others. Although you can use notes as a reminder to yourself, you are also inviting others to look at it. Descriptions must make sense to other people." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes | |
| 10 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | `=motorway_link` / `=motorway` on `=trunk` should have been argued before (eg Lei Yue Mun Rd southbound) HK is unusual with completely no-lane-change on all tunnels, and Tunnel Area midway through Expressway. That's the reality. | |
| 11 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | And gazetting street names on all slip lanes/roads (where OSM would expect no `name=` on `highway=*_link` internationally) | |
| 12 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | A link only connecting to a `highway=x` would be `highway=x_link`. Is it really that difficult to understand? | |
| 13 | ~ 26 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Need not repeat "OSM is not a personal notebook" and "link is link". Basically, I initially thought this would be a simple tagging mistake. It turns out this is (disappointingly) being reduced/redirected to the motorway tagging topic. It seems I currently do not fully approve of the existing motorway approach. We may see there is an ever-increasing need to really review / go through the motorway tagging situation. | |
| 14 | ~ 25 days ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 15 | ~ 25 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | We repeat "OSM is not a personal notebook" because this is not the first time this has happened, and certainly it won't be the last if we don't warn you about it. Better repeat it now, than waste time waiting for you to clarify potential future ambiguous notes. We also need to repeat "link is link" because it is a fundamental principle on how links work, that you clearly don't fully understand yet. It's not even the extend motorway rule, not even highway continuity rule, just the definition of links (tangentially you can see that they are just corollaries!) There is also no "reduction/redirection" to the motorway tagging topic, because motorway tagging is the sole topic of this note the whole time; the only disappointment here is your inability to understand that, and your reduction of anything you don't understand as a tagging mistake. Yes, we can see that you do not agree with the extend motorway rule. Then, please discuss it elsewhere as mentioned above, e.g. relevant thread in Discord. | |
| 5276753 Category: OsmAnd | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | --- | no u turn from V City to Tuen Mun Park #OsmAnd |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Believable. Should clarify directions. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Google streetview does not show any no u-turn signs. Survey recommended. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Google Street View is most probably unusable for OSM. Also, https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.395865984836234&lng=113.97423979631367&z=16.601495464296814&pKey=820288731911992&focus=photo&x=0.49481272368082974&y=0.7102780052402858&zoom=1.2229014414427262 | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yeah, why do you think I recommended a survey? I thought this note was about u-turning from Yan Ching Street eastbound to westbound, because u-turning from Heung Sze Wui Road northbound to southbound is already mapped: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7239851 | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The note is poorly worded, but I believe it tries to refer to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7239851 . Among the 3 parts, I take "u turn" and "Tuen Mun Park" to construct a consistent info piece. Then, regardless of whether a survey is planned or not, this https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182239427 must always be correct. I intend to unsubscribe from this. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I fail to see why the quoted changeset "must always be" correct. If you fail to provide a source I will just revert the changeset for being groundless guesswork. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | You can try, but the changeset is very intuitive and trivial. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | To clarify, among all the kinds of "guesswork" that you may want to guard against, this is the kind of changeset that is a direct consequence of how some of us chose to map the junction in the past. Normally / by default / compared to "normal" I-shape mapping, that Y-shape section is not u-turn-able. | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Calling everything "trivial" does not make your argument any stronger. (proof by intimidation?) Like, how do you know Yan Ching Street has a double white line and not a dashed line? | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Details of a (mathematical) proof may be skipped when they are trivial or not directly relevant, the details which may then be left as an exercise to the reader. No intimidation involved. I have no reason to care about the double-line / dash-line thing, because while it's a valid concern, it's never appropriate to u-turn immediately after exiting a junction. This should be trivial. | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I'm gonna need a source for "it's never appropriate to u-turn immediately after exiting a junction." My feeling is that, usually people who keep omitting proofs for being trivial either don't have a proof, are too lazy to write one, or just want to mess with people. Imo just bad form; what is obvious to the writer is not necessarily obvious to the reader. The "proof by intimidation" wording was inspired by a reddit post; not trying to imply there's some intimidation happening here https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/uictdw/common_proof_techniques_shared_by_one_of_my/ | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | @vectorial8192 There's no such law. It's only when you obstruct others. If it's really never acceptable, it should be a default to be treated by applications, not added explicitly in OSM. | |
| 14 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Applications should be able to penalize these heavily. There's no need to do this. | |
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This is going nowhere. You both try to push the ball to software side. Software side can then try to push the ball back to data side (here) by claiming "it's too risky to decide things in absence of actual data". Someone has to do it; I choose data side. Honestly, what's the actual problem with that changeset other than "this doesn't fit our philosophy"? There is no way software can correctly distinguish inappropriate u-turns (this) vs legit sliproads. What if there is a legit u-turn that's exactly at this extreme angle? How can software know? This is what I often say as "undecidable". This is exactly what data is for. Not sure why this strange high alert. It is correct that there is no law prohibiting "u-turn right after junction". However, irl this is almost always inappropriate. We are here as data guys to guide software to not do these kinds of inappropriate routing by creating a new "no u-turn" relation. We tell software, "actually, we do not recommend this". Software may ignore this (e.g. unimplemented) but that becomes their problem, and no longer our burden. When we already have a "no u-turn" relation, it's natural and probably obligatory to also block the "one edge away" u-turn as a companion to the main "no u-turn" relation itself. This should be trivial. | |
| 16 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I can say more about the underlying theme of "undecidability", but seeing this is just an OSM note, I caution to say, maybe the changeset is all that we need, and no survey is actually needed. | |
| 17 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | You are completely missing my point. I am trying to point out that "u-turn right after junction" is not necessarily inappropriate, and instead is just a "legit u-turn that's exactly at this extreme angle". The problem with that changeset is that you seemingly pulled it out of your arse. And, I have already pointed out that I dispute the existence of the existing no u-turn relation. It is also not natural or obligatory to block the "one edge away", as it effectively is the legal way to u-turn under the presence of a no u-turn sign. Cf. u-turning on a double white line by turning into a side street (where u-turning is permittied) and u-turning and turning back out . Seeing you still fail to explain why it's "never" appropriate to u-turn after a junction and instead dismiss it as "trivial", everything you have just said (software/data side whatever) is meaningless. | |
| 18 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | @vectorial8192 It seems the misunderstanding is from using the wrong reason. The correct logic here is this is a fake "y" caused by the road changing between divided and undivided in this intersection. The "Y" is inside the intersection. There's no "exiting a junction" as I got confused by your wording. | |
| 19 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | But actually I myself have visited here recently. There's no u-turn ban sign for Yan Cheung St eastbound. So you are wrong in fact. You need to set it up so that it only restricts Heung Sze Wui Rd northbound. However in general, it would be a good theoretical question whether u-turn is allowed around a far-side island when the intersection prohibits it. | |
| 20 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | To summarize, the other possible misunderstanding on the problem is you have mistakenly set it up to wrongly restrict Yan Ching St. Or quite the opposite, you need to use `implicit=yes` to show this is about the u-turn already allowed via Heung Sze Wui Rd southbound. | |
| 21 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Or actually this is illegal because it is a straight-ahead movement, and it's still inside the intersection. In any case, we should use clearer arguments. | |
| 22 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | For the sake of clarity, it's not illegal to turn right, move forward somewhat significantly, u-turn, and turn left, to go opposite direction on the original road. But this Y is ("correctly" drawn) inside the intersection. | |
| 23 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | If you explain "This is to prevent a u-turn via the right-turn" and "Yan Ching St can u-turn inside the "square box" on Heung Sze Wui Rd", and even better realize "the Y-shape is inside the intersection", there won't be such a long debate from "must always be correct" and "very intuitive and trivial". I can only realize what's happening here from myself. Ok you explained your view on the software, but we are talking past each other. | |
| 24 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | (late resume) You (all) may or may not notice that I often subconsciously choose the wrong words to represent ideas that I am very sure to be correct. This is one of them. To strengthen/clarify my point, I can agree e.g. if cars turn into Yan Ching Street and then use Tak Chung Court to u-turn, or just directly u-turn at the Tak Chung Court junction, then it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable; but I was trying to describe the u-turn right at the Y-junction at Yan Ching Street. As @Kovoschiz can appropriately describe better than myself, that Y-shape "belongs" to the junction, so that's not the usual kind of place where we require valid irl sources to tag features. Still, from this note and long discussion, I can detect 2 issues that are very good candidates for Discord deeper discussion/clarification. Which means this note should be kept open for longer until we sort this out. | |
| 25 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Ok, I think I am understanding the situation now. I mistakenly thought that there is a traffic island on Yan Ching Street (east side). If there were, then the Y-shape would be outside the junction, and u-turning along the Y would be equivalent to turning right, going forward a bit, u-turning, then waiting for the traffic signal again and turning left again, which is of course allowed. My intention was to somehow let routers know that they can u-turn along dashed lines. My observation is that, perhaps due to the way routers work, arbitrary u-turn cannot be calculated. The traffic island Y shape convenient allows it. But indeed, here there are no traffic island, so the Y-shape is in the junction, so u-turning along this Y actually remains in the junction, so it should be disallowed. However, as Kovoschiz pointed out, if there is no u-turn ban of Yan Ching Street eastbound, it might be inappropriate to disallow using the Y for such a u-turn. I vaguely remember a forum discussion about routers evading a nearside turn ban by making a 270 degrees turn. I forgot about the outcome of that discussion, but seeing it is quite similar to this situation here, maybe we can take some inspiration from there. But still, ultimately, for this specific junction, I still suspect https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7239851 doesn't exist irl. Survey still recommended (or Kovoschiz do you happen to know, given you have visited here recently?). If it truly does not exist, then the no-u-turn relation along the Y also should not exist. | |
| 26 | ~ 6 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | By survey, there are actually no u-turn restrictions for all directions of this junction. | |
| 27 | ~ 3 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183725357 ; closing. | |
| 5286443 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4851750173 extremely unlikely petrol station |
| 2 | ~ 30 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Obvious Lying to Validator https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4851750173/history | |
| 3 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | From https://www.shell.com.hk/en_hk/motorists/shell-station-locator.html we can see there is a legit fuel station down the block. A theory for this is that someone placed the right node at the wrong place (a shop in the fuel station?), and then other people blind-trusted the validator. | |
| 4 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | No, there was a bottled gas `shop=` https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=779127392786721 https://www.hongkongssa.com/index.php/Home/Index/CharacteristicMerchant.html https://www.eeb.gov.hk/food/download/committees/fcab/c_SW0150_SW0152.pdf They moved to inner street (map not updated) https://dsg-energy.com/cylinder-shell-gas/ | |
| 5286446 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: review petrol station (duplicate mapping?) |
| 2 | ~ 29 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182516442 ; closing. | |
| 5286462 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: review petrol station (duplicate mapping?) |
| 5286453 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: review petrol station (duplicate mapping?) |
| 5286451 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286446 "EXXO" is not a known fuel company; did you mean "Esso"? |
| 5286293 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813139621 "Feoso" is not a known fuel company; data mistake? |
| 2 | ~ 30 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | network issue; duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286291 | |
| 5282853 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147463823 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182421667 | |
| 5208863 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Mateusz Konieczny ♦38,214 | 唐人茶居 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1566866228/history is it really amenity=restaurant and shop=kiosk at the same time? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I mean, this is not completely unbelievable... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦38,214 | oh definitely - turns out that sometimes really unexpected matches are real but it looks really suspect if such things are known to exist here, please close the note | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Deja vu I may have replied to a note that looks like this before. Basically, in rural places like here, there could be places that double as both a restaurant and a kiosk. The "outside" is the kiosk, and then the "inside" is a restaurant. I would guess the guy decided it was more convenient to describe both of them as a single feature. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | You are probably thinking of https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4745192 ? Anyway, the current mapping seems correct. However, as there are some open notes nearby that cannot be resolved without a survey, it may be fine to leave this open and wait for someone to survey this alongside. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | By survey, it seems like there is a store inside the restaurant. I'm not sure how to map this. (Also, I am not sure if `shop=kiosk` is correctly for mapping 士多, feels like `shop=convenience` more? | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | It's `=general` | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | From what I can remember/imagine, "士多" can sell anything from food (e.g. wheat), newspaper, to magazines and other misc stuff. It does seem to be a general shop. If no big disagreements, then we can proceed with that. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦38,214 | And for shop in shop - I would map both as separate objects. Maybe outer one as an area? | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | That sounds like a swamp. We (or at least just myself) do not know how large the "outside shop" is, esp the back part. I rather keep them both as a single node. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦38,214 | well, note can remain open until someone can survey this location | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | pinging with no notification @kingkingHK | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I went there a while ago, and the situation is that, the entrance to the 士多 is inside the restaurant. Or, from another perspective, part of the restaurant has been repurposed to be a 士多. And I think mapping both as nodes just fails to represent this. | |
| 5220075 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1049993024 ancient todo |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | City blocks don't have well-defined boundaries. Not sure what can be done here. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5220074 | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182210820 ; closing. | |
| 5220074 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1049686177 ancient todo |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | City blocks don't have well-defined boundaries. Not sure what can be done here. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Yes, they have, if according to numbered planning areas inside a scheme (as I have used) | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The polygon seems to (aim to) describe some sort of neighbourhood rather than a specific development plot (e.g. Area XX). | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | For reference, e.g. "Tin Shui Wai South" is currently an OSM quarter. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | By using the Nominatim Reverse Search ( https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/reverse.html ) I can see the addresses of this area is currently shown as "Tin Shui Wai North". I have no better addressing name for this neighbourhood. I propose just deleting the ancient todo polygon and finish. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | No response; I'm doing it. If anything, individual plot numbers (e.g. TSW Area XX) can be added separately when good data sources are found. Seeing no real progress on the plot number mapping over the years, safe to say we do not need a todo polygon for tracking / reminder. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182210763 ; closing. | |
| 5270701 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | --- | Future side of Hong Kong Shu Yan School. https://www.syalumni.org/projects https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr2025/english/panels/ed/papers/ed20250207cb3-127-4-e.pdf |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Obviously we cannot use the diagrams, but at least we may document the school proposal. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182168842 ; closing. | |
| 2758068 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | Whcohi ♦239 | 乾山大斜坡 |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | closed | chanfai | ||
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | reopened | chanfai | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | closed | PoHK | ||
| 5 | ~ 4 years ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | ||
| 6 | ~ 4 years ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Not yet added? Please don't resolve without comments if not yet worked on. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This area is inside the artillery range (I think they have daily practices?) so survey is generally recommended against; we should armchair this. Still, it seems the name in this note has some credibility e.g. nearby feature has similar name https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9517418060 | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Out-of-copyright maps show a valley in this area; this is easily armchairrable, but choosing the correct osm tags may require some thoughts. Also iirc they don't practice during public holidays, so this is technically surveyable if someone wants to (I don't). | |
| 9 | ~ 11 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183351453 ; closing. | |
| 3149177 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | Whcohi ♦239 | The ele is way off, don't think it a good idea to keep misinformation. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | closed | PoHK | refer CEDD (Civil Engineering and Development Department), Lo Han Tower top level is +819.8 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | reopened | Whcohi ♦239 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | commented | Whcohi ♦239 | i know, but is it okay to said it out right the ele data is refer to the CEDD? | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Re Discord discussions, it seems that in general in OSM, we may not copy data from a database. The CEDD data is quite complete (every hill should have a height record there) and would count as a database, so we may not copy from it. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | From Discord discussion, the safest way would be to use out-of-copyright maps. Unfortunately, it seems like the maps from 1975 left this area as an uncontoured blank space simply labelled "Rock Outcrop". | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The government didn't care about Lantau Island until there was political need to build a new airport, which would mean that consideration and associated surveying happened in the 1980s. Worst case, by the 50-year rule, we would need to wait until 2035 or later to really find usable maps for this. I am unsubscribing from this note. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Unfortunately, 819.8 m only started appearing in government maps from 1994, meaning we would need to wait until 2044. This note is virtually unactionable unless we somehow triangulate the elevation. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Wait. This note isn't asking us to copy from government maps. The only thing we have to do to close this note is to look at government maps, compare it to osm, and check that the two are the same. This cannot possibly be a copyright infringement because nothing is copied. @vectorial8192 what do you think? (Or have you unsubscribed already?) | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I was unsubscribed. (As we can see, pinging people here has no effect.) I haven't investigated this note/case in any effective detail, but I would think cross-checking maps may count as "using external maps to edit OSM". I will remain subscribed for a bit. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yeah but, surely closing a note without making changesets doesn't count as "editing osm"? (Ok, now that I think of it, notes are part is the osm database...) Maybe I will ask more people elsewhere. | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Started a discussion in OSM World Discord https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/413070502580453387/1499408018129944697 | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | You could have waited a while first. The best would be to pursuit the Crown Copyright, as especially the terrain is presumably produced by the colonial agency alone for itself. | |
| 14 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Not too sure what you mean, I thought we already knew that Crown Copyright can't be used? | |
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I recall closing an unrelated note at Kai Tak 1331. I closed it because we can't survey it (access=private), and we can't armchair it (YouTube is not a usable source). No pathway exists. Here, we may potentially survey this by triangulation (may be difficult), or armchair this by using appropriate maps. It's unclear whether we really have no pathways here, so we should in principle keep this open. For the Crown Copyright, this may require legal research, but preliminarily from the outer layer of my non-lawyer mind, it seems to me Crown Copyright is simply unrevokable / untransferable, and no other contracts or agreements may cancel /sidestep the Crown Copyright, but the CC itself may still expire at some point. From this, older British documents may still be used for OSM editing, but as mentioned several messages ago, it's currently unlikely to find CC-expired maps for this, so this basically becomes a waiting game. | |
| 16 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | What I said should be it needs to be clarified by LWG. Contours should be fine, and especially survey spots . | |
| 17 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Strangely colonies may be better. Only OS is not OGL, only Crown Copyright, thus 50 years. | |
| 18 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | (I'm referring to the previous status, and historical works. The problem is printed maps contain other org's data.) | |
| 19 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Then, how may we get the LWG to clarify? Do we just email legal-questions@osmfoundation.org (email from wiki) and explain the situation? I really don't know anything about this. | |
| 20 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I don't know all the steps, but basically "after some time" the LWG will meet up and discuss questions, and then the results will be posted to somewhere at the Wiki or sth. | |
| 5271951 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | --- | 屏山鄉天后寶誕巡遊 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes > For example never create notes such as "I was here on Saturday" or "There was a crime at this location". > 例如，千萬不要創建諸如“我星期六來過這裡”或“這裡發生過犯罪事件”之類的筆記。 | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | To clarify: temporary or short-term events usually should not be documented on OSM. 補充說明：OSM通常不應用作記錄臨時或短暫的事件。 | |
| 5239740 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Tommy Lo ♦0 | "102A" OSM snapshot date: 2026-02-16T20:35:12Z POI has no name POI types: wheelchair-yes highway-elevator #organicmaps android 2026.03.11-12-Google |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Seems like elevator reference number. Deferred survey recommended. Unsubscribing. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | By survey, indeed. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183736432 ; closing. | |
| 5239739 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Tommy Lo ♦0 | "315A" OSM snapshot date: 2026-02-16T20:35:12Z POI has no name POI types: highway-elevator #organicmaps android 2026.03.11-12-Google |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Seems like elevator reference number. Deferred survey recommended. Unsubscribing. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | By survey, should actually be 315B. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183736553 ; closing. | |
| 4434946 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Prepare to reactivate the old platforms (irl construction nearing completion) |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Worst case this will wait for YOHO WEST Phase 2 to complete, which is expected to be in 2026. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Online info says YOHO WEST Phase 2 will be complete by March 2026, but by survey the old platforms are still not open yet. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Online info says platform 1, 3, and 4 has reopened today whereas platform 2 and 5 will reopen in July. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | While we are here, given that the rails were destroyed and then remade, I think we should have e.g. `start_date=2026` and `was:start_date=19XX`? | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Sure, something like `railway=light_rail` + `start_date=2026-04-24` + `demolished:railway light_rail` + `demolished:start_date=1995-03-26` + `demolished:end_date=2017` + `was:railway=construction` + `was:construction=light_rail` + `was:construction:railway=light_rail` + `was:start_date=2017` + `was:end_date=2026-04-24`? | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | (imo too verbose, but OK) Main issue is that we can't possibly have railway=X and then at the same time demolished:railway=X when X is same both sides. (troll-tagging?) imo at some point we simply do not need to keep "was:*=*"; the "was" prefix is to prevent unintended remapping when e.g. aerial imagery doesn't match irl. Here with the lack of aerial imagery (fully covered) I think we can omit "was:*=*". --------- Broader vibes, if as per @Kovoschiz OSM is not a real estate software, then we can consider these rails "brand new", since those really were indeed fully destroyed at some point. My ancient original plan was to place the note, then later hand-draw the new rails. It just turns out Kovoschiz decided to undelete the relevant segments, and here we are, | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yeah, I also find it too verbose, I only wrote that because you mentioned it. Imo all the `demolished:*=` `was:*=` can go to OHM. And then, Theseus's Ship, if the platforms and rails were completely demolished and rebuilt, it might not be totally appropriate to keep using the same element. I haven't checked if the geometry changed meanwhile. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The station is "Theseus' Ship"; "Theseus' Ship" is more about the entire thing rather than the individual parts. At first glance it's not possible to have a different geometry/size, but we can always irl check this. | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Ok maybe I fumbled my words, but yeah that's basically what I was trying to say. If the geometry has really changed, it would be a very strong case to delete and redraw. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | If it's only slightly changed and not moved significantly, no need to redraw. Simply adjust it. | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Given how the west side has space for a multi-level driveway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1351494329 I strongly armchair-believe the rails cannot be located at any other place. It's several days now, so the least we could do is to enable the new rails, and then give it to later irl survey to confirm the rails really have the correct dimensions. | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | By survey, seems like the station dimension is kinda wrong, which tbh is expected. I will probably summarise my findings in Discord first (Soon™). | |
| 5165553 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | junction has fixme: propose to split; separation continues from traffic island |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I see this fixme was adopted and implemented in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178627723 . Therefore, closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Maybe I misunderstood something, but isn't the current situation still wrong because of the "pencil-tip" mapping? I thought this note was meant to address that. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | It's fine to follow the `lane_markings=yes` | |
| 5220076 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1104518518 ancient todo |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | New towns don't have well-defined boundaries either. Not sure what can be done here. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Yes they have, according to OZP, Census, PDD/PPU, etc. However, this needs to be distinguished from addresses. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I can see this polygon largely coincides with the Town Planning "Tin Shui Wai" definition, but there are copyright concerns on whether we may directly make use of the graphical definition. | |
| 5 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | @Kovoschiz May you provide more info so that we know what action should be done in order to close this note? | |
| 6 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | But what do you want to know? | |
| 7 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | E.g. which definition should be used? How to find the boundary according to that definition? Is Is the copyright compatible? How to tag it? | |
| 5174639 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | awhchk ♦5 | When I visited a few days ago, the one-way traffic around T5-10 seems to run anticlockwise now, judging from the painted arrows on the street. I didn't get to check the whole street in detail though, so this could be wrong. Someone might want to verify if able. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Might be temporary measure. Aerial imagery shows some construction work at Shap Pat Heung Road - Kung Um Road. Might be related if perhaps the left turn no longer works while WIP. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | The estate appears to be `access=private`. This information might be unverifiable. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | lol rofl; we be armchairing this, and then aerial imagery (MapBox) can clearly show the anticlockwise direction. facepalm moment. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181842154 with a facepalm; closing. | |
| 5259315 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | issue: KMB 36B: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13901595 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13901594 Validator warning: route scheme is unspecified; clarify "public_transport:version" |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Imo this doesn't need a note for tracking. Just do it. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Correct in principle, but I simply don't know what this v1/v2 thing means. You can do it if you know this. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Basically, there are two schemas for mapping public transport routes, v1 and v2. The tag `public_transport:version=` is for specifying which one is used. For these two specific relations, they are actually broken (missing/no stops), so (iirc) they fit neither of the schemas. So no `public_transport:version=`. The way to fix it is to map it properly (i.e. add stops, also check if the route is correct), and add back `public_transport:version=2`. Which I will not be doing anytime soon because bus route mapping is painful. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ooof, then this can be classified as a large edit, and we will need to track this. | |
| 5115217 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | special note: note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/758446 is covered by other notes; this note is to help with note management. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | NeisReview ♦1,377 | No actionable information was provided for editing OpenStreetMap data. Please feel free to reopen this note with more details. #noeditinfo | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Meta-Note: this note helps others to more conveniently notice/click other notes. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Referenced note is closed. Therefore, closing. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Reviving with parent note. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | No more overlapping notes; this note is now unnecessary. I propose closing. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Oh yeah, I forgor about this again. Notice I did close another note nearby some time ago. Thanks for the heads-up. Mission accomplished; closing. | |
| 5257118 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: Wo Yi Hop Road: physical separation |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | One issue is that the admin bounds is defined to be along the road, which means iD can't deal with this, and JOSM must be used. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I would out point out that it is highly discouraged to glue boundaries to other features. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Then, in this case, after we detach the features, should we somehow move the boundaries to the east side or the west side? My near-future action is to split the ways somehow but keep the boundaries attached, for lack of good/obvious solution. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Imo keep it at the centreline. OSM's ways are an abstraction anyway. For the single carriageway section, I would put the boundary very close to but not attached to the highway. (If I am wrong @Kovoschiz can correct me) | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | If the border is really defined by the road throughout time, attaching along the latter is passable. But HK isn't. If the road has been widened (it has in some sections), it won't follow. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | (for the non-widened section, it's still toleratable) | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We notice that we naturally arrive at the same question again: how/where do we check for 18-District boundaries? When we know how those are defined, we will know whether we need to disconnect the ways. | |
| 5257163 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: Junction: physical separation (what a mess!) |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Split with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181795558 | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Relations cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181796322 | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | All done; closing. | |
| 5263460 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: 2x Exit 9C |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Good find; seems like an editing mistake from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122615664 (moving junction without moving the `highway=motorway_junction`) Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181759319 ; closing. | |
| 5259823 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | --- | 终点：北潭凹 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes For example never create notes such as "I was here on Saturday" or "There was a crime at this location". 例如，千萬不要創建諸如“我星期六來過這裡”或“這裡發生過犯罪事件”之類的筆記。 | |
| 5259827 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | --- | 起点：万宜东坝 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes For example never create notes such as "I was here on Saturday" or "There was a crime at this location". 例如，千萬不要創建諸如“我星期六來過這裡”或“這裡發生過犯罪事件”之類的筆記。 | |
| 5261435 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: Unexpected connection between railway and stream. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Editing software should really warn about this kind of stuff. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181697331 ; closing. | |
| 2598829 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | Hang Tone | 恒通渠務工程有限公司 Hang Tone Drainage Engineering Limited 新界元朗錦田吳家村400號 |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Website http://www.hangtone.com.hk/ agrees with this note | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Correct, feature exists IRL. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | But is it located here? Ng Ka Tsuen is located north of this note, and I am unfamiliar with rural addressing. It would seem to me, if the company really is located here, then it should probably take the address street as Kam Sheung Road. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yeah, I think it is here. No idea why it's so far from Ng Ka Tsuen. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | In OSM we trust. Rural addressing can be really confusing to urbanites. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181618934 ; closing. | |
| 4917522 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | Traffic signals have been added to this junction. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705213882 exists for many years, but I suppose the quoted node has nothing to do with this new situation. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Future reference https://www.cedd.gov.hk/tc/our-projects/major-projects/index-id-70.html | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yeah, traffic signals have been added, and it seems like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705213882 is removed. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Can confirm, we do have this. | |
| 6 | ~ 17 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183065880 ; closing. (Note: bus relations will be migrated in a separate changeset) | |
| 4306096 | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | 此處並沒有廁所 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | In OSM we trust. I mean, the actions required should be trivial. Just do it. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181618500 ; closing. | |
| 5043137 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | Lkwokon | 河背營地 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | In OSM we trust. This should be a polygon, but at least we can start with a node, which is done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181618439 Closing. | |
| 5257115 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: Wo Yi Hop Road: physical separation |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Split with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181617196 | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Relations cleaned with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181617645 | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The approach left behind inconsistent roads; fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181618054 | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Mapping mistake with KMB 31M; fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181618135 | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This is very messy. Used the wrong plans. All done; closing. | |
| 5254728 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: Exit E/F |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Uh, can you elaborate? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Basically, the data was too confusing and did not clearly explain the exit E/F situation. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181612941 . Feel free to make additional improvement changesets, but at least the E/F situation is clarified. Closing. | |
| 5164334 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | name seems unsubstantiated |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | https://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/thread-2229220-1-1.html ? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ; https://www.hb.gov.hk/tc/publications/housing/public/phpf/Attachment1tc.pdf : no results. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I vaguely remember they later thought the name was too bad and retracted it, I guess that's why we can't find it anymore. If that's the case, perhaps we can move the name to `proposed:name=` or even `was:proposed:name=`. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | No. Do not do `was:proposed:name=*`. How do you even prove to me (I just came here today) that there was such a name other than via "trust me bro"? The baby doesn't have a name simply because of the trivial fact that said baby was aborted. We can at most give the baby a descriptive name. For example, OSM contains curves for a hypothetical North Island Line because that line itself was mentioned several times in several non-retracted public transport strategy documents. We can prove this NIL concept exists. Operationally, the name "Wah Yat Estate" never existed. <rant>That's why I have been trying to raise awareness on "working names". Those names aren't real!, Just [redacted]</rant> | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | See http://web.archive.org/web/20250926192231/https://www.hb.gov.hk/tc/publications/housing/public/phpf/Attachment1tc.pdf Also, isn't `source=local knowledge` essentially just "trust me bro"? | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | @vectorial8192 please see if you are satisfied with the quoted page. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I was scheduling to eventually reply to this note in the coming weeks, but ok. --------------- Re "local knowledge", at least in theory there is a real person behind the account that made the change, so a bad edit is still blamable and/or bannable. Re the Wayback Machine link, nope, it's fundamentally still "trust me bro" but more glorious and sounds much nicer. Plus some other possible issues. On the surface level, that document only explains the Chinese name, and doesn't mention any English names. The name is still (partially) unsubstantiated. Normally this is salvageable, but there's more. I think Internet Archive is an US entity of some sort. I am unfamiliar with US laws (US Fair Use might permit this usage), but by quoting upon the Wayback Machine, this really feels like infringing upon the database rights of the IA, which OSM really tries to avoid. Then, this document came from the HK-gov (allegedly so), but the original was retracted/updated after it was submitted to the Machine, so normally we shouldn't even be able to see this version of the document. That time I read through the Cap 528 (Copyright Ordinance) several times over, and then seeing this situation, I really feel like this copy is an unauthorized copy of government documents, and we literally can't use it. And then, if we need to quote upon the Machine, we will now need to trust an extra organization that that they are "clean", so to speak. Recent governance records of the IA is frankly not good (you are telling me, the Archive was hacked and then stayed broke for 2 whole weeks with no actions?!). Also see ongoing citation crisis at Wikipedia, also involving a supposedly "clean" archive. Way too dangerous; just don't do it. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | 1. Facts are not copyrighted, only creative expressions and arrangements. You should look at the ToS only. The list of properties might be trivially assembled in their working, not protected by database rights either. 2. I don't see how the past record of Wayback Machine has to do with this | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Then, I quote the Help Page https://help.archive.org/help/rights/ , esp: > The Internet Archive does not make guarantees as to the copyright status of items [...] When the PDF is no longer current, my opinion is that the government has basically retracted the copyright, and the document is now some sort of "government internal document leak". We really should not use it, and we should revert the change. Again, this is different from say "past government publication" because here the docs never went past the publication stage. It does not deserve even "was:proposed:name" (can you prove that it was renamed, when it has never gotten any names to begin with?). I am open to calling the DWG on this. | |
| 11 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | > here the docs never went past the publication stage ...it did? That's exactly what the Wayback Machine shows? > never gotten any names to begin with ?????? | |
| 5239861 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: Where are the station exits? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181586912 ; closing. | |
| 5034358 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We do have a FMC here, with some other stuff. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181542727 ; closing. | |
| 5257117 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: Wo Yi Hop Road: physical separation |
| 5034359 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We do have a FMC here. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181541202 ; closing. | |
| 5254629 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | Hayden wong | 這條公路是收費公路 #CoMaps android 2026.04.07-8-Google |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | No it is not. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Yes it is. If you are referring to the Bypass, it *is* a tolled road. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We can double check whether it is currently tolled or free. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | It is currently free though afaik. It is already tagged with `proposed:toll=yes`. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Come on, it "is" not now. We don't need to check. | |
| 5175577 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | todo: new traffic signals? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Potentially close-able; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180391465 | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I still have some data myself; will make changeset soon. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | I apologise for my tendency to survey notes without resolving them. I will try to spend more time on resolving notes, but I feel like I am overcommitting myself. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181370105 ; closing. | |
| 5234931 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: possibly problematic bus lanes, etc. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The key is to remove the virtual channelization (ancient), which is done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181280034 . Therefore, resolving. | |
| 5115205 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | special note: note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/939664 is covered by other notes; this note is to help with note management. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | NeisReview ♦1,377 | No actionable information was provided for editing OpenStreetMap data. Please feel free to reopen this note with more details. #noeditinfo | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Meta-Note: this note helps others to more conveniently notice/click other notes. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Referenced note is closed. Propagating. | |
| 5246298 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: Station building layering/scope |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181255690 ; closing. | |
| 5034344 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181220299 ; closing. | |
| 5177084 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: Improve data quality by aerial imagery, etc. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | This is a very general description. Can you elaborate on what improvements you expect? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | e.g. alignment, features, etc. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | One challenge is that multiple aerial imagery sources have distortions here, which makes cross-referencing difficult, or at least just very unsmooth. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Finally, this side also LGTM. Closing. | |
| 939664 | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | opened | Koala888 | (可能)日軍手掘洞 (OSM data version: 2017-03-06T16:48:02Z) #mapsme |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,633 | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Perhaps this is referring to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11245354726 , which is not located here. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Well, looking at nearby features, it seems like there are quite a lot of Japanese caves in this area. It is not unlikely to really have an unmapped one here. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | It is extremely unnatural to have multiple notes in different time frames share the exact same coordinates. One probable cause is the GPS collapsing everyone onto the same coordinates due to poor signals. I don't trust the locations of these (3) notes. Apart from the water stream note which can be armchaired, this could easily become an area search in the mountains for something which may not exist. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | My guess: Notice that all three notes are made with maps.me, and one of them mentions "poi: landuse-forest". Using overpass to look at the osm data at the time, we see that the forest is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4508992 , and the location of the three notes is roughly at the centre of the forest. My guess is that when maps.me creates a note for way, it puts it in the centre of it, resulting in this situation. Anyway, agreed that the location is not trustable. See the other two notes by the same user: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/949531 https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/944066 | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | By now, I/we have seen enough cases of maps.me placing notes at centroids of large polygons that this note can be safely assumed to be the same. A note without a (correct) location is practically unactionable; @vectorial8192 do you support closing this note? | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Yeah, let's close this. Above mentioned, we can locate several features nearby (albeit kinda far away) which matches the description of this note. If future guys discover something new then they can add note (or even do OSM edit directly). | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Then, closing. | |
| 5123432 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: this section of Route 2 probably should not have toll information. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | It should as it can only be accessed from EHC. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11180794 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | However: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/799005738 this has no tolls. My interpretation of OSM data meaning is that, if I am traveling on Route 2 here, I have to pay toll twice, which is wrong. First toll section is the EHC itself. Second toll section is this. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I quote https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:toll > In any case `toll=yes` should be used on any section of road where a toll must be paid to access it. This supports tagging toll information on this section of Kwun Tong Bypass. Maybe we can do `toll:lanes=` for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/799005738. Precedent see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/152470472 | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | tbh sounds like "consequential mapping". Need not even do `toll:lanes=` imo. I see this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/799005738 is outside of tunnel area. Then, this section of Route 2 should be toll-free. In the off chance traffic is temporarily redirected onto this section of Route 2 (e.g. traffic accident) they pay no tolls here. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that if a toll road shares a cross-section with a non-toll road then it isn't a toll road? If tagging `toll=` on roads that can't be accessed without paying a toll is "consequential mapping" (I don't know what you mean by this tbh), then what is `toll=` for? > I see this way/799005738 is outside of tunnel area. Then, this section of Route 2 should be toll-free. What does toll have to do with tunnel area? What if a non-tunnel has toll? Do we not tag `toll=` then? > In the off chance traffic is temporarily redirected onto this section of Route 2 (e.g. traffic accident) they pay no tolls here. Slippery slope: anything can happen, do we not do anything then? E.g. pedestrians and cyclists are allowed on roads they normally can't access during e.g. marathons and cyclothon, do we not tag access restrictions then? Roads can be closed to traffic entirely during traffic accidents so we shouldn't map roads? Buildings can burn down so we shouldn't map buildings? | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I may have missed synonyms, but afaik I coined the term "consequential mapping" in the past few years. Basically, this attempts to describe a situation where features are getting tags and information not because of themselves, but because of something other than themselves. For example, if the right side road is a bus terminus, then creating "cannot turn right except buses" is consequential because the correct information is "the right side road is bus-only". Normal cars may not turn right is a *consequence* of the bus terminus restrictions, hence the name "consequential mapping". imo, information about a feature should depend on its own nature, and not simply because some other feature exists. Data consumers should look at the data and then deduce by themselves that normal cars cannot turn to the right side because there is a bus terminus. We should not explicitly describe these unless the problem is armchair-undecidable (e.g. turn restrictions, these has to be irl-checked, at least with reference to aerial imagery + reasonable case-by-case deduction). Upon review, I notice this case is logically equivalent to the "extend motorway" rule, which I personally dislike. This section of Route 2 is getting toll information because it is a consequence that normally this section is only reachable from EHC, and EHC has a toll. ----------- In this case, because we are talking about EHC toll, I think the toll scope should match the tunnel area scope. Because this section is already outside of the tunnel area, it should not get any toll information at all, and we should treat it as just some normal untolled road. This goes beyond the initial "two toll sections" concern. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Wouldn't tagging toll information for and only for the tunnel area be "consequential mapping" as well, as you are basing it on whether "some other feature" (in the case, tunnel area) exists? And as I said, what will do if a non-tunnel area is tolled? Imo whether a road is tolled or not is a property of its own, and not a consequence of anything. E.g. `lit=` is entirely dependent on the existence of street lamps ("some other feature"), but tagging `lit=` wouldn't be "consequential mapping" because `lit=` is a property of the road. > Upon review, I notice this case is logically equivalent to the "extend motorway" rule, which I personally dislike. I don't see a problem with the rule. It should be agreed upon that `highway=` is for functional classification, and it doesn't make sense for a road to suddenly change importance for no reason. Furthermore, `highway=motorway` is a legal class, so all roads not accessible without `=motorway` will inherit the same restrictions/access control as you can't turn back. I.e. `=motorway` should not start without an exit towards a non-`=motorway`, and should not end without an entrance from non-`motorway` (which is why I personally disagree with e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168099947) Similarly for tolls, if a road can't be accessed without also using a toll road, then you must pay a toll to use it. E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47071903 is `toll=yes` because it only leads to Tai Lam Tunnel (tolled), and indeed irl there are "Toll Area" and toll schedule signs to let drivers know they are at a "point of no turning back" towards a toll road, and they must pay a toll if they wish to proceed. Also, as I said, if you don't extend `toll=`, then when can you use it? Inside tunnel area wouldn't work as I mentioned above. Is it only for `barrier=toll_booth` or `highway=toll_gantry`? But don't those already imply `toll=yes`, making it a "consequential mapping" by your standards? When do you propose to use `toll=`? | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | imo `lit=yes` is not consequential because currently OSM streetlamps (and other lighting features) cannot specify which OSM features are being lit by them. I was preparing for a longer response on what `toll=*` really is, but then I suddenly noticed: e.g., https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37669889 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111048502 both don't have toll information. How come? Should we also be concerned about that? | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Hammer Hill Rd off-slip seems an editing omission. You shouldn't assume it must be perfect. | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yeah, @vectorial8192 I don't know why you assumed that existing data must be perfect with no inaccuracies or omissions (if it were we as editors would not need to exist in the first place...). You can extend the tagging yourself if you notice it is missing. I have done it before https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341301696/history/3 so have you https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173057078 | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Socratic method. I will elaborate later, but my theme is that, for the toll tag, it should match the exact area and not do the "continue until junction" rule. | |
| 14 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I will patiently wait for your elaboration, but just as a reminder my point is that "the exact area" is identical to "continue until next junction". | |
| 15 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I will early-hint that my "exact area" is different from "continue until junction". | |
| 16 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Josephfunny202603131237_ | ||
| 17 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 18 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 19 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | @vectorial8192 reminder that this note exists and is awaiting your elaboration; it would be nice if you would find/recover/take a look at your drafts and give your point when you are ready. (No need to rush, but seeing you are recovering your Sau Mau Ping Road drafts I thought I should probably remind you to deal with this too) | |
| 20 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Indeed. I often lose focus. My plan was to discuss this first, but it seems we can discuss SMP side first instead. | |
| 5213189 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | Speed limit missing report. Suggested limit: Unknown km/h Location: 22.375450388960736, 113.96111385596463 Reported via Speed Defense System app. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Country default speed limit. We already documented that. However, what is "Speed Defense System app"? | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | We can still add `maxspeed=50` for the weaker data consumers. We have talked about this on Discord before, although that discussion ended with seemingly no consensus. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Concern: logistics/maintenance and scope creep. If we do it for this street, then why not this other street, and the street in the next district, etc, and then we will have to do it for the entire Hong Kong. That's not something humanly doable. My personal rule is to only do it for numbered highways and roads with no/few traffic lights. Those are the kind of roads where an explicitly-stated speed limit is useful. Can't have the calculators wrongly believe they can go 100km/h on a random signal-less road in HK. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Tbf the same argument ("while we are here, might as well also do it") can be used on any improvement as you said elsewhere; if we are not allowed to improve something while ignoring something else then we will never get anything done. I think the other concerns are already addressed in Discord in December? (#hongkong/maxspeed) | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Re "while we are here [...]", correct. Then, it doesn't need a note for tracking. Just do it. Re Discord discussions, it's so long ago I forgot the conclusion. I got several things going on, and this doesn't fit my personal style, so I will not do it. If kingking you are here, then I will just keep this note open but will unsubscribe. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | The conclusion of the Discord discussion is that adding `maxspeed=50` to roads without thinking is not a net detriment. Re just do it, yes, we can just do it (I didn't open this note). You can choose to not do it if it does not fit your personal style, but it fits my style so I will do it, then close this note. You may unsubscribe. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181045513 ; closing. | |
| 5227994 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: Station is too small / wrong place. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The shape is fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180715131 The next step is to review the irl usage of the Mong Kok siding and then clean up the relations. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Looking at the MTR website timetables, it can be inferred there is a (new) railway service from Mong Kok to Lok Ma Chau. This very likely replaces the (now discontinued) "Mong Kok to Lo Wu" service. This is documented as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20401317 . | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | As we cleaned up the deprecated railway services and patched the East Rail mainline relations, it is done. Therefore, resolving. | |
| 5043056 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | Wright One ♦173 | CLP substation |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Do you have more info for this? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1078782121 this describes the land as a "construction site for a future data centre". It seems extremely unlikely there would be a power substation right at this place, or perhaps this intends to describe a new substation to be built together with the data centre. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed there is a power substation here, seemingly built with the data centre. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Then, where is this new substation relative to this construction site? | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | It looks integrated into the building enough that I can't tell where it starts/ends exactly, but it's mainly on the On Chuen Street side. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Earlier I have received some info from @kingkingHK regarding this. In this case, because it really is integrated, we can just place a node and tag it as a substation. Side note: I just didn't know enough, but I was surprised to know some data centres are built with a dedicated transformer station. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180773440 ; closing. | |
| 5098788 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | Are https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/515864719 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2404144136 duplicates? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | More context: This https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2406459615 points to this https://www.ylsyk.edu.hk/ , which seems embedded into the church. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | By survey, seems like a multi-purpose premise. On holidays this is a church, and on other days this is a kindergarten. The position of the kindergarten node indicates the entrance to the kindergarten. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180762485 ; hopefully I got it right. Closing. | |
| 5218722 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | They say this area will somehow be completed soon, but satellite imagery does not show anything obvious or useful. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Highly doubt it will be completed soon; I went there a few months ago and there were no visible buildings in the phase 2 area besides the PTI. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | That's the fun part. How come it is "nearly complete" when there is only a PTI in the middle of the construction yard? How would this PTI work (i.e. road entrance)? I really have no idea. But they say something may happen in April so we may monitor the situation. This can potentially be checked together with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5208863 since both are in the same hood. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Do you have any source to support that Phase 2 will be completed soon? | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | e.g. see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1493103292 I don't have the energy to monitor this, but I will continue to listen to this. I simply do not understand how it can be considered "complete" when it's obvious that the land is still an early WIP. OSM data must be missing something, which I will wait for others to elaborate/explain. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yes, the PTI building has been completed but the residential buildings aren't. This is not unbelievable; the PTI building should be quicker and easier to build, and should be open at the same time as Phase 1 so that the Phase 1 residents can use it. That's what aerial imagery and existing osm data shows. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I should clarify myself. The key missing piece is the access roads towards this PTI building, because aerial imagery doesn't show this, and at first glance it's entirely plausible for the access to come from any of the four cardinal directions. Can't have access inside a construction area; then, how come there is access to this? | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Coincidentally someone made a changeset very recently: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180695155 Does this resolve your concern about access roads? | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Then that's good. At least now it's clear the access is at Long Tin Road. There may be issues for the "implementation details" of the PTI but that would just be part of the usual OSM workflow. Resolving. | |
| 5188738 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6330287444 I doubt this exists anymore. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | The entire university is still `access=private`; I think it is more likely removed than not so can delete first. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | theoretical possibility of loc_name | |
| 5209786 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | There is a building here. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | If you are referring to the square thing on satellite imagery, then it's probably just a roof. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Looking closer, it's really a building. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180755773 ; closing. | |
| 5227109 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/issue: e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10978965209 ...?! |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180678612 ; closing. | |
| 5034343 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180577823 ; closing. | |
| 5178297 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | awhchk ♦5 | Where does the name "Lo Wu Classification Yard" come from? I've only ever heard of it referred to as "Lo Wu Marshalling Yard" (after it was no longer a freight yard). |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I think it's a mapping mistake. Lo Wu "Classification" exists as a firing range https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187627328 . | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | @vectorial8192 You are misunderstanding the mistake, it's the terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Then, the existing name is a descriptive name, and is still somehow a mapping mistake. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180551326 ; closing. | |
| 5063775 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Re note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5056582 , see whether this Saigon Street becomes "eastbound only" later. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | As of yesterday (2025-11-29) it's still oneway westbound, but just in case it changes in the future, I will leave this note open until the nearby works are complete, presumably when the Central Kowloon Bypass opens. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Ok, it really is oneway eastbound now... | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Wait, I think I made a mistake. Need to recheck. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Nevermind, it is still oneway westbound. Somehow, I messed up my sense of direction. Nothing to do; closing. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | https://www.td.gov.hk/en/traffic_notices/index_id_83986.html It seems it's lasting longer than expected. We can recheck this later. | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | It's time. | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | It's delayed again until 22 March... | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | It seems the arrangement is over. | |
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180490726 ; closing. | |
| 5034338 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | As it turns out, this is a single-purpose building. Then, it's very easy. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180383736 ; closing. | |
| 5214761 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | concern: 2x Yuk Po Court (should be multipolygon relation?) |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180887294 ; closing. | |
| 5214756 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | concern: I don't think these are cycling crossings. Or, there is a mapping mistake. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I vaguely remember this is one of the very few "semi-bicycle crossings" in Hong Kong where the cycleway ends right at the road, not a few meters before it as is usual. So simply turning the cycleways to footways like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1418886075 would be fine. | |
| 5034332 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We do have a FMC here, plus some other stuff. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180210490 ; closing. | |
| 5173374 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13349030768 ; ????? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | 99.9% just a copy-and-paste error; don't know how that happened | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Left a comment at OP; hopefully they will reply later and review this. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | That guy has history of ignoring changeset comments. I won't hope for anything. As you have been to Ma On Shan recently, do you have any data yourself about this? | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I mean, multiple reasons why they would "ignore" OSM emails (e.g. they don't check every day, they somehow gave the notifications to spam, etc), so not too much of a problem. Besides, I can't realistically do high intensity OSM every day. I will just try to give it back to them. Maybe eventually it's me who will do it later, but that's a future problem. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | hkbus-fandom says this bus stop doesn't have a pole, so I doubt it qualifies for `highway=bus_stop` in osm. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ... then how do you indicate in OSM that "buses can pick up/drop off passengers here"? The OSM Wiki for highway=bus_stop says "[...] may be marked [...]". The definition/wording allows unmarked stops. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | There's `pole=no` , `flag=no` | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | The problem is that the exact location is unverifiable without a pole/marking. Not even the Schedule of Service gives the location: https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_4796/MOS/nr84.pdf | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | One solution I can think of is to tag `hail_and_ride` along the section intended as a stop. | |
| 5209358 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Alisonlui | starting point |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes > It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. > Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Do not create OSM notes for private usages. (Are you planning a hiking trip?) Do them outside of OSM. | |
| 5177281 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: Consider Nullah Road -> Prince Edward Road East -> Tung Choi Street. Is this allowed/disallowed? Check lane markings, consider traffic, etc. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | It's dashed line, so yes. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.324214499494&lng=114.16963786754&z=17&pKey=385996312604216&focus=photo&x=0.485 There's also a traffic signal upstream, so there should be times where the traffic flow is low enough to cut 4 lanes in ~75 meters. And then of course at night with little traffic this would not be a concern at all. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I am 99.9999% sure it is allowed; if no comments in a few weeks I will just change the driveway to `=unclassified` and close this note, | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I intend to fix this myself. I have a feeling I might have misjudged/misunderstood the related geometries. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | By survey, while this is physically connected, there is a turn restriction which prevents direct crossing. Vehicles from the inner streets must use the previously-discussed "driveway" for through traffic. I decided to do a curve here, both to avoid visual confusion (e.g. "should can go through this!"), and because it really should be curved to match existing geometries (see split-ways pedestrian crossing on the north side). Apparently my brain somehow could not compute this when I made the previous changeset, and also forgot about this when asked about it. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180064102 ; closing. | |
| 5178492 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10777311726 node was ejected out; is this node still valid/exists? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | It seems like the entire `building:part=` was dragged. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153504633 | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Can't find this irl in this hood. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | An attempt was made to fix the building parts via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180062125 . Resolving. | |
| 5177073 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: Improve data quality from aerial imagery |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | This is a very general description. Can you elaborate on what improvements you expect? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | e.g. alignment, features, etc. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | @vectorial8192 I suppose you intend to fix this note yourself, given that you appears to have visited this place a while ago? | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | *this note and https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5177084 | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Correct, but you may notice my current focus is Ma On Shan. I will revisit this Soon™. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This side LGTM; closing. | |
| 5199155 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1486486342 Should this be a pedestrian area (`highway=footway` with `area=yes`) or should this be a footway area (`area:highway=footway`) ? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Why are you starting a new discussion again https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179531317 | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | new note -> more awareness -> more opinion/perspectives. I see this is working very well. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | I'm aware of that post. Was watching the discussion. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179951258 ; closing. | |
| 5206976 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: lanes vs junction sliproad vs physical separation |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Must have forgotten about it somehow https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180008435 | |
| 5159218 Category: OsmAnd | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | private access, need modify road property #OsmAnd |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | My vibes think this could be an XY problem. The upper section https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/716701652 is already access=private so we already have this info somehow. This is the "X problem". And yet, if Anon is asking for more access=private coverage, one likely reason is that someone is trying to go up Braemar Hill through here and realize it's private access only, and is therefore complaining. This would then be the "Y problem" that we need to deal with. However, it is gonna be very difficult to prove the case, since there are several available OSM routers. At least GraphHopper doesn't do that. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I feel like you are over-complicating things. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6731958222 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7276640163 both have `access=private`, so the service roads between them are also logically `access=private`, but aren't tagged as such in OSM. This note is complaining about that. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | That's a simpler interpretation that also works. Then, this note is easy to deal with. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179811304 ; closing. | |
| 5178576 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Fent Thanakon | Hotel |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | There are multiple hotels / guest houses near here. Example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4082865125 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13479211301 Hopefully these are something you may be looking for. | |
| 5195502 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: alignment |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179678431 ; closing. | |
| 5155801 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5115204 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The ultimate original note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1036042 complains of the following: "The path from 'Lai Tak Tsuen' to 'viewpoint' is impassable and dangerous. Please remove it from the map" | |
| 2690777 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | 懸崖洞 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,633 | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | There may be cliffs here, but I don't think there are any "holes" here that could satisfy the description of this note. Meaning is unclear. Therefore, closing. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I think "hole" is supposed to mean caves? c.f. nearby https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1668864566 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2140236934 | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | While this information is believable, it will probably be difficult to survey this safely due to the cliffs and the lack of paths, according to government maps. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I mean... If you really want, you can get a drone to do that for you, but you got a loicense for that maet? | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I would rather just map the cliff and be done with it. Also, legally speaking, this area is located inside a drone no-fly zone, due to the low-air economy regulatory sandbox whatever. Practically speaking, no one would notice, but I am not buying a drone just for this one note. | |
| 4137978 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | Albert Tam | "練靶場" POI name: 大潭郊野公園（鰂魚涌擴建部份） Tai Tam Country Park (Quarry Bay Extension) POI types: boundary-national_park OSM data version: 2020-02-09T04:19:23Z #mapsme |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,633 | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | From online sources, this seems to refer to an abandoned police (training) firing range. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Absolutely nothing at the location of this note; this is probably yet another case of maps.me placing notes at centroids of large polygons. It appears that the feature already exists: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7255499200 @vectorial8192 Please take a look and see if you agree that this note is referring to the quoted feature, and close this note if you do. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | OSMCarto just doesn't render it. I also have no real idea where it could be located, so many thanks for spotting it out, both physically (by negation) and digitally. I don't have any data on me about this location so I can't agree to it; *but* seeing its location matches online textual descriptions, I don't disagree to it. In OSM we trust. Therefore, closing. | |
| 1036042 | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | opened | Richy_B | "The path from 'Lai Tak Tsuen' to 'viewpoint' is impassable and dangerous. Please remove it from the map" POI has no name POI types: landuse-forest OSM data version: 2017-05-11T13:22:09Z #mapsme |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,633 | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | A view point exists near Lai Tak Tsuen as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1844899403 but this is extremely confusing and suspicious; I feel bad about closing it without survey. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | The only path that matches the description would be https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1104107657 . At least it is easier to survey there. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5155801 for convenience | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | This note is already adequately handled with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5155801 with a better location; any objections to closing this note and https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5115204 ? | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | me no objections. The other guy is probably here for the procedure and will likely not respond. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yeah, the DWG guy is probably comment for formalities only. I don't expect anyone else to see this note. Thus, closing. | |
| 5122127 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | user_10539745 ♦93 | "wrong spot, there are 2 correct ones already added" The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-12-14T02:16:23Z POI name: 鮨政 Sushi Masa POI types: amenity-restaurant #organicmaps ios 2025.12.22-1-ios |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This shop is probably closed; we got another one elsewhere (see https://www.taikwun.hk/en/lifestyle_enjoyment/shop/sushi-masa-black-and-masa-lounge/122 ). | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Online info says there's another two at 105 Jervois Street and 9 Kingston Street | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | By survey, indeed there's one at at 105 Jervois Street and none here; haven't checked Causeway Bay yet. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Opinion: open a new note for Causeway Bay, or sth. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Good idea; I have considered it but thought it doesn't really matter as note management is not important when no one except us will check notes regularly anyway. But still, now that you are asking for it, I can do that. Sheung Wan see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179518628 | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Wellington Street see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179518884 | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | New note see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5195386 Now I suddenly remember that I forgot to survey the one at Tai Kwun... I guess I will just believe online info. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Tai Kwun resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181535317 ; closing. | |
| 5175576 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | todo: new u-turn lane? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1481293106 ...??? What's the plan here? | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | ...ok somehow I didn't notice it was added a few hours before I made this note. But its alignment seems wrong; I will make a changeset soon. | |
| 5156487 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | I doubt https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97816026 is really `surface=fine_gravel`. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | At this point I am suspecting software issues (e.g. StreetComplete or related apps giving wrong instructions), but I have no proof. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved by someone else via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180232988 ; closing. | |
| 3980686 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | --- | 粉嶺沙頭角公路DD39, Lot 2645 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Is this information useful for OSM? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I mean, we can't really just say "this is useless" (this note hints towards a brownfield and therefore can be added to OSM), but obviously it seems we don't know how to "properly" use this information. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | This doesn't feel any more useful than the spam/private notes typing in an address. Imo the most we can do is mapping/improving features in this area. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Back then I would instant-close notes that only contain addresses. However imo a plot name/ID is stronger than an address, so these cannot be instant-closed. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Imo a plot name is just a fancier/more formal address. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | @vectorial8192 If you don't think this can be instant-closed, what actions do you propose to take here? | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | @vectorial8192 I might visit this location in a few days; let me know if you think I should look out for anything in order to resolve this note. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Well, at minimum we should try to see if this is somehow signposted (probably not). We can then see which irl area(s) correspond to this plot of land; at minimum we can clarify the industrial areas into several distinct plots, likely partitioned along the roads. Ultimately it's sometimes not possible to very clearly and precisely state beforehand what we want. Sometimes we just hold a feeling and then go there *and after that* we will then know what we want. | |
| 10 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Then, seeing I have no such feeling and still don't really know what to do with this note (imo clarification/partitioning of the land belongs in "general stream"), I will just leave this note to you, or someone who knows how to deal with this (might be future me). | |
| 5036097 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed there is a family medicine clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We do have a FMC here, with some other stuff. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179306051 ; closing. | |
| 5034364 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | It seems there might be two such clinics right here? | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Not sure why you think it seems there might be two clinics here, could you please elaborate? | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Basically, I somehow saw 2x Family Medicine Clinics listed in some clinic listing I was looking at. It somehow felt wrong, but one of them should be correct, so someone can check this when they pass by this place. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Just curious, what clinic list did you use? | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This https://www.ha.org.hk/visitor/ha_visitor_index.asp?Content_ID=200250&Lang=CHIB5&Dimension=100&Parent_ID=10052 The government announcement for the renaming eventually led to this page. Upon rechecking, it seems I might have misread the list... But still, this location is likely to have a Family Medicine Clinic. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed there is a FMC here. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We do have a FMC here, with some other stuff. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179305069 ; closing. | |
| 5106613 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: this does not look like a mini-roundabout; can also irl-review nearby features. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | > this does not look like a mini-roundabout Agreed, there's even a physical island. > can also irl-review nearby features Such as? I see the features in this area seem fine, at least. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | For example: Look at ESRI imagery. It shows a west-side construction yard road into the Testing Institute. Does this still exist? The Married Quarters bus stop seems like a bus bay. Is this true? Construction is largely finished, which means the jersey barriers (aerial imagery) should e gone. What replaces them (if exists)? etc. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Please see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179028772 works. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | At first glance: - changeset too large - can still improve (I also have data) | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ok, to clarify, it's natural to have an extra large changeset when we split ways, but I personally would not do Wan Po Road in the same changeset as the Hospital. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I did Wan Po Road in the same changeset as it's too small (imo) to be its own changeset, is close to the hospital, and I surveyed them in the same trip. I also still have data not mapped, but considering how distorted, blurry, and outdated the aerial imagery in this area is, I have no confidence I can put the features in the correct place so I would rather not do it. I welcome you to improve further; I will wait for you to finish before I start updating the bus relations as discussed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5091914. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179167704 : - added path hints - added terrain hints - turn restrictions - general beautification - etc I still have some other data of this area, but those are unrelated and can partially be armchaired. You may continue. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I don't have anything to continue besides mapping/updating the related bus relations, which is already handled with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5091914 . We can close this note if you have nothing more to map. | |
| 10 | ~ 15 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Nothing to do here, closing. | |
| 5166282 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: bad railway curves ------ preliminary vibes indicate that the curves are just plain wrong. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | ...didn't you create these curves yourself? Honestly the current curves look good enough, and can't really be improved without e.g. intertial measurements | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Yes, I did draw them. However, sometime after drawing them, when I look at them, I have an indescribable feeling that the curves are just unnatural and therefore wrong. I do have some numbers on my side and then I can crunch the numbers later to see if I am hallucinating or not. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Those are some really unexpected railway curves. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179066259 ; closing. | |
| 5157078 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1150866494 I think this has opened. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Can also see if the exit numbering has been updated as well; not sure if this belongs to the MTR or the government. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I doubt it has been; don't know the why they would. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Ok assuming you thought the new footbridge will affect the number of exits: afaik the existing footbridges belong to the MTR; the new footbridge merely connects between two exits so it should not change the exits, at most https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1150866495 might get a new exit number but I don't think it will be completed any time soon. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Turns out, no ref changes. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179044665 ; closing. | |
| 5177854 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Chi Tin Street I vaguely remember this will become a public road as part of the Lam Yat House works? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180233757 ; closing. | |
| 5161910 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | junction has fixme: staggered crossing traffic island |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178923367 ; closing. | |
| 5034352 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed there is a family medicine clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We do have a FMC here with some other stuff. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178899966 ; closing. | |
| 5093778 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I see Tuen Mun LRT is elevated. Then, how may passengers access these elevated platforms? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | 1. Escalator from ground level 2. Eastbound platform is at the same level and is connected to Tuen Mun MTR Station. I am not sure if passengers can go from the westbound platform to Tuen Mun MTR without going to ground level first, though. IIRC no at-grade crossing across the tracks. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I now have info | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | It's complicated. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178865246 ; closing. | |
| 5034350 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed there is a family medicine clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We do have a FMC here, plus some other stuff. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178822153 ; closing. | |
| 5133340 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | Todo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176212586 , see also discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303927 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178622903 ; closing. | |
| 5156486 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | I doubt https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105586327 is really `surface=fine_gravel`. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105586327/history/3 I will just armchair-change it to be concrete surface. Rough concrete do look like fine gravel. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | On second thought, a more sensible plan is to armchair-change it to have no surface material so that we can return this to StreetComplete for further processing. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Give to StreetComplete. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178591700 ; closing. | |
| 5161916 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | junction has fixme: turn restrictions |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Looks like it has chevrons, which would mean the turn restrictions do exist. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | At this location, there are two turn restrictions with this fixme. The easier one is "Tai Tong Road cannot u-turn to (self) Tai Tong Road". This is trivially true. The harder one is "Tai Tong Road (roundabout) cannot right-turn to Kiu Hing Road". Normally you cannot cross over double-lines (e.g. no overtaking). The shape is very unique here, but essentially this looks like the vehicle would be crossing the double-lines to reach the opposite side of the road, which should be permitted. I think this interpretation is OK. See if any vehicle guys can chime in, but if no reaction, I will take this interpretation and do the changeset. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I went there recently and confirmed that it is chevrons, not double white lines, and afaik chevrons cannot be crossed even for turning right. Interestingly, the chevrons start a bit after the kerb (you can kind of see this on aerial imagery). I can't tell if this is done deliberately to allow vehicles to turn right from Kiu Hing Road, or if the paint has simply worn out from heavy vehicle turning. Anyhow, Kiu Hing Road has right turn arrow, so we don't have to worry about that. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | OK, trusting the chevron observation. Then, resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178591191 ; closing. | |
| 5165761 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: junction decoration (note: this is intended to be separate from the nearby "split junction" issue) |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178574929 . Scope is quite large. Next up is to update the bus relations. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Relations cleaned up via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178590547 ; closing. | |
| 5133338 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | Todo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175908155 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175908590 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175908754 , see also discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303927 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178589878 ; closing. | |
| 5165903 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Daviddylan1 | 海洋公园路 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Spam | |
| 5161909 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | junction has fixme: Tung Chau Street -> Chui Yu Road; can? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Mapillary says can. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Armchair also thinks can. The way the roads were built, there is a small pocket under West Kowloon Corridor to hold Tung Chau Street -> Chui Yu Road vehicles for a 2-phase signal action. And I did walk past this area before, which resulted in me discovering this pocket, though I forgot about the irl-walking. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178578447 ; closing. | |
| 5151410 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | needs discussion: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963900 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | the concern is whether "wall to wall connected houses but only 2 in house chain" count as "semi-detached house". See eg 103A and 103B. I think is no. from online picture examples of semi-detached houses, there should have a way for people to reach the backyard without entering the house. if no such method then is just regular rowhouse. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | I don't think duplex has such a definition. They are structural only, without regards to sideyard in the lot. It should be further distinguished there, not changed to `=terraced` for this. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I quote the Wikipedia: > The name distinguishes this style of construction from [...] terraced houses, with a shared wall on both sides. Then, these are indeed semi-detached. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178577044 ; closing. | |
| 5043144 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | Lkwokon | 賀龍汽車維修中心 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178575756 ; closing. | |
| 5161922 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | cycle path has fixme: probably ancient schema |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | It seems like the footway wasn't mapped originally, hence `foot=designated` and `segregated=yes` was added to the cycleway to indicate this. Now that we have the footway mapped, I think we can simply remove the fixme. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178575319 ; closing. | |
| 5164226 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ref |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178575006 ; closing. | |
| 5165635 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: fix https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178483414 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This is really my mistake. Upon a random chance, I suddenly thought it would be good to waive the turn restrictions by "aerial imagery obviousness". Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178574052 ; closing. | |
| 5165581 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | AlphaNovember ♦3 | "Now closed." The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2026-01-25T13:04:34Z POI name: Five Guys POI types: cuisine-burger amenity-fast_food #organicmaps android 2026.01.26-11-Google |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | https://restaurants.fiveguys.com.hk/ agrees | |
| 3154260 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | --- | A building should be added here and known as "Wo Hop Shek Columbarium Phase II & IV". See pages 8 and 9 of https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr15-16/english/panels/fseh/papers/fseh20160412cb2-1220-3-e.pdf. |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Data (area) exists, but due to tree cover, if want to draw building outline, then need a site visit. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | Cypp0847 ♦189 | This is not exactly a building but an open area. Closing https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161374422 | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Government maps say "Wo Hop Shek Columbarium Phase II & Phase IV" is a building, not an open area. Survey needed. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | iirc this is a named area ("columbarium") with several unnamed small "mini-columbarium" buildings. | |
| 5132180 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/902497658 etc still under construction? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Somehow, yes. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Seems nothing to do here. For some reason there are a bunch of areas in HK that are apparently "completed" but just blocked off as if still "constructing". | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Nothing to do here. (For example, another such "unavailable completed" area is at Sun Po Kong Bus Terminus.) Eventually, someone will notice that irl the features become unblocked, and then they can make a follow-up changeset. Closing. | |
| 5151351 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | AAFmapper ♦6 | "Seems to be gone in favor of Lung Fung Mall" The place has gone or never existed. A user of Organic Maps application has reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2026-01-25T13:04:34Z POI name: 屈臣氏 Watsons POI types: shop-chemist amenity-pharmacy #organicmaps android 2026.01.26-11-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Clarified with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178395234 ; closing. | |
| 5159342 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | fdjskalfjalwk；fjas；fjaslk |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | uh | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Oops | |
| 5150715 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | todo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164259073 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | um, lgtm? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Broken: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607035 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607037 | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Then, how did you check whether the relations are broken? | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | ...sorry, do you mean "where is the broken part of the quoted relations" or "how did you notice the relations are broken" or "generally, how to determine if a relation is broken"? | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I presume you knew of a tool where you would type in the relation number and then the tool told you whether the relation was OK? I can roughly see there exists multiple possible ways/tools to "check" relations, and I am unsure which one you may be using. For example, https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=6607037&_noCache=on says the 6607037 one is lgtm. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | This is not scalable. You should use JOSM when changing to a pair of lines. It may be preferable for you to not do this if you don't fix the routes yourself. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Short pair of lines at islands is not an absolutely strict expectation. It's even often debated when to do it. So it's easier to avoid it. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | My criteria is to split the ways so that we can have a clear mapping of the (staggered) pedestrian crossings. This doesn't happen regularly so I am not too concerned about scalability, though with continuing urbanization, we will find more and more of this "single -> double" case from irl-upgrading signaled crossings. With me starting to know how JOSM works, I can start fixing my past mistakes, but ultimately I gotta know why the quoted two relations are broken, and how they are broken, which naturally leads to how to fix them. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Multiple tools report 6607035 (68E) is broken because there is a gap here. This makes sense and very likely my mistake. However, none of them report any problems for 6607037 (68F). | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Ok, after rechecking, 68F is really not broken. I apologise for my mistake. Anyway, re checking broken relations, I usually simply use JOSM's relation editor. Your quoted website (https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation) produces quite a lot of false negatives. | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178260481 ; closing. | |
| 3304147 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | ti-lo ♦618 | Which parameters for museum and subject ? "showcasing information about the Solar System, cosmology, and spaceflight" as of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Space_Museum https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=spaceflight#values https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=astronomy#values https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=aerospace#values Probably multiple ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator "space" may be misinterpreted https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=space#values "science" values should correlate with "faculty" https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/faculty#values |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | Cypp0847 ♦189 | Amended to science. However "subject" should be sufficient to describe without the use of "faculty" | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | ti-lo ♦618 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | ti-lo ♦618 | Seems to generic to me. The question was (also) whether several values could apply besides https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/museum=spaceflight | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | ti-lo ♦618 | "faculty" only applies to universities but similar values are used, such as https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/faculty=astronomy | https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/museum=astronomy | |
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | ti-lo ♦618 | The correct value might be museum=spaceflight;astronomy, also see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Amuseum, should also cover "Solar System, cosmology" ? | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | There are only 3+1 `spaceflight` , and 4 `astronomy` . Neither seems dominant. I would suspect some `=aerospace` may be mainly space-related, and obviously many aviation ones don't have a spaceflight showcase. So it doesn't perfect fit either. `=aerospace` has been mass added before https://taghistory.raifer.tech/?#***/museum/aerospace I don't understand how "space" would be misunderstood? | |
| 8 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | `museum=science` could yet be fine if `museum=` is treated as a generic category. But it doesn't have enough work done on it. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:museum#Untitled_1 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tourism=museum#On_subtypes_and_topics_/_museum_subjects | |
| 9 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Both https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/faculty#values and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/department#values aren't widely agreed on, and are being polluted by the faculty and department names. `department=` has further issue with `=store_section` for `=department_store` and `=supermarket` . There's no definite reason to match with `museum=` . | |
| 10 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:museum_type#Not_very_clear | |
| 11 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | ti-lo ♦618 | Please try whether this description works for you : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:museum:type%3Dscience | |
| 12 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | No. `*type` never works. It's a meaningless suffix. | |
| 13 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | ti-lo ♦618 | Seems to work in a bunch of cases https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:*:type | |
| 14 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I am thinking perhaps `museum=science` with `subject=astronomy` or `museum:subject=astronomy`. Cosmology is a subset of astronomy. Astronomy should automatically imply "spaceflight"; can't have serious (space) observations without rocket-delivered satellites and telescopes. | |
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | ar_on_hk | ||
| 16 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 5156760 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/674605645 descriptive name; could have tried harder |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | While we are at it, also fix https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/674605644 , added by the same user in the same changeset. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178191616 . I expect the guys from HKBusFandom to further review the minibus stop/terminus when they feel like it. Closing. | |
| 2046829 | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | opened | Wright One ♦173 | 此入口已封 |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | closed | Sylvester77 | ||
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | reopened | Sylvester77 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Another path nearby was marked as inaccessible https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/154333345 ; related? | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,633 | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | While reading feature history, another note was mentioned https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2046828 which has highly similar ID; both notes are likely created almost at the same time, and yet only one of them was resolved. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | By survey, both of them are `access=discouraged` with barriers, but one may still (easily) hop over the barrier, and many still do, as evidenced by the significant vegetation loss along the trail. I will make a changeset soon. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | `=discouraged` , or `=no` ? | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | There is a sign by the AFCD: "Protect the Vegeation; Please Stay on Trail; Do not Take Shortcut", which should not carry legal effects. Afaik there's no law prohibiting the creation or use of desire paths. | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | It's not prohibited explicitly. But technically it seems damaging plants is illegal. | |
| 5101282 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: share_taxi cannot enter Nam Long Shan Road reinterpret the roads to allow for accurate traffic island mapping (use oneway streets) |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Scope is quite large. Note intent basically done via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177649672 Next step is to adjust the bus relations, etc. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Work is further improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177677477 | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Eventually, I forgot about this. Followup changeset with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178144291 . | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Now, this should be good and resolved. Closing. | |
| 758446 | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | opened | O Lee | small stream (OSM data version: 2016-09-19T14:38:03Z) #mapsme |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | closed | kenny leung | ||
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | reopened | kenny leung | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | A stream already exists nearby as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323624592 ; I presume this is already done. Therefore, closing. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Out-of-copyright maps say that there is stream at the exact location of this note that eventually drains into the quoted way. There is really an unmapped stream here. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Unexpected, but can take a look at them; I think the latest free map is from 1975 as mentioned in Discord. | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | It turns out the old map mentioned in Discord does not have data for this area. @kingkingHK may you provide more info? | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I was looking at https://www.hkmaps.hk/viewer.html and selected the "1975.1" map. Now after looking into this deeper, I think the "year n" maps on that website actually means "latest map available by year n" instead of "maps drawn on year n" as government map tiles don't update yearly. Looking at https://www.hkmapservice.gov.hk/OneStopSystem/map-search?product=OSSCatB&series=AJ , I believe I was actually looking at maps from 1969-1974, which should be the most up-to-date ones we can use. As stream geometries are dictated by valley geometries which rarely change, I think 60-year-old maps are still accurate for mapping. The main blocker is that I am extremely unfamiliar with how I can overlay custom images onto editing software. Also, the government maps available for download linked above are not seamless, so one must manually crop the images before using it. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The online map renderer https://www.hkmaps.hk/viewer.html has a sidebar that can adjust image opacity for map cross-referencing. Not knowing how to overlay this onto "editing software" (um, JOSM?) is imo a non-issue because afaik both iD and JOSM can specify the OSM Carto rendering itself as the "imagery", and then we can do some intense eyeballing to determine where the mentioned features should be located in OSM. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I see there is indeed a stream in the old map. Hopefully the stream did not dry up while we were not looking, I ain't surveying this and will trust the old map. | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Eventually, with some guidance from Kovoschiz, I figured out how to overlay historical maps onto editing software. But then, I felt like if I am mapping a single missing stream, I might as well map all missing streams in this area, which are there hundreds of, making the changeset too big to complete in a single sitting, hence why it took me so long. I will complete and upload a changeset Soon™. | |
| 5086249 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6143117229 descriptive name |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,633 | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178142750 ; closing. | |
| 5065720 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | Does this https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4349312890 actually exist? Which routes call here? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | could just be green minibuses with some "hail on ride" value (not too familiar with that kind of tagging) | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5065723 | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | By survey, there's nothing here. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Pass-by minibus relations have already configured "hail_and_ride". Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178134772 ; closing. | |
| 5116603 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | Todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13076945683 descriptive name |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Also https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13076945680 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13076945681 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This note now mentions 3 items. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177959180 ; closing. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | MC0207429 | ||
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | If nothing to add, then closing. | |
| 5150707 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: cleanup bus relations |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via openstreetmap.org/changeset/178100219 ; closing. | |
| 5150788 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: clean up bus relations |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178001499 ; closing. | |
| 4458584 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Edison Wen ♦1,418 | 如果整棟是22層 building:levels=22 level=22表示某地方在23層 (英式用法) via StreetComplete_ee 58.22 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178000879 ; closing. | |
| 4458604 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Edison Wen ♦1,418 | 如果建築物16層 請用building:levels=16 via StreetComplete_ee 58.22 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178000592 ; closing. | |
| 587314 | 1 | ~ 10 years ago | opened | Comax Lau | The place has gone or never existed. This is an auto-generated note from MAPS.ME application: a user reports a POI that is visible on a map (which can be outdated), but cannot be found on the ground. User comments: The phrase 2 was now merged with the Galaxy Macau, phrase 2 was no longer exist (OSM data version: 2016-06-01T10:03:02Z) #mapsme |
| 2 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | е | |
| 3 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | н | |
| 4 | ~ 7 years ago | commented | --- | true | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Phase 2 still exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/348538046 , but currently exists as "building:part=hotel", which is a minor feature tag and is no longer rendered in OSM Carto. Closing. | |
| 5082011 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | --- | 📍 位置：图书馆 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Yes, the map has a library at this location. Closing. | |
| 4887159 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | --- | Taxi Stand |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3212331674 ; closing. | |
| 1905676 | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | opened | Terry Ho | The place has gone or never existed. This is an auto-generated note from MAPS.ME application: a user reports a POI that is visible on a map (which can be outdated), but cannot be found on the ground. User comments: "已結業" (OSM data version: 2016-09-19T14:38:03Z) #mapsme |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Unclear which feature is being referred to. Closing. | |
| 5143296 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: construction work review |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177994751 ; closing. | |
| 5034363 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177993465 ; closing. | |
| 5038052 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | individual buildings and streets, where name:en? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Not sure where the `name:zh` came from in the first place; can't survey due to `access=private` and can't find any useful info online. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Skylark_H_C ♦215 | I believe these names are real. Refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5L_oSHKvck (vlog of the experience in this hostel) | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Skylark_H_C ♦215 | but yes, some of these streets have no English name. (4:50 in the video) | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | 1. copyright 2. If it cannot be verified without entering an `access=private` premise I believe it would cause problems verifiability. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Re "copyright" I quote https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-a-youtube-video-an-acceptable-source/125692/5 > However, factual information in that video is probably not “the video or a non-trivial excerpt from it”. So, for example, if someone has gone for a leisurely walk around a town centre, filmed it, uploaded it to YouTube, and you spot a sign for a streetname that’s unmapped in OSM, it’s not a copyright infringement to use that information to update OSM. The YT video may be an acceptable source. Granted, this doesn't enable us to large-scale scrape YouTube videos. imo just use it sparingly. ------- Re "verifiability": Shrugs. As long as it isn't a military base, it will be verifiable. Just that it may take many many years for probability to assign an OSM user into the area. Consider the possibility within the next 10 years an overseas OSM user decided to take residence here, and then we will have verifiability. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | 1. Anyway, as Kovoschiz said in Discord, Youtube videos can never be used to map OSM due to Terms of Services, regardless of copyright. 2. Imo this is too private, e.g. you wouldn't indoor map your home even though you are an OSM user who can verify it. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | 1. " (And… then there’s terms of use to consider. Google Maps has a clause that says roughly “by using this site, you agree that you won’t use features like Street View to update your own map database”, no matter what copyright law might say. I haven’t looked to see whether YouTube has anything like this because I try to avoid YouTube as much as humanly possible, though I doubt it.) " | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I opened this note because it's highly unusual that we have streets in HK that have no English names. A san-check/survey may be needed. With the YT video, I can san-check that, indeed, the streets *not* having English names is normal. We can have a middleground where I add a note to 1331 stating that the streets really do not have English names. | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | YT TOS https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 : > You are not allowed to: > > access, reproduce, download, [...] Taking a single frame and then do stuff does not sound like reproducing. afaik updating the notes field brings no meaningful change to the map data (for other mappers only), so probably should not cause damage, but don't quote me on that. | |
| 14 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | > You are not allowed to use the Service to view or listen to Content other than for personal, non-commercial use Taking a single frame is certainly "viewing", and OSM's license does nothing to prohibit data consumers from using `note=` for commercial purposes. | |
| 15 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | well then | |
| 5145374 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: by Government Notice 2025/8264, North Lantau Highway (eastbound) should have 80 kmh speed limit. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | while we are at it, also write down the notice number for easier future reference. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This continues from https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5145054 | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177969541 ; closing. | |
| 5150276 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: station is too small |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177968557 ; closing. | |
| 3740751 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | os-emmer ♦525 | This junction looks like a mini-roundabout but I am not sure. At the moment it's mapped with an area with turning_circle=yes which is wrong in any case. Can someone check if this is a mini-roundabout? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | Cypp0847 ♦189 | Changed at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161042269 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | From aerial imagery, this is clearly not a mini-roundabout as there are no road markings prohibiting free travel, i.e. it is simply a widened circular road. It should be `highway=turning_circle`. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177964925 ; closing. | |
| 4559591 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Dimitar155 ♦4,248 | The 3 sets of 2 buildings each might be semi-detached. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | OSM does not provide an easy way to see "polygon shape" history, but currently these buildings are now semi-detached. Therefore, closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | Dimitar155 ♦4,248 | They aren't tagged as semi-detached. All of them have building=terrace + house=terrace, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1103846078 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268486759 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268486762 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268486763 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268486764 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268486765 | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Hi there! Sorry for misunderstanding the note. You may see me around closing notes to clean up the notes interface, to declutter them. This can be reviewed in detail later. | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | @vectorial8192 has the "review in detail later" ever happened? Seems like it's still tagged as `building=terrace` and `house=terrace`. Also, you may be interested in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4559590. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | It never happened. I went to do something else. Also yes I know that similar note is placed at Sai Kung. The original plan was to deal with this first, and then deal with the Sai Kung one later. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | To clarify my situation, the blocker was/is that I am extremely unfamiliar with how individual buildings should be mapped. Me not touching this again was not due to anything bad happening. It's entirely my lack of knowledge. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Another blocker would be to really manually review the several dozen (or hundred?) of buildings. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | By Overpass Turbo https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2jMo there are about 280 terrace buildings, most of which will likely need to be fixed as per this note. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Confusingly, there seem to be quite a lot of `building=terrace` + `house=semi-detached`, which doesn't really make sense. Wiki recommends `building=semidetached_house`. Should we create separate notes for other semi-detached houses tagged as terraces for better management? | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961308 by trying to identify the semi-detached houses. | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | `building=terrace` + `house=semi-detached` improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961520 | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | desync My personal opinion is to change terrace&semi-detached into the proper semidetached_house tag, because having house=semi-detached may subvert meaning of building=house or building=terrace . | |
| 14 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | house -> semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963622 | |
| 15 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Fixed mistagged semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963756 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963900 | |
| 16 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Identified semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963931 | |
| 17 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Finally, lgtm; closing. | |
| 5150539 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: https://overpass-turbo.eu/?w=%22building%22%3D%22semi-detached%22+global&R |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961274 ; closing. | |
| 4559590 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Dimitar155 ♦4,248 | The 3 sets of 2 buildings each might be semi-detached. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦29 | fixed | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Related note see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4559591 ; we can further improve this. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Some houses nearby are also semi-detached. Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177960588 ; closing again. | |
| 5096262 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | It seems the Golf Court extends to this area. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177959938 ; closing. | |
| 5052159 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | I think https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188837279 should be 132 kV and not 132 V? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Also see https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/188837279 - no way any irl power cable runs with just 132V; now is not Victorian - past OSM history shows DWG intervention; possibly good faith but hit innocent changeset of fixing "132V" If we choose to trust changeset 171413551, then this is very obviously a 132kV power line. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Well, the user who made changeset 171413551 (JacobPierce456) also changed a lot of 400 kV lines to 132 kV, even ones connecting to 400 kV substations, so I'm not sure if it's believable. See also https://openinframap.org/#10.68/22.3758/114.1147 for visualisation of power line and voltages. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I am no electrical engineer, but I think 400 kV infra can be easily repurposed to become 132 kV infra. Unfortunately survey recommended to see what's going on; might be easier to check at Po Lam side. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I vaguely remember reading somewhere (can't find it now) that CLP uses 400 kV while HK Electric uses 275 and 132 kV. This seems to largely correlate with existing osm data. Anyway, I tried to visit to poles to see if there are any signage indicating voltage, but failed. The Po Lam side is surrounded by construction works, while the Anderson side is surrounded by steep slopes with dense scrub. Maybe we can check https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1994601826 ? It seems like there are footpaths leading to it. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I went to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1994601826 , and disappointingly there were no indication of voltage at all. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | OK, consider this "unsubstantiated" tin-hat thought: We see this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/190728390 and we also see this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188837279 . Both are suspiciously and conveniently separated by Shun Lee Estate and Shun Chee Court. Could it be that the original HV overhead power line was split into two due to urban development, and they just joined them up with a section of underground power line? If that's true, then, because the west side is 132kV (trusted data), the east side must also be 132kV. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Agree with your thought. Old maps show the power line being constructed in the early 1970s, around the same time Shun Lee Estate was being developed. I also doubt a large voltage change is possible without some structures visible from aerial imagery. However, the west side was also changed from 400 kV to 132 kV by the same DWG-blocked user in the same changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171413551), so there is no "trusted data" here. | |
| 9 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Someone on the OSM World Discord server said it was 132 kV, judging by the number of insulators. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183698815 ; closing. | |
| 1684719 | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | opened | Li Ken | 隱藏路線，己變密林 17 FEB 2019 |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | 高空圖片亦已不能見到山徑, 由 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161456988 更新山徑狀況, 消除註記 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Reviving as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161456988 is insufficient to reflect latest state; see also discussion there. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Honourable, but this is extra rural. Might not be worth it. | |
| 5148979 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: http://www.primavilla.net/ |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177956887 ; closing. | |
| 5128925 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | 優質乾洗會-大圍村 Quality Dry Clean - Tai Wai Village 洗衣店 翠欣街10號沙田 大 圍 村 7 號 地下 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See https://sunshinelaundry.com.hk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/LoveLaundry_013_Final.pdf | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Upon review, that PDF is from 2016. Not convincing. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Can't find this feature IRL. However, note mentions Chui Yan Street, which is near Yu Chui Court. Misplace note? | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Feels like a paradoxical/invalid note to me. Yu Chui Court is addressed as "Ngau Pei Sha Street". Nearby Prima Villa doesn't have any shops at all. This note would be pointing at nothing. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I can't even find a building addressed as 10 Chui Yan Street. Sounds like we can close as "note is not helpful"/"note is incomprehensible". | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I was planning to close this note without survey by classifying this as an invalid note. I see we can agree on this. Therefore, closing. | |
| 470359 | 1 | ~ 10 years ago | opened | nevilcheung | 凱昇藝術中心 |
| 2 | ~ 10 years ago | closed | nevilcheung | ||
| 3 | ~ 10 years ago | reopened | nevilcheung | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Correct | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3841741635 , but it seems we don't have a tag for "arts school"...? | |
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | roylo5112 | ||
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 8 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Perhaps `education=art_school`? | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I am half split between "yes let's do it" and "but it also targets school kids". | |
| 10 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I might understand this wrongly, but I feel like `education=art_school` is for adults and teens. Like, a higher-education school for future artists, and not for kids. | |
| 11 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Then, perhaps `amenity=prep_school` + `school=art`? | |
| 12 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | `=prep_school` is preparing for exams. This is `=training` | |
| 13 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Agree in principle with @kingkingHK and @Kovoschiz, but also consider doing `education=*` instead of `amenity=*` as per latest OSM recommendation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:education | |
| 14 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | It's both `amenity=` + `education` | |
| 15 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | So, `amenity=training` + `education=training` + `training=art`? | |
| 16 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Technically, `amenity=training` is correct, but that doesn't feel right. I feel like "training" is for adults / professionals, but this being a kid's school doesn't fulfill this requirement. | |
| 17 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I don't see why it must be for adults. The wiki defines it as "public places where you can get training". Precedent see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12428711030 | |
| 18 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Good precedent; we can type this in later. | |
| 19 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177956622 ; closing. | |
| 4516463 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | MACAU MSSR |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This seems to refer to an airport facility "monopulse secondary surveillance radar" ("MSSR"). However, it is unclear whether such radar is located here. | |
| 679006 | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | opened | imfayc | 路环市中心挞沙街1号地下 (OSM data version: 2016-03-14T15:50:02Z) #mapsme |
| 2 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | е | |
| 3 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | н | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This is just an address. Online sources eventually lead to the bakery https://www.lordstow.com/ . However, the address of the bakery does not equal to the address in this note. Therefore, closing. | |
| 4974047 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | RC3-W-1 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4974040 ; basically same stuff. | |
| 4974040 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | RC3-W-1 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Wecury ♦1 | ？ | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | What a strange note. With help from an LLM, I can see that UM designates its residential colleges as "RC". However, it is unclear which RC is the "3rd" RC. In addition, no feature in UM has the code "W1". Meaning is unclear. Therefore, closing. | |
| 4974045 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | LIB-E-8 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | What a strange note. We do have a library at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/241702236 . However, it does not have the code "E8". In fact, no feature in UM has the code "E8". Meaning is unclear. Therefore, closing. | |
| 4974046 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | CTB-E7-1 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | What a strange note. With help from an LLM, I can see that the Universidade de Macau has predefined codes for each of its facilities. The code "CTB-E7" would refer to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13100049037 Obviously the facility is not located at the position of this note. Therefore, closing. | |
| 4974044 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | PHC-S-1 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4974043 ; basically same stuff. | |
| 4974043 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | PHC-S-1 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | What a strange note. With help from an LLM, I can see that the Universidade de Macau has predefined codes for each of its buildings. The code "PH-S1" would refer to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/289598407 Obviously the building is not located at the position of this note. Therefore, closing. | |
| 5141255 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Unstable speed limits at this junction; ? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | What's unstable? It makes sense, and the road markings visible from aerial imagery largely agree with the existing mapping, other than your https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177646947 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See https://openstreetbrowser.org/#map=19/22.40525/113.97796&basemap=osm-mapnik&categories=car_maxspeed ; then, see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1086693746 Ain't no way there is a tiny section with 50 kmh speed limit inside a whole stretch of 70 kmh speed limit. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | 1. The speed limit ovals visible from aerial imagery do indeed show a 50 km/h marking there. 2. It makes sense that a sharp curve would have a lower speed limit than a straight highway, see also 30 bridge. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I am not doubting the existence of "50 kmh"; I am doubting that it lasts only this short, hence "unstable". No details yet, but I am leaning towards "Tsing Tin Road probably is not 70 kmh". | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Please see https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.405515038428973&lng=113.97723239856998&z=18.447655819974504&pKey=1451362138529520&focus=photo&x=0.4868516350424504&y=0.5564936033969253&zoom=0 | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Images are from 2020; medium believable. Will also do a web search to see if the speed limit is somehow changed while we are not looking. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Speed limit changes will result in a gazette, which I can't find any of. Also, if the speed limit is somehow changed, why do we still see 50 km/h ovals from 2025 aerial imagery when exiting Tsing Tin Road? | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | OK, no need to argue on the 50 kmh part, we got a traffic accident right at this place today and I can armchair-see clearly there is indeed a 50 kmh oval here. The concern was whether the bridge got demoted from 70 kmh to 50 kmh while we were not looking, which trusting you did not happen. Will make changeset soon. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Thanks for the help in finding out effective sources. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177893973 ; closing. | |
| 4852037 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | "Hung Shui Kiu" is only a tentative name, as per usual railway development practice. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Excuse my ignorance on this topic, could you please elaborate on what the "usual railway development practice" is, why "Hung Shui Kiu" is only a tentative name, and how it affects osm mapping/tagging? Thanks in advance. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Basically, the "correct" name is only decided very late into the construction process, which is essentially a month before usage. During construction, the station most likely has a technical but internal name, and ideally we should type that name into the name field, but obviously that's private info and we can't expect to know about that. I opted for e.g. "Hung Shui Kiu Railway Station" to signal this, but then people don't/won't care/know abut this, so this note imo is uncloseable. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | However, imo the real station name will very likely be "Hung Shui Kiu" as most would expect, but right now that's unsubstantiated and would count as "original research"/"fabrication". | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Discord discussion clarified that it's ok to use working names for the name field. In addition, the concept name "Hung Shui Kiu" has been known by the public for 25+ years now (original West Rail planning). Then, nothing to do here. Closing. | |
| 2541603 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | June Kuok | 寶藝餐飲 Bows Cafe Chill & Dine |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See probably https://www.facebook.com/BowsCafeChillDine/?locale=zh_HK | |
| 2594766 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | ao2006mail | 花路烘焙咖啡廊 Padaria e Café Faro |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See https://www.macaotourism.gov.mo/zh-hant/dining/specialty-foods/specialty-restaurants/padaria-e-cafe-faro | |
| 3838002 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | --- | CESL Asia - Investments & Services, Limited (Macau Office) Avenida Comercial de Macau, Nos. 251A-301, AIA Tower, 12.º andar, Macau Tel: (+853) 2832 2388 Fax: (+853) 2832 3222 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Feature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11121229105 but can be improved. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Actually, it turns out they moved. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177850894 ; closing. | |
| 1682987 | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | opened | --- | храм богини А-Ма |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Google translate: "temple of goddesses A-Ma" Then, feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/192187333 . Closing. | |
| 5128919 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | 洗衣博士順新洗衣 No 34, G/F, Mei Lam Shopping Centre, Tai Wai, Shatin |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See https://www.linkhk.com/tc/shop/21804 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed, feature exists IRL. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177849787 ; closing. | |
| 5078240 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Name of "house" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993221815 is very suspicious |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | From satellite imagery, very likely a descriptive name + tag misuse. Squatter area should be tagged as some residential area, not as a building. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177846501 ; closing. | |
| 2485842 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | 新華澳報 澳門新口岸北京街174號廣發商業中心，6樓A & B |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177846313 ; closing. | |
| 607068 | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | opened | Martintj | 新口岸友誼大馬路747-B號中裕大厦D鋪 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This is just an address. Nothing to do here. Closing. | |
| 4385648 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | 政府總部事務局 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/377731900 ; closing. Note: rendering issues (e.g. can't see long names) should be redirected to OSM Carto. | |
| 2672263 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | Tiger Cafe | 澳門陳樂巷3B號地下A座 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See https://www.facebook.com/p/TIGER-CAFE-100068459642755/ | |
| 2273496 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | Ponte9 | This is a comment generated by #OSMyBiz. New/Modified Tags = '*', Removed Tags = '-'. *addr:street = 澳門火船頭街9號碼頭3樓 Rua das Lorchas, Ponte No.9 3rd floor *addr:place = Inner Harbour addr:postcode = 853 addr:city = Macau addr:country = China *name = PONTE 9 Creative Platform 九號碼頭 *opening_hours = Monday to Friday 09:00–18:30 *phone = +853 28715770 *email = p9@ponte9.com *website = http://www.ponte9.com *wheelchair = yes *description = Ponte 9 is a cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural cluster for creative industries. *note = 1. The official address doesn't correspond to the address in the Open Street Maps. The address on Open Street Maps comes as being on Rua do Dr. Lourenço Pereira Marques, but the offical address is at Rua das Lorchas (Rua das Lorchas, Ponte No.9 3rd floor). 2. The entrance to the building is on the small alley just off the main street, next to the existing location "Ferry Terminal 南舢舨碼頭 Cais de Sampanas Sul 比厘喇馬忌士街" *category: Cultural and Creative Center |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177845251 ; closing. | |
| 2273473 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | onosm.org submitted note from a business: name: Ponte 9 Creative Platform phone: +853 28715770 website: http://www.ponte9.com twitter: undefined hours: Monday–Friday 9am to 6:30pm category: ,Cultural Center address: |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177845251 ; closing. | |
| 2584560 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | 悠悠巷 leisurely lane |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We have this https://www.facebook.com/leisurelylane/?locale=zh_TW , which then links to dead page https://shop.mycart.ai/leisurelylane?customerLocale=zh-HK&mstr=leisurelylane It is safe to say the shop was closed some time in the past. Closing. | |
| 701828 | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | opened | Manuel Gobea | Zona San Lazaro (OSM data version: 2016-08-22T09:03:02Z) #mapsme |
| 2 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | е | |
| 3 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | н | |
| 4 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | я | |
| 5 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | т | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We do have a São Lázaro parish here https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12107628 Closing. | |
| 670104 | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | opened | Italian | there are two locations with same name (OSM data version: 2016-07-15T17:38:02Z) #mapsme |
| 2 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | е | |
| 3 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | н | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Not sure what this means. The hotel https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3212331564 is contained inside the casino https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/206823868 . Both would have similar names. The names might have been the same many many years ago, but right now both names are different. Closing. | |
| 4937049 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | 澳门博物馆 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1449239316 ; closing. | |
| 4937048 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | 大三巴牌坊 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/192183185 ; closing. | |
| 3600073 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | Sofia Ung | 高園街35號 |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | closed | Sua-xiaoya | ||
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | reopened | Sua-xiaoya | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Satellite imagery says there's nothing here, yet there are buildings right next to this with appropriate housenumbers. This could be a brownfield. | |
| 5128923 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | 哆啦洗衣 大圍積福街2-4號積福樓地下E號舖 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See https://www.storellet.com/story/KMe12xQYbXNoFAsi/%E5%93%86%E5%95%A6%E6%B4%97%E8%A1%A3%EF%BD%9C%E6%96%B0%E5%BA%97%E4%B8%8A%E6%9E%B6 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177809549 ; closing. | |
| 5128924 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | 清新洗衣大圍 大圍積富街富軒 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Might be this https://www.facebook.com/p/%E6%B8%85%E6%96%B0%E6%B4%97%E8%A1%A3-61573057642070/ but go walk it. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Indeed. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177807873 ; closing. | |
| 4014269 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | --- | ARMANDO ELDERLY HOME |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Meaning is unclear; we do have a retirement home here. Closing. | |
| 610326 | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | opened | samely_labuildings | Can someone confirm if this is just "Macao" instead of "Macao Peninsula"? |
| 2 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | е | |
| 3 | ~ 9 years ago | commented | --- | н | |
| 4 | ~ 8 years ago | commented | JonathOSM | macao peninsula | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The landmass itself indeed should be "Macao Peninsula". But, at this moment Macau mapping does not separately map the landmass itself. There is only the single-government "Macau", which is still correct. Question is answered; closing. | |
| 5128926 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | 金海洋洗衣店 大圍海福商場26號鋪 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177807200 ; closing. | |
| 5128538 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | Are they really constructing https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/774964181 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/774964743 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/774965667 ? Can't see any signs of construction from aerial imagery. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | You can refer to the surroundings. Most if not all non-T2 `=construction` seems should be `proposed:highway=` actually. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | All three roads are changed to be "highway=proposed" with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177805982 ; close? | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | Yeah, was gonna do it myself but you did it first, thanks. Closing. | |
| 5144341 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2935577631 pretty sure should be gone. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | TIL the HD is not the same as the HA. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177774359 ; closing. | |
| 5145054 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: North Lantau Highway (westbound) probably should have 110 kmh speed limit. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦475 | It's a medium-term temporary reduction due to nearby construction works. See Government Notice 2025/8264. | |
| 2392577 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | TC Express特速快運 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2462567 instead. | |
| 5141133 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | www.openstreetmap.org/way/446333287 First time in my life hearing about 60kmh speed limit; ? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Probably simply typo? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104194774 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Anyway, survey does confirm "50kmh". | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177767921 ; closing. | |
| 5141143 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/947230526 I don't think this is really `maxspeed=60`. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Turns out it's still 50 kmh. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177716084 ; closing. | |
| 5140535 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo/question: should this section of road get noname=yes or should they receive "Discovery Bay Tunnel" by scope extension? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap520B!en-zh-Hant-HK.pdf "Discovery Bay Tunnel Link Bylaw". The name would probably be derived from that. Maybe we can reference several other "ungazetted road names" cases elsewhere in Hong Kong. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Upon review, I'm not gonna risk it. Cap 520 offers "Tunnel Link" as the descriptive name of the tunnel itself and the link roads connecting towards it. I will just interpret it as "the link roads have no name". | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177715053 ; closing. | |
| 5128920 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | 潔麗乾洗有限公司 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | We have https://www.kleaners.hk/ , but it doesn't say anything about possible outlets. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Upon survey, no such thing here. Closing. | |
| 5139637 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: review toll info |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | specifically, looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/246153300 , because it can also provide access to the tunnel office itself, should it not get toll=yes (directional information notwithstanding)? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Imo roads that are highway restrictive as to who can use it (e.g. most tunnel administration building service roads) should not affect things like `highway=` or `toll=`, otherwise you would give factually incorrect information to the 99.999% of people who will never get to use such roads in their lives. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | highly restrictive* sorry for the typo | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This is a good point. Let's keep it toll=yes | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Then, nothing to do here. Closing. | |
| 5141260 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: junction review |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Scope is quite large. Highway reviewed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177673057 , which involves a junction repositioning. So, next step is to clean up the bus relations, etc. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Bus relations cleaned up with openstreetmap.org/changeset/177684530 | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Residue cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177686818 All done; closing. | |
| 4593519 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | N220934 E1134153 ZGZU Boundary |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 4593522 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | N221344 E1133957 ZGZU Boundary |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 678998 | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | opened | imfayc | 番茄屋葡國菜 柯利维喇街6号金兴大厦地下（大三巴牌坊附近） (OSM data version: 2016-03-14T15:50:02Z) #mapsme |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Has website https://www.tomatohouse-macau.com/ , but no such site here. Closing. | |
| 4043644 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | airplanehimman | Mycow |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 2055462 | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | opened | --- | PET STORY 寵物手作零食 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This area is a museum / fire station. Can't possibly have a shop here. Closing. | |
| 3813969 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | firen777 ♦1 | Unable to answer "What’s the name of this street?" for https://osm.org/way/673662847 via StreetComplete 53.3: Part of the 俾利喇街 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177676926 ; closing. | |
| 1955342 | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | opened | e2smart | Wan Heng Hong Equipment of Kitchen Limited |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | See http://www.wanhengmacau.com/ | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | It has an address for the office, but the address is not here. Closing. | |
| 5105251 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: use motorway_link for multi-exit end-of-line junctions (e.g. see Western Harbour Crossing). |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | It turns out Route 6 is described as "merges into Route 3 (Kwai Chung Side)" (see https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/hk_strategic_route_and_exit_number_system/map/r6/index.html ) | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | This has no effect, as it's the same for others https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/hk_strategic_route_and_exit_number_system/map/r3/index.html | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | (There's even Rt 3 end on both directions) | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Counterpoint: Route 7 states "merges into Route 5 (Tsuen Wan side)" (see https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/hk_strategic_route_and_exit_number_system/map/r7/index.html ); we map it as "trunk road all the way". | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Northern terminal is further complicated by Tsing Long Hwy being on Rt 9 between the Interchange and San Tin Hwy north of NU22. It would be as if CKB is on Rt 3 between WHC and WKH. On the other hand, here it's complicated by Rt 9 merges into `noref=yes` Lin Cheung Rd first. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | If we are willing to break the "one road physical cross-section -> one OSM way" rule, then the solution becomes trivial. | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Another counterpoint: Look at the Route 1 / Route 9 superposition near Racecourse. I think a solution is possible while staying inside the "one cross-section -> one way rule". | |
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | 1. That's unacceptable 2. I don't see what's the relevance here. There's no Rt 3 and 6 concurrency. | |
| 10 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 11 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 12 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I now see Route 3 -> Route 6 is using motorway; this makes sense because we have precedent for this in Route 5 -> Route 7, which contains an exit for Route 5 itself and also provide the (branching) starting point for Route 7. I see Route 6 -> Lin Cheung Road is also using motorway. Upon rethinking, I have no real proposals/ideas for the Lin Cheung Road -> Route 3 part. If anything, this can be revisited in the indeterminate future when highway reclassification happens. Then, nothing to do here. Closing. | |
| 5093604 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Various "dots" exist in this area with nothing but "name=Yau Ma Tei Interchange"; what for? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | Seems another user omission. In general, `junction=yes` can be used for named junctions, and the confusingly UK-named `=motorway_junction` for exits. However in this case, HK has the special practice of gazetting some roadways to be named "Interchange" as "streets", and it's not straightforward to determine the extent of YMT Interchange when it overlaps with Jordan Rd. For consistency and better support, they can still be considered. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | What I mean is, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2861669105 this is just a named "dot". The meaning is unclear. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦475 | ||
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I remember seeing named dots in the subway tracks, and that's to help with identifying which rail path the node belongs to when the rail paths are overlapping. Here the shape is complex, but the overlapping is minimal, so we may just clear the names from the dots. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177674914 ; closing. | |
| 5132153 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦475 | I vaguely remember https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341043773 does not exist anymore. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Old imagery (Bing Maps) and new imagery (ESRI World) both say "no crossings here". | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Iirc the barriers prohibiting jaywalking were removed in 2019, which could justify `crossing=informal` as it is no longer illegal to cross. However the barriers were readded later, making it `crossing=no` again. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | "2019" has too much ambiguity to be helpful to OSM mapping. Informal crossings are disallowed within x meters from legal crossings https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1180365855 . I forgot/dunno what x is. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I quote Cap. 374G (39)(a)(ii): > No pedestrian shall cross a road within 15 m of a light signal crossing otherwise than at the crossing where such lights operate. This is around 39 metres from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1180365855. We can probably do `not:highway=footway` + `not:footway=crossing` + `crossing=no` + `was:highway=footway` + `was:footway=crossing` + `was:crossing=informal`. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | No need to invoke other crosswalks, but you should measure from the crosswalks at this intersections, which is within 15m. It's illegal to climb over barriers, and cross within 15m of footbridges. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,212 | At least that's my understanding. You must detour via the upstream intersection, or go C-shaped around the intersection. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I was thinking the footbridge doesn't count because it goes to a different place, but from the wording of the law it seems like it counts anyway... | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I scoff at "it seems like it counts anyway". If laws are this expressively precise (I wish), then we don't even need the Judicial Review. e.g. I hear there is a JR case unrelated to pedestrian crossing arguing that it's unclear/ambiguous which "right hand side" the law is talking about. Hardcore theoretical physics in the legal system, yay. A reasonable interpretation would be "you can't cross the road like this if there's dedicated facility within range along the same direction". In this case, we don't (it's out of range), but there's no marking, and there's likely guardrails, so indeed we can make it be "was"/"not". | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177673697 ; closing. | |
| 5141115 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | This https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/394542126 does not seem like should be primary_link . |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Probably simply forgotten to change after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157459541 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Believable. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177671084 ; closing. | |
| 5139696 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | todo: Confucian religion landuse? We build a new temple here? What even is this? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Apparently, is this https://www.hk01.com/18%E5%8D%80%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E/815590/%E9%91%BD%E7%9F%B3%E5%B1%B1%E7%AB%99%E5%95%9F%E7%BF%94%E8%8B%91%E6%97%81%E6%93%AC%E5%BB%BA5%E5%B1%A4%E9%AB%98%E5%AD%94%E5%BB%9F-%E5%AD%94%E6%95%99%E5%BB%A3%E5%A0%B4%E4%BD%9C%E7%B7%A9%E8%A1%9D-%E9%A0%82%E5%B1%A4%E8%A8%AD%E5%A4%A7%E6%88%90%E6%AE%BF | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177671030 ; closing. | |
| 2434008 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | Dogistic Limited 一寵愛有限公司 |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | 楊展博 | ||
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | According to the Company Registry, a company with the same name has been dissolved in October 2020. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Then, it seems we may close this? | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Depends on your attitude towards closing notes without surveying. Although I know you might be leaning towards armchair-closing notes from previous discussions elsewhere, there are notes nearby that cannot be armchair-mapped e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5128521 , so if someone decides to visit there they can visit this place too to check if the named feature exists. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | The armchair thought is, if the company is closed, then it can't possibly have any in-use features irl. What remains would be e.g. abandoned:building=yes Then, if we don't already have their info on OSM, then we might as well don't do it, and e.g. close the relevant notes. I rather add in-use features in urban areas than to add possibly abandoned features in extra rural areas. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I mean, there's a chance the company that closed has nothing to do with the POI at this location and just coincidentally shares a name. Although this might be too unlikely. | |
| 5034341 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?) |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | Any updates to this note? (semi regular regional note review, to try to close low-hanging notes and declutter the map) | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦475 | I will make a changeset soon. You might have noticed I am making less changesets recently, mainly due to exhaustion from real life. There are around 30 notes which I have surveyed and can make a changeset to resolve it anytime I wanted to, but haven't. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,371 | I mean, I have also slowed down. I now convince myself to don't look at new notes until the previous batch is cleared. Or just create short-lived notes. |