Note Activities of kingkingHK

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	~ 17 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	~ 2 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	~ 7 hours 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	~ 4 hours 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.
5195386 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Is there a "Sushi Masa x Taiko Sake" at Shop H2B, G/F, Fashion Walk, 9 Kingston Street?
	2	~ 20 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Turns out, it is already mapped: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13343748386 but the info seems wrong/incomplete
	3	~ 1 day ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183778796 ; closing.
5318728 Category: Unknown	1	~ 8 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89595505 , etc. descriptive name
	2	~ 1 day ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183778116 ; closing.
5324843 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	todo: physical separation along median (check Mapillary)
	2	~ 1 day ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183777664 ; 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	~ 5 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	By survey, should actually be 315B.
	4	~ 2 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183736553 ; closing.
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	~ 5 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	By survey, indeed.
	4	~ 2 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183736432 ; closing.
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	~ 30 days 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	~ 30 days 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	~ 29 days 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	~ 28 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	~ 28 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	~ 28 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	~ 28 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	~ 28 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	~ 28 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	~ 27 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	~ 26 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	~ 5 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	By survey, there are actually no u-turn restrictions for all directions of this junction.
	27	~ 2 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183725357 ; 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	~ 9 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Someone on the OSM World Discord server said it was 132 kV, judging by the number of insulators.
	10	~ 2 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183698815 ; closing.
5326149 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 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	~ 4 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	I haven't looked into the details yet, but first thought: airport control area =/= airport?
	3	~ 3 days ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	@vectorial8192 Only the part in between belongs to AA (previously quarantine facility)
	4	~ 3 days ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	@kingkingHK I did use `designation=` https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30774625
	5	~ 3 days ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209353389
	6	~ 2 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	~ 2 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	~ 2 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	~ 1 day 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	~ 8 hours 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.
2464998	1	~ 5 years ago	opened	Dixon313	Caution on degrading trail type: Joining an easy shaded mid-level concrete path (1Km, coming from Tsing Shan Monastery for CLP pylon maintenance) is a bare mud trail (400m, southbound downhill to Sun Tuen Mun Center). Unprepared leisure hikers may have to turn back here.
	2	~ 5 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	By survey, indeed.
5323246 Category: Unknown	1	~ 6 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	~ 6 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	~ 6 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	~ 6 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	~ 5 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	~ 5 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`
5312241 Category: Unknown	1	~ 12 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	todo/issue: status?
	2	~ 12 days ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	What is the status of this T2 concourse?
	3	~ 12 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Under constrution. Read the news.
	4	~ 12 days ago	reopened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371
	5	~ 12 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	~ 12 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	~ 12 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	~ 11 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	~ 11 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	~ 11 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	~ 10 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	~ 8 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	~ 7 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.
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	~ 16 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	~ 16 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Cf. island platform termini with reversing tracks before the station
	10	~ 14 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	~ 14 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	~ 10 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	~ 8 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	~ 7 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	~ 7 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	~ 7 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	~ 7 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	~ 7 days ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	In terms of FOSS: Matrix somewhat works (but no threads and posts)
	19	~ 5 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.
5296568 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: physical separation; draw as two ways
	2	~ 8 days ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Aerial imagery is showing something that looks like concrete slabs/kerbs.
	3	~ 7 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Yes, which is physical separation.
5304280 Category: Unknown	1	~ 17 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	issue: why suddenly highway=secondary ? seems can be just highway=tertiary all the way through.
	2	~ 17 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Connaught Road W -> QRW?
	3	~ 14 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	~ 14 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	~ 9 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	If no further discussion after a week or two I will close this note.
	6	~ 9 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	~ 8 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	~ 7 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	~ 7 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.
5309379 Category: Unknown	1	~ 14 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Family Medicine Clinic
	2	~ 13 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	~ 8 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	~ 8 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.
5294038 Category: Unknown	1	~ 23 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1505900060 descriptive name
	2	~ 23 days ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	probable motivation https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5276301
	3	~ 11 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	~ 10 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	~ 10 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	~ 8 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	~ 8 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Indeed. Further reading: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
4015896	1	~ 2 years ago	opened	Ian Ho ♦33	The pylons are under the project "Removal of 132kV Overhead Line and Pylons for P-Line". Project started 2022. Total 24 pylons will be removed.
	2	~ 8 months ago	commented	HenryEK ♦29	what change is wanted here then
	3	~ 8 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Relevant note: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015897 It seems like the latest state has been somewhat reflected afterhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150035446 etc, I guess still can review the latest state of the towers e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785
	4	~ 7 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Also see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015897
	5	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	I see the pylon nodes are deleted from OSM some time ago.
	6	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Yeah, but there are still some left e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785 , would need to check if they still exist to decide the next steps.
	7	~ 5 months ago	closed	bpaz709394
	8	~ 5 months ago	reopened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371
	9	~ 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.
	10	~ 9 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183398143 ; closing.
4015897	1	~ 2 years ago	opened	Ian Ho ♦33	The pylons are under the project "Removal of 132kV Overhead Line and Pylons for P-Line". Project started 2022. Total 24 pylons will be removed.
	2	~ 2 years ago	commented	HighlandPaddyHK ♦1	Confirmed, I went to visit Osborn's Cairn and the pylon was gone!
	3	~ 1 year ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	I guess this means the towers are now physically gone? Will need to update OSM data to reflect this (eg there is still a tower area https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785 )
	4	~ 1 year ago	commented	Ian Ho ♦33	When I add the notes, the removal project was still work in progress. Some of the pylons were not removed yet. I did visit 1 or 2 removed pylon sites. Only the base concrete structure (no more than 1 meter high) remains after removal. So I think when the project is complete, we can update OSM.
	5	~ 7 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Also see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015896 It seems the towers are now gone?
	6	~ 7 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173778439 But I guess can still verify if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785 exists?
	7	~ 5 months ago	closed	bpaz709394
	8	~ 5 months ago	reopened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371
	9	~ 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.
	10	~ 2 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	By survey, the quoted way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785 no longer exists, and there are nothing remaining other than the concrete bases.
	11	~ 9 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183398143 ; closing.
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	~ 19 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	~ 19 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	~ 14 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	~ 14 days ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183159361 ; closing.
	7	~ 14 days ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	8	~ 14 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Isn't this note about the western radar? Your quoted article and changeset concerns only the eastern one.
	9	~ 13 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	~ 13 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	~ 10 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	What I mean is, the west ball is obviously removed. One should update that before closing this note.
	12	~ 9 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	~ 9 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	~ 9 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	~ 9 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	~ 9 days ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Should be for real this time. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183398579 ; 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	~ 3 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	~ 3 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	~ 14 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Please see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183154394 works.
	9	~ 9 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	~ 9 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	~ 9 days ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	12	~ 9 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Sorry misclick. ...and I think the conclusion is that railway stations can stay as a node.
	13	~ 9 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Anyway, adopted Kovoschiz's suggestion of `area:railway=station`. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183397689
	14	~ 8 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.
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	~ 16 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	If no further comments I will map the playground and tag it as `access=permissive`.
	20	~ 14 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	~ 14 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	~ 9 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	~ 9 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	~ 8 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	~ 8 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.
2218616	1	~ 6 years ago	opened	kleeah	Public transport Routing at Lam Tin to be added
	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	~ 2 months ago	closed	Josephfunny202603131237_
	6	~ 2 months ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	7	~ 2 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
	8	~ 9 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	The following buses call at Lam Tin (terminus, not road side): 1. KMB 14 (China Ferry Terminal → Lei Yue Mun Estate) 2. KMB 14B (Ngau Tau Kok → Lam Tin (Kwong Tin Estate)) 3. KMB 14B (Lok Wah → Lam Tin (Kwong Tin Estate)) 4. KMB 14H (Yau Tong ↺ Shun Lee) 5. KMB 14X (Shung Tak Wai ↺ Tsim Sha Tsui) 6. KMB 15X (Hung Hom Station → Lam Tin (Kwong Tin Estate)) 7. KMB 42C (Lam Tin Station → Cheung Hang) 8. KMB 42C (Cheung Hang → Lam Tin Station) 9. KMB 89D (Lam Tin Station → Wu Kai Sha Station) 10. KMB 89D (Lam Tin Station → Wu Kai Sha Station (omit Hung Ngok House)) 11. KMB 89D (Wu Kai Sha Station → Lam Tin Station) 12. KMB 93M (Choi Ming → Po Lam) 13. KMB 215X (Kowloon Station → Lam Tin (Kwong Tin Estate)) 14. KMB 216M (Lam Tin Station ↺ Yau Tong Station) 15. KMB 252X (Lam Tin Station → Chi Lok Fa Yuen) 16. KMB 252X (Handsome Court → Lam Tin Station) 17. KMB 252X (So Kwun Wat → Lam Tin Station) 18. KMB 258A (Hung Shui Kiu (Hung Fuk Estate) → Lam Tin Station) 19. KMB 258D (Lam Tin Station → Po Tin) 20. KMB 258D (Po Tin → Lam Tin Station) 21. KMB 258P (Lam Tin Station → Hung Fuk Estate Hung Tin Road) 22. KMB 258P (Hung Shui Kiu (Hung Fuk Estate) → Lam Tin Station) 23. KMB 277A (Lam Tin Station → Sha Tau Kok) 24. KMB 277A (Sha Tau Kok → Lam Tin Station) 25. KMB 277B (Lam Tin Station → Kong Nga Po Hong Kong Police College) 26. KMB 277B (Kong Nga Po Hong Kong Police College → Lam Tin Station) 27. KMB 277E (Lam Tin Station → Tin Ping Estate) 28. KMB 277E (Tin Ping Estate → Lam Tin Station) 29. KMB 277E (Tin Ping Estate → Lam Tin Station (omit Ching Ho Estate)) 30. KMB 277P (Lam Tin Station → Tin Ping Estate) 31. KMB 277P (Tin Ping Estate → Lam Tin Station) 32. KMB 277X (Lam Tin Station → Luen Wo Hui) 33. KMB 277X (Luen Wo Hui → Lam Tin Station) 34. KMB 277X (Luen Wo Hui → Lam Tin Station (omit Wah Ming)) 35. KMB 277X (Wah Ming → Lam Tin Station) 36. KMB 600 (Anderson → Central (Rumsey Street)) 37. Cross-harbour Bus 601 (Po Tat → Admiralty (East))
	9	~ 9 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	38. Cross-harbour Bus 601P (Po Tat → Wing Kut Street) 39. Cross-harbour Bus 601P (Hiu Lai Court → Wing Kut Street) 40. Cross-harbour Bus 606 (Choi Wan (Fung Shing Street) → Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort)) 41. Cross-harbour Bus 606 (Choi Wan (Fung Shing Street) → Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort) (via Choi Ha Road)) 42. Cross-harbour Bus 606A (Choi Wan (Fung Shing Street) → Yiu Tung) 43. Cross-harbour Bus 606X (Kowloon Bay → Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort)) 44. Cross-harbour Bus 606X (Kai Yip → Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort)) 45. Cross-harbour Bus 606X (Kai Yip → Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort) (via Sheung Yuet Road stop)) 46. KMB 613A (On Tai (West) (Wo Tai House) → Heng Fa Chuen) 47. Cross-harbour Bus 619 (Shun Lee → Central (Macao Ferry)) 48. Cross-harbour Bus 619P (Shun Lee → Central (Macao Ferry)) 49. Cross-harbour Bus 641 (Kai Tak (Kai Ching Estate) → Central (Macao Ferry)) 50. Cross-harbour Bus 671 (Diamond Hill Station → Ap Lei Chau (Lee Lok Street)) 51. Cityflyer A22 (Lam Tin Station → Airport) 52. Cityflyer A22 (Lam Tin Station → Airport (via Cathay City)) 53. Cityflyer A22 (Airport → Lam Tin) 54. Cross-harbour Bus N619 (Shun lee → Central (Macao Ferry)) 55. Cross-harbour Bus N691 (Tiu Keng Leng → Central (Macao Ferry)) 56. KMB T277 (Lam Tin Station → Sheung Shui) 57. KMB T277 (Sheung Shui → Lam Tin Station) 58. KMB X42P (Tsing Yi Station → Lam Tin Station) Currently it seems like 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 29, 38, 39, 44, 45, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, and 57 are missing.
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	~ 19 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	If no further discussion I am inclined to simply remove all `substation=substation`.
	10	~ 18 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	~ 10 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183352652 ; 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	~ 10 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183351453 ; closing.
5077746 Category: Unknown	1	~ 6 months ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Rare data incompleteness: name:en of street https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243663400 ?
	2	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	irl totally no signage, and yet osm history insists this street has name.
	3	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Can be "informal name" / "loc_name", commonly used by people from that area but not officially recognise. However, this might be difficult to verify.
	4	~ 2 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Curiously, searching the name online returns absolutely no result, which shouldn't be the case for any name with actual use.
	5	~ 19 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	I propose removing this name from osm for being unverifiable.
	6	~ 10 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183345710 ; closing.
5296579 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways
	2	~ 16 days ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	This is extra easy because no bus relations are directly involved.
	3	~ 16 days ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Or not. The bollards (Mapillary) extend towards the non-bridge section.
	4	~ 16 days ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	We will start with the actual separation itself https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183032086
	5	~ 16 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	> The bollards extend towards the non-bridge section. Are you talking about the east side or west side?
	6	~ 14 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	~ 14 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Lgtm now, after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183136566 ?
	8	~ 10 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Lgtm; propose closing.
	9	~ 8 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	~ 8 days ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	East side done with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183409060
	11	~ 8 days ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Now, truly, all is done. Therefore, closing.
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	~ 14 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	I will remove `boat=no` and `fixme=` from Shing Mun River if no further comments.
	8	~ 14 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	~ 10 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183345102 ; closing.
5313162 Category: StreetComplete	1	~ 11 days ago	opened	Iulian Arcuș ♦6	Unable to answer "Do the trees here have needles or leaves?" – Tree Row – https://osm.org/way/780937954 via StreetComplete 63.1: Option is pines or leaves. They are palm trees
	2	~ 11 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Palm trees are broadleaved, no?
	3	~ 10 days ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	Yes, but user wants to add somewhere `=palm` ( most rigorously `taxon:en=` + `taxon:family:en=`
	4	~ 10 days ago	closed	Iulian Arcuș ♦6	Just doing the street complete level of detail so broadleaf is the answer I was looking for.
5312369 Category: Unknown	1	~ 12 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1322030181 name:zh of building? or no name?
	2	~ 12 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	~ 11 days ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Thanks for the finding. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183261119 ; closing.
5078742 Category: Unknown	1	~ 6 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	name:zh of park? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/576655997
	2	~ 5 months ago	commented	HenryEK ♦29	赫蘭道／淺水灣道花園 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1810025496
	3	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	@HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright?
	4	~ 5 months 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	~ 13 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183161334 ; 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	~ 14 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Nothing to do here, closing.
5078374 Category: Unknown	1	~ 6 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11620433869 What is this? Does this actually exist?
	2	~ 18 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	~ 14 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	The quoted node was created in 2024 when everything from 2019 should have vanished. But you can try.
	4	~ 14 days ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	You never know. To some foreigners, the protests never stopped. We can do trigo.
5292869 Category: Unknown	1	~ 24 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705014448 suspicious traffic signal
	2	~ 24 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	~ 14 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183153560 ; 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	~ 14 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	~ 14 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	~ 9 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.
5087537 Category: Unknown	1	~ 5 months ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	todo: Some clinics have generic names, which may be improved.
	2	~ 14 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	It turns out, the signs irl include "Chai Wan" in the name. Unless you were looking at a sign that I somehow missed, or the sign changed in the last 5 months, I really don't know why you did it like that. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183146037 ; closing.
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	~ 23 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	@Kovoschiz does https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181152791 resolve this note?
	12	~ 22 days ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	No, I didn't do anything on them, only `layer=`
	13	~ 19 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	~ 18 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	~ 15 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	~ 15 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	~ 14 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	~ 14 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	~ 14 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	~ 14 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	~ 14 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	~ 14 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	~ 14 days ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Or maybe I have misunderstood the bridge joint tagging.
5065723 Category: Unknown	1	~ 6 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Does this https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4349317190 actually exist?
	2	~ 6 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	probably public light bus hail-and-ride
	3	~ 6 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5065720 However, hail and ride is tagged with "hail_and_ride" role on the way in the light bus restriction, not with a bus stop node. Afaik `highway=bus_stop` should only be used when there's something physical there e.g. a pole.
	4	~ 6 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	* So the intention of this note is to check if there's anything physical indicating a (mini)bus stop at this location
	5	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Nothing here.
	6	~ 15 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183110736 ; closing.
5305499 Category: Unknown	1	~ 16 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705233079 suspicious traffic signals
	2	~ 16 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	~ 15 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	~ 15 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.
5257852 Category: Unknown	1	~ 1 month ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: bus stop vs stop position
	2	~ 15 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109753 ; closing.
5254676 Category: Unknown	1	~ 1 month ago	opened	EthanCK	The Commercial Press shouldn’t be here, it is already on this map but at a nearby location (near the junction of Sugar Street and Yee Woo Street) , so maybe delete this
	2	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	https://www.supretail.com.hk/sup-shop-address/3 agrees
	3	~ 15 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109667 ; closing.
5297353 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 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	~ 16 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	~ 15 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109341 ; closing.
4049857	1	~ 2 years ago	opened	Peter Newman ♦2,934	Unable to answer "How many cars can be charged here at the same time?" for https://osm.org/node/3494444748 via StreetComplete 55.1: Probably device rather than car charging
	2	~ 2 years ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Agree with the mobile phone charging type. However, there currently seems to have no global consensus on how to tag mobile phone charging stations.
	3	~ 1 year ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Update: it seems a new tag is available https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddevice_charging_station
	4	~ 1 year ago	commented	Peter Newman ♦2,934	I should clarify from my "probably" I'm not sure I actually eyeballed this specific unit to check it either way, just noted it was inside an airport so probably wasn't car charging. Although from your "agree" did you actually look at it then @vectorial8192
	5	~ 1 year ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	I never physically looked at the irl situation, but "obviously" it is not EV charging Will have to leave this open until god knows when
	6	~ 1 year ago	closed	楊展博
	7	~ 1 year ago	reopened	Peter Newman ♦2,934
	8	~ 1 year ago	commented	Peter Newman ♦2,934	Hi @楊展博 could you be a bit clearer about why you've resolved the note. You don't seem to have touched the node. Is it actually for charging vehicles?
	9	~ 1 year ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Guy was/is recently around resolving notes with no explanation.
	10	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	"Common sense" should be a strong enough source to support that this is a phone charging and not EV. I think we can make progress on this note.
	11	~ 16 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183066373 ; 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	~ 16 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183065880 ; closing. (Note: bus relations will be migrated in a separate changeset)
5296588 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways
	2	~ 16 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183056730 ; closing. (Note: bus relations will be migrated in a separate changeset)
	3	~ 16 days ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475
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	~ 21 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	~ 16 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	~ 14 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.
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	~ 19 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	~ 18 days ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	But what do you want to know?
	7	~ 16 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?
5302548 Category: Unknown	1	~ 18 days ago	opened	---	Our Centre
	2	~ 18 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	~ 18 days ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	4	~ 18 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	~ 18 days ago	reopened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371
	6	~ 18 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	~ 17 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Ok, understandable. Close this?
	8	~ 17 days ago	closed	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	It's simply to close it with a comment. Not hoping for resposne.
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	~ 23 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	~ 22 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	~ 22 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	~ 22 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	~ 22 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	~ 22 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	~ 19 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	~ 18 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	~ 17 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.
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	~ 4 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	~ 4 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	~ 19 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).
5300387 Category: Unknown	1	~ 19 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	~ 19 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?
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	~ 19 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 ??????
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	~ 19 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	~ 19 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	~ 18 days ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182963664 ; closing.
5296627 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: physical separation; draw as two ways
5296607 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: bridge has physical separation; draw as two ways
5296606 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: bollard separation; draw as two ways
5296585 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: physical separation; draw as two ways
5296580 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways
5296578 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways
5296577 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways
5296576 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: physical separation; draw as two ways
5296571 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways
5296561 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways
5296560 Category: Unknown	1	~ 22 days ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways
5292909 Category: Organicmaps	1	~ 24 days ago	opened	Angus Lee ♦21	"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: 2026-05-03T01:52:52Z POI name: 薩莉亞 Saizeriya POI types: cuisine-italian amenity-restaurant #organicmaps ios 2026.05.12-1-ios
	2	~ 23 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	https://www.saizeriya.com.hk/shop-info/?lang=en agrees
5292908 Category: Organicmaps	1	~ 24 days ago	opened	Angus Lee ♦21	"Relocated." 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: 2026-05-03T01:52:52Z POI name: 大家樂 Café de Coral POI types: amenity-fast_food #organicmaps ios 2026.05.12-1-ios
	2	~ 23 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	https://www.eatcdc.com/eng/main/terms.jsp?id=B2D0P2M0R0Y891E8L1D18188M4G0A802 agrees (Also, you can just update the map yourself if you know about the situation.)
5213335 Category: Organicmaps	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	Angus Lee ♦21	"Correct place name is SP_CE but the app doesn’t allow _." OSM snapshot date: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z POI name: SP CE POI types: amenity-cafe internet_access-wlan #organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios
	2	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Yes
	3	~ 24 days ago	closed	pauline6luk
	4	~ 24 days ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	5	~ 24 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
	6	~ 4 days ago	closed	Yogicat ♦13
5287505 Category: Unknown	1	~ 28 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/558985076 , etc.
	2	~ 28 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	? only connects to IEC, or is that not what you are trying to point out
	3	~ 27 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	~ 27 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	~ 27 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	~ 27 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	~ 27 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	~ 27 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	~ 26 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	~ 26 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	~ 26 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	~ 26 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	~ 24 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	~ 24 days ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	15	~ 24 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.
5287748 Category: Organicmaps	1	~ 28 days ago	opened	Vera German ♦149	"Why isn’t the category just “place of worship”/church???" OSM snapshot date: 2026-04-04T03:36:32Z POI name: 耶穌基督後期聖徒會灣仔教堂 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints POI types: amenity-place_of_worship-christian-mormon #organicmaps ios 2026.04.07-8-ios
	2	~ 28 days ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	It is just `amenity=place_of_worship`, what are you talking about?
	3	~ 27 days ago	commented	Vera German ♦149	The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - why specifically this type of church has its one icon on a map, all I meant. So far in all countries I’ve only seen one icon for all Christian churches
	4	~ 27 days ago	closed	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	1. Please ask the app, or discuss elsewhere, for questions about the app. This is not a data problem. 2. Simple, it's exactly because `denomination=mormon` has been coded with an icon in that app. It has been explained there. https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/issues/4931 https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/pull/5821 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolism_in_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Guidelines
	5	~ 27 days ago	reopened	Kovoschiz ♦2,212
	6	~ 27 days ago	closed	Kovoschiz ♦2,212
5286470 Category: Unknown	1	~ 29 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	todo/issue: review petrol station (confusing layering)
	2	~ 29 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	~ 18 days ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182981837 ; closing.
5286430 Category: Unknown	1	~ 29 days ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736802187 "Eco" is not a known fuel company; outdated info?
	2	~ 29 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	~ 28 days ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	@vectorial8192 It's you don't know. They existed before. Exited the market. It's Towngas.
	4	~ 28 days ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	@kingkingHK It's not an adjective "eco" for eco-friendly. It's a noun. `brand:en=Eco`
	5	~ 22 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	~ 19 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	~ 18 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	~ 18 days ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182974426 ; closing.
5208863 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	Mateusz Konieczny ♦38,208	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 ♦38,208	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 ♦38,208	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 ♦38,208	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.
5274944 Category: Unknown	1	~ 1 month ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: slip lane opened?
	2	~ 30 days ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	It's for the footbridge. Should be opened around the same time.
	3	~ 30 days ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	(Should be to open)
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.
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™).
5270671 Category: Unknown	1	~ 1 month ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo/issue: verify physical separation
5269824 Category: Unknown	1	~ 1 month ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo/issue: review mapping of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16312559 ; probably against "relations are not categories"
5269556 Category: CoMaps	1	~ 1 month ago	opened	Hayden wong	"已經開放了給公眾使用不是在建道路" OSM snapshot date: 2026-04-05T19:23:11Z POI name: 粉嶺繞道 Fanling Bypass POI types: hwtag-nobicycle highway-construction hwtag-nofoot hwtag-oneway #CoMaps android 2026.04.07-8-Google
	2	~ 1 month ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	No it is not.
5267129 Category: Unknown	1	~ 1 month ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo/issue: this section of Kwok Shui Road drives on the right, but the turning circle is clockwise?
	2	~ 1 month ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	May be editing mistake (HK-wide)
	3	~ 1 month ago	closed	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1704049753/history/5
5267124 Category: Unknown	1	~ 1 month ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo/issue: some parts of Heung Yip Road should be bridges
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`
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	~ 18 days ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Upon closer look, not enough information. How does this intersect with the parking area on the south side?
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.
5264444 Category: Unknown	1	~ 1 month ago	opened	---	Edited node/11752363006 實惠 PRICERITE (Supermarket): ! Place was marked permanently closed. Suggested location change: 22.2821916, 114.1273465 -------- Submitted from https://osmapp.org/node/11752363006
	2	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	https://www.pricerite.com.hk/hk/en/storeInfo/ agrees
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.
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.
5214067 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	---	Fairy Pita
	2	~ 2 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not too sure what this means. Does anyone know?
	3	~ 1 month ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Meaning is unclear; 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.
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.
5034442 Category: Unknown	1	~ 7 months ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Should this be a Family Medicine Clinic?
	2	~ 7 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Seems like it; the placement makes it very unobvious.
	3	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Interestingly, it seems there are 2 entrances: one at the low side (Queen's Road), and another at the high side (Hospital Road). Will need to look at this again.
	4	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Indeed there is a FMC here.
	5	~ 1 month ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Not uncommon to have two entrances, especially considering the hilly terrain of this area. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181716103 ; closing.
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.
5259988 Category: Unknown	1	~ 1 month ago	opened	---	路不通行
	2	~ 1 month ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; 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。
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.
5215003 Category: Organicmaps	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	Angus Lee ♦21	"Shop A. Shop name is CHI Tachinomi." OSM snapshot date: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z POI has no name POI types: amenity-bbq #organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios
	2	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Correct
5128913 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	家寶洗衣西環域多利道1-15 號百年大廈一座地舖 C
	2	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Correct
	3	~ 1 month ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181540997 ; 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.
5239628 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	---	ooPharma LTD
	2	~ 1 month ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note invalid (item does not exist irl); closing.
5128915 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	晴天專業洗衣服務堅尼地城厚和街49號Shop A2
	2	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Correct
5128914 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	Goodwins of London (Kennedy Town Shop) 乾洗店堅尼地城卑路乍街183號
	2	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Correct
5231208 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Has this part of Kam Tin Road been widened?
	2	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Yes.
	3	~ 1 month ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181501054 ; 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.
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.
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.
5185673 Category: OsmAnd	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	---	perdestrian stair toward entrence #OsmAnd
	2	~ 2 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	We should be able to do this with old maps; unlikely the cemetery changed much.
	3	~ 1 month ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181215894 ; closing.
5134778 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	todo: station is too small
	2	~ 1 month ago	closed	フーヴァー　リー ♦224	Solved
	3	~ 1 month ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	4	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
5128949 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	Missing Location: 保美洗衣灣仔盧押道11-13號修頓商業大廈
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Correct
	3	~ 1 month ago	closed	フーヴァー　リー ♦224
	4	~ 1 month ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	5	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
5128944 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	清深洗衣專門店 Oceanic Laundry Shop 灣仔晏頓街1號安定大廈
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Correct
	3	~ 1 month ago	closed	フーヴァー　リー ♦224
	4	~ 1 month ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	5	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
5128946 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	Missing Location: Sunshine Laundry Convenience Store 自助洗衣店 http://www.sunshinelaundry.com.hk/
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Correct
	3	~ 1 month ago	closed	フーヴァー　リー ♦224
	4	~ 1 month ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	5	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
5128947 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	Missing Location: 天天洗衣 Daily Laundry 灣仔莊士敦道36-42號聯發大廈地下36A1舖
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Correct
	3	~ 1 month ago	closed	フーヴァー　リー ♦224
	4	~ 1 month ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	5	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
5128950 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	Missing Location: 保仕乾洗公司地舖, Shun Pont Commercial Building, 9號 Thomson Rd, Wan Chai
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Correct
	3	~ 1 month ago	closed	フーヴァー　リー ♦224
	4	~ 1 month ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	5	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
5128943 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	Missing Location: British Dry Cleaners 英商乾洗灣仔月街7號 http://www.britishdrycleaners.com/
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Correct
	3	~ 1 month ago	closed	フーヴァー　リー ♦224
	4	~ 1 month ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	5	~ 1 month ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
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	~ 1 month 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	~ 1 month 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	~ 4 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	~ 1 month 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	~ 1 month 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.
2337702	1	~ 5 years ago	opened	厕所位	"廁所" POI name: 大欖郊野公園 Tai Lam Country Park POI types: boundary-national_park OSM data version: 2020-07-14T11:22:37Z #mapsme
	2	~ 1 month ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Absolutely nothing on aerial imagery, this area is also so remote and hilly it does not make sense to build a toilet here. This is probably just yet another case of maps.me placing notes at the centroids of large polygons, so this is essentially a note without a location, thus unactionable. Closing
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	~ 1 month 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.
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.
5239843 Category: Organicmaps	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	Tommy Lo ♦0	"102A" OSM snapshot date: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z POI has no name POI types: wheelchair-yes highway-elevator #organicmaps android 2026.03.11-12-Google
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5239740
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.
4577980 Category: unknown	1	~ 1 year ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Abandoned railway information is very debatable since it can no longer be observed IRL; it has been fully deconstructed (except for a tiny section as an abandoned railway bridge), and should be removed.
	2	~ 1 year ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	This is debated, but a trackbed or strip of land qualifies as `=abandoned` for what's acceptable. Besides the bridge and Yau King Ln, there's actually embankments left, and some cut slopes seem unmodified.
	3	~ 1 year ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	The trackbeds is most probably all gone, but not sure about the embankments; my working theory is that the CUHK Campus Circuit North ate up some of the old embankments, and so in practice the abandoned railway is not observable.
	4	~ 8 months ago	commented	HenryEK ♦29	the trackbeds are entirely gone. this was done around 1996 when reclaimation reformed tolo harbour front there is almost no sections of abandoned track still left untouched in hong kong
	5	~ 8 months ago	commented	HenryEK ♦29	frankly even though you say the embankment is enough to keep this abandoned railway thing, it would be like adding "abandoned building" role to something just because the foundation ruins are present, instead of marking them as ruins
	6	~ 8 months ago	commented	HenryEK ♦29	i checked every former line of track i know, and theyre all present on the map as features despite not having any sort of indication of their former presence i dont know about you but you know maybe stuff that literally doesnt exist on the map should not exist on the map?
	7	~ 8 months ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	`railway=abandoned` has a different meaning from `building=` + `abandoned=yes`
	8	~ 8 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	I will only add that in OSM, there seems to exist a British-culture-inspired effort to treat railway features differently than other non-railway features.
	9	~ 8 months ago	commented	HenryEK ♦29	but u do understand what i mean right? i mean for the sha tau kok railway which was dismantled over 90 years ago, its still added onto the map theres like no trace of it besides a few milestones and a station
	10	~ 8 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	@seurish I get what you are trying to say (that's why I opened this note), but so far I have seen the argument of "it helps understand how things are like this today". Extending on this, there are relations in OSM that will likely never happen (see KCR's Northern Loop; and the LRT Sam Shing hypothetical tracks drawn by myself). I am thinking, perhaps the criteria should be whether there are visible traces of the past/hypothetical railway irl; and unfortunately this section of KCR tracks is "pinned into existence" because of this single abandoned railway bridge, which to me is a bit too crazy. I see no problem removing KCR's Northern Loop relations in favor of MTR's Northern Loop relations, but this Pak Shek Kok abandoned rail situation is on the edge.
	11	~ 8 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	@seurish Well, re Sha Tau Kok Railway, I would just like to point out that the addition was not without disagreements: see Kovoschiz's comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145944753
	12	~ 7 months ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	Roads, paths, and embankments qualify. So both can be examined.
	13	~ 7 months ago	commented	HenryEK ♦29	so its just gonna stay like this then?
	14	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	1. You can actually see an embankment right east of Cheung Tai Road. 2. Government copyrighted maps say the cuttings west of the bridge still follow the curve of the railway (which is different from Yau King Lane); we can easily do a survey to verify this. 3. If you toggle on older imagery from before the CUHK stuff were built (which is not too long ago, perhaps ~6 years), you can see the entire embankment of the east fully intact. It's far more than just a "single abandoned railway bridge". I see no problem in keeping it. Also, re Sha Tau Kok Railway, afaik the embankments for the sections deviating from the road still exists.
	15	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	If no counter-argument in a few weeks I will be closing this note as "nothing to do here". I am also planning to delete Wo Hop Shek Branch as no traces remain, and change Sha Tau Kok Railway to `=abandoned` (but probably need to redraw it as it is glued to many still-existing features, which afaik is wrong).
	16	~ 3 months ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	I had planned to do Sha Tau Kok branch. Need to check what side of the road it's on.
	17	~ 3 months ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	Glued to roadway is wrong, as it's not on the road. But sidewalk is fine, if that's where it's really on.
	18	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	I had thought about sketching it from old maps/aerial imagery. But they are not clear enough to show which side of the road it is on. I also found this pic: https://i0.wp.com/www.wetoasthk.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/sha-tau-kok-railway-spur-line-branch-station-at-Fanling.jpg which seems to show it is on the south-east of the road. (Also knowing what side of the road it is on is arguably not super important as the road might have been moved or widened, so the present geometry can't really be used as a reference.)
	19	~ 3 months ago	commented	HenryEK ♦29	GSGS3868 shows the STK branch as being present on the right side of STK road until crossing over (possibly a level crossing) near Wong Hang Au (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4990468861) Also seems to be the case for aerial photography around 1924
	20	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Yes, but it also shows the railway being parallel to the road beyond Shek Chung Au, which is not true according to 1924 aerials and still-existing embankments, leading me to question its trust-worthiness.
	21	~ 3 months ago	commented	HenryEK ♦29	I would suggest you just map the very obvious part (past Wong Hang Au) and leave the other part blank for the time being then. From what I can see in the aerials theres a tiny mark on the road where it looks like the route crosses but it could also just be coincidental
	22	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Wo Hop Shek Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179336974
	23	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Sha Tau Kok Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179482107
	24	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	No disagreements for over a month, then nothing to do here; 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.
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.
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.
5214733 Category: Organicmaps	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	7799388	"пик Виктория" OSM snapshot date: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z POI has no name POI types: building man_made-tower-communication #organicmaps android 2026.03.11-12-Huawei
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Google translate: "Victoria Peak" Then, note is not helpful, 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.
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.
5203129 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179758941 , check latest state of the bus stop
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180204953 ; closing.
5198573 Category: Organicmaps	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	herbertkwong	"Building name changed to Telecom Digital Tower since 2023" OSM snapshot date: 2026-02-16T20:35:12Z POI name: 宏開工業大廈 Wider Industrial Building POI types: landuse-industrial #organicmaps android 2026.02.20-1-Google
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	Josephfunny202603131237_
	3	~ 2 months ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	4	~ 2 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
	5	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180204079 ; closing.
5210960 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	---	1
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
5210559 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	Alisonlui	1
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	PLEASE don't use notes for personal uses unrelated to mapping.
5190973 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	---	Location of TMA
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	...does anyone know what "TMA" is?
	3	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Meaning is unclear; closing.
5208077 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	KAM7201	TM-250249
	2	~ 2 months ago	commented	KAM7201	TM-250249
	3	~ 2 months ago	closed	KAM7201
	4	~ 2 months ago	reopened	KAM7201
	5	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Meaning is unclear; closing.
5209369 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	Alisonlui	黃泥墩水塘
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
5209367 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	Alisonlui	千島湖
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
5209366 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	Alisonlui	休息點
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
5209361 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	Alisonlui	麥理浩徑第10段
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
5209359 Category: Unknown	1	~ 2 months ago	opened	Alisonlui	掃管笏村路
	2	~ 2 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
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.
5159218 Category: OsmAnd	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	private access, need modify road property #OsmAnd
	2	~ 2 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	~ 2 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.
5123548 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	awhchk ♦5	* The playground is mostly over the rooftop of KTSPS, but a section closest to Wai Yip Street is outside of the building and close to ground level. It seems the outline of the eastern part of the building is wrong. * The playground is part of Cha Kwo Ling Promenade, but confusingly some information boards also has the name "茶果嶺海濱公園（園景平台） Cha Kwo Ling Promenade (Landscaped Deck)". This seems to refer to the whole playground area. (The side road is marked on the map in grey which leads me to believe it is excluded.) * Dogs are prohibited in the playground area, but the part of the park closer to the sea is designated as "Inclusive Park for Pets" and the side road leading to it does not prohibit dogs. * The signs state the opening hours to be 7:00 am to 11:00 pm. Not sure if this only applies to the playground area or all of it.
	2	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	This https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16555245 already has the name Cha Kwo Leng Promenade.
	3	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	I can see the situation is complicated with the following: - Went there before, the building actually gently slopes to ground level, making it difficult to determine actual shape - The building is not actually a park; the park is at rooftop of building
	4	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Shape improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177480531 The deck is now mapped as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13452291567 Not sure how to do the pet access part; will leave open for now.
	5	~ 4 months ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	`name=茶果嶺海濱公園（園景平台） Cha Kwo Ling Promenade (Landscaped Deck)` should be wrong. That's a label for the part inside. Brackets should be presumed not proper names, only descriptive. Cf Scheduled https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap132?xpid=ID_1438402664274_001
	6	~ 2 months ago	closed	Josephfunny202603131237_
	7	~ 2 months ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	8	~ 2 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
4025846	1	~ 2 years ago	opened	---	盛水式加水機 2部 [飲用水] 洗手間下一層
	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	~ 2 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Correct
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.
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
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	~ 2 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.
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	~ 2 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	~ 2 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	~ 2 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.
5194221 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Are https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173722555 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1205445683 connected?
5115204 Category: Unknown	1	~ 5 months ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	special note: note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1036042 is covered by another note; 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	~ 3 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Adequately handled with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5155801 ; 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.
5037709 Category: Unknown	1	~ 7 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Has this construction https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/507734827 been finished? The only source seem to be https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2327347 , a note from five years ago. Aerial imagery also does not seem to show any signs of construction.
	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	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Alternatively, there is a chance the construction was quick and was completed while we were not looking. Aerial images are not clear enough to determine whether the rebuilding took place.
	6	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Yes, that's why I made this note so that someone in the future can check the current state when they pass by.
	7	~ 3 months ago	closed	dewbhudhew	11
	8	~ 3 months ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	9	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
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.
5117986 Category: Unknown	1	~ 5 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	There is no way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1459714974 is actually 30 degrees steep. (Also, `incline=` should be in percentage, not degrees.)
	2	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Haven't been to this exact area before, but never say never. This "extreme" slope is half believable.
	3	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not believable imo; it's 30 degrees, not percent. That's 57.7%. Probably can't even stand if it is that steep.
	4	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	I will point out that some "sidewalks" in this area are more like "side steps" due to extreme slope, and that "extreme" slopes are somewhat believable. As in, perhaps not really 30 degrees, but more like 20 degrees to 25 degrees, which is still "extreme".
	5	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	I would like to point out that 30 degrees is basically the steepness of an escalator/a step without landings. Even the "side steps" still have significant landings (how else would frontage access work?) simply because they aren't that steep. Also, this is a vehicular road. Do you really think vehicles can travel up such a steep slope?
	6	~ 4 months ago	closed	Cypp0847 ♦189	Did a quick survey at the site. The incline should be around 10 degree only or at most 15 degree.
	7	~ 4 months ago	reopened	Cypp0847 ♦189
	8	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	It's actually 10 degrees.
	9	~ 3 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179394604 ; closing.
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
5188594 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	---	There is a new building on construction and will be finished by next season
	2	~ 3 months ago	closed	Larry_marcon
	3	~ 3 months ago	reopened	Larry_marcon
	4	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Apparently, the entire university is still `access=private`. I guess we would have to wait until aerial imagery updates this.
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.
5191006 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4486222689 descriptive name; probably need to change to hail_and_ride role on route relations, which appears to be unmapped.
2776728	1	~ 4 years ago	opened	Whcohi ♦239	Small temple
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Highly doubt this; can't see anything on aerial imagery or government maps.
5188736 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: descriptive name https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6309742344
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.
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.
5036099 Category: Unknown	1	~ 7 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Now that "將軍澳賽馬會普通科門診診所 Tseung Kwan O Jockey Club General Out-patient Clinic" has been renamed to "將軍澳賽馬會家庭醫學診所 Tseung Kwan O Jockey Club Family Medicine Clinic", has there been any changes to the bus stops' naming?
	2	~ 3 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Nope. Closing.
5099408 Category: Unknown	1	~ 5 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1240353927 construction probably almost finished, according to aerial imagery.
	2	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	still pretty raw imo
	3	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Construction not yet finished, but can make a rough sketch first.
2865034	1	~ 4 years ago	opened	---	This portion of route is blocked.
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	It is covered in dense vegetation, but definitely not covered by anything.
	3	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	not blocked* sorry
5129081 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/889581234 construction probably finished, according to aerial imagery.
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Construction finished, but somehow I couldn't find the entrance irl.
5152477 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	HenryEK ♦29	node 5745603464 seems to no longer exist and is just a blank mount where the attraction once was as of yesterday https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5745603464
	2	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Don't know what it looked like originally, but indeed can't find any "railway models" here so this is believable.
	3	~ 3 months ago	commented	HenryEK ♦29	it was like those minature railways that went around and around from what i remember years ago but now its just a flat surface much like a table with nothing on it from what i found when i went like twenty days ago the area is locked behind a gate
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.
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.
5034337 Category: Unknown	1	~ 7 months ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Family Medicine Clinic
	2	~ 3 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178900392 ; closing.
5175205 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	fliicker	关系：multipolygon
	2	~ 3 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Yes, there is a multipolygon here. Note is not helpful; closing.
5174782 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	fliicker	关系
	2	~ 3 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
2218614	1	~ 6 years ago	opened	kleeah	Public Transport Routing at Ping Tin to be added.
	2	~ 4 years ago	commented	AWX4	Pls help thx
	3	~ 4 years ago	closed	MPatrick1013
	4	~ 4 years ago	reopened	MPatrick1013
	5	~ 5 months ago	closed	bpaz709394
	6	~ 5 months ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	7	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Not done yet; please don't resolve!
	8	~ 3 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	The following bus routes call at Ping Tin: 1. KMB 15 (Ping Tin → Hung Hom (Hung Luen Road)) 2. KMB 15 (Hung Hom (Hung Luen Road) → Ping Tin) 3. KMB 15A (Ping Tin → Tsz Wan Shan (North)) 4. KMB 15A (Tsz Wan Shan (North) → Ping Tin) 5. KMB 16 (Ping Tin → Mong Kok (Park Avenue)) 6. KMB 38 (Ping Tin → Kwai Shing (East)) 7. KMB 38 (Kwai Shing (East) → Ping Tin) 8. KMB 38P (Ping Tin → Kwai Shing (Central)) 9. KMB 38P (Kwai Shing (Central) → Ping Tin) 10. KMB 40A (Kwai Hing Station → Ping Tin) 11. KMB 40B (Kwai Chung Estate → Ping Tin) 12. KMB 88X (Ping Tin → Sui Wo Court) (Route A) 13. KMB 88X (Ping Tin → Sui Wo Court) (Route B) 14. KMB 88X (Sui Wo Court → Ping Tin) (Route A) 15. KMB 88X (Sui Wo Court → Ping Tin) (Route B) 16. KMB 603 (Ping Tin → Central (Central Ferry Piers)) 17. KMB 603 (Central (Central Ferry Piers) → Ping Tin) 18. KMB 603 (Ping Tin → Admiralty Centre) 19. KMB 603A (Ping Tin → Central Market) 20. KMB 603A (Rumsey Street → Ping Tin) 21. KMB 603P (Central (Central Ferry Piers → Ping Tin) 22. KMB 603S (Ping Tin → Gilman Street) Currently it seems like 18 to 22 is unmapped.
5173115 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: new footbridge?
	2	~ 3 months ago	closed	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178809016
5043056 Category: Unknown	1	~ 7 months ago	opened	Wright One ♦173	CLP substation
	2	~ 4 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.
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.
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.
5159342 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	fdjskalfjalwk；fjas；fjaslk
	2	~ 3 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
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.
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.
5160781 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	---	Regal HongKong Hotel
	2	~ 3 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Feature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198589969 ; closing.
5160778 Category: Unknown	1	~ 3 months ago	opened	---	Mid-Levels Escalator
	2	~ 3 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Feature already exists; 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.
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.
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.
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	~ 4 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™.
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.
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.
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.
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
5150565 Category: CoMaps	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	散掉的冰块 ♦3	This place does not exist: "旁边有一个同名的建筑物，那么这个作为工业用地存在的同名区域应当被删除" A CoMaps user reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-12-27T02:09:53Z POI name: 機場空運中心 Airport Freight Forwarding Centre POI types: landuse-industrial #CoMaps android 2026.01.08-11-FDroid
	2	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Probably should change the `building=` `name=` to `addr:housename=`, as per changeset discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172051373
	3	~ 4 months ago	closed	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	Already is. This is correct for single main building facility/site.
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.
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.
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	~ 19 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	~ 18 days ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182940740 ; 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.
5150364 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1213995468 construction finished?
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.
2414889	1	~ 5 years ago	opened	CvgUser	強記士多
	2	~ 5 years ago	closed	CvgUser	強記士多
	3	~ 5 years ago	reopened	Kovoschiz ♦2,212
	4	~ 1 year ago	closed	Cypp0847 ♦189	Added, but seemingly closed, pls confirm
	5	~ 4 months ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	6	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	...why would you resolve a note while admitting you don't have enough information to do so? Anyway, survey needed. But this might be difficult.
5150198 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1002255941 etc descriptive name
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.
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.
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.
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.
5034356 Category: Unknown	1	~ 7 months ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?)
	2	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here.
5034355 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.
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.
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.
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.
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	~ 14 days ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Redirect https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5309379
5034400 Category: Unknown	1	~ 7 months ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Family Medicine Clinic
	2	~ 6 months ago	closed	Zuborg2012 ♦1
	3	~ 6 months ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	4	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here.
5141828 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19120076 I think this has been completed? https://www.legco.gov.hk/tc/open-legco/press/yr2025/pr20251002-1.html
	2	~ 4 months ago	closed	Cypp0847 ♦189	https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177755230
3654302	1	~ 3 years ago	opened	---	Number of storeys: 22 Units per floor: 10 Population: 589
	2	~ 2 years ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Number of storeys already in OSM data. We don't store population; it is too volatile. We do not have "units per floor"; however, we do have "total units in building". But is it a good idea to store the total?
	3	~ 2 years ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	What do you mean? `building:flats=` is a standard, and I haven't seen any question about its usefuleness. Not having units per floor now doesn't mean it can't be created. Also it would be useful to have an `addr:flats=` per floor to show how they are numbered on each floor, as the format is not scalable to list all reliably.
	4	~ 1 year ago	closed	hersonsl
	5	~ 1 year ago	reopened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371
	6	~ 8 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Will there be any further discussion on this note? Discussions regarding units per floor and address format notation isn't very relevant to this note and is probably better suited elsewhere.
	7	~ 8 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	imo population should not be stored in osm, but I am not too familiar with how that works. can use this opportunity to recheck Tsui Chuk Garden building level/unit correctness, I guess.
	8	~ 8 months ago	commented	HenryEK ♦29	why is this note still active
	9	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	`population=` exists, and the 2021 census gives Tsui Chuk Garden population as 10071. However, the wiki says `population=` should only be used on `place=`.
4113548	1	~ 2 years ago	opened	---	Landslide
	2	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	It seems the note tries to describe landslide locations marked with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4113544 and also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4113546 From aerial imagery (ESRI) it seems the landslide did happen, and then was dealt with by some concrete cover.
	3	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	But then, what happened to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171937875 ? Is it still traversable? Survey recommended. Can also check things like details and extent of concrete cover, state of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109195927 etc.
	4	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Aerial imagery can be used to guesstimate the extent. It being concrete cover (i.e. no trees) enables this. My vibes are that the (vehicular) roads are still traversable. Otherwise, they can't do effective maintenance along the pond edge.
	5	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	It being this rural I personally strongly prefer armchair edits. Looking this in more detail, with the cleanliness of the concrete cover, I think the relevant section of the country trail is gone for good. Then, it seems survey is not needed.
	6	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	I am satisfied with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176668318 ; may close this.
	7	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	If the middle half is cut off by the two landslides, then it should be non-accessible (unless you climb the concrete cover), which, given it is a dirt road (see online info), should result in changes in `trail_visibility=`, `=obstacle`, or even `disused:highway=` or `abandoned:highway=`. Still need to survey to check this. c.f. e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1499178 I guess I will go there tomorrow or on Friday. > It being this rural You are making it sound like this is High Island East Dam or Fan Lau or something. It is a 30 minute walk from Tai Wai Station, according to Graphhopper.
	8	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	It being a dirt path left untouched for two years, I would just assume it's been reclaimed by nature and would become `was:highway`. I don't trust GraphHopper (or any other electronic calculator) when it comes to mountain walking. Also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5112232 to check whether the country trail was redesignated.
	9	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Anyhow, `access=no` is not appropriate for "reclaimed by nature" imo. What's stopping you form using it? And why did you make part of it `was:highway=` and part of it `highway=` + `access=no`?
	10	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	The blocked section became unobservable, and therefore gets `was:highway`. The unblocked sections are hopefully still observable but became dead paths, and therefore gets `access=no` to (at least visually) indicate the path is dead. Anyhow, you may always irl-check it.
	11	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	I feel like you are confusing "physical constraints" with "legal restrictions". No matter the state of the path, one may always try. Anyway, I went there today. Findings: - There is actually a third landslide between the Lower Reservoir dam and Lakeview Garden that you can kind of see from aerial imagery. - The section of the Country Trail east of the eastern landslide is perfectly normal; no difference from a normal hiking trail. No reclamation from nature at all - There is a rope connecting the eastern and the middle section of the Trail, sort of acting as a handrail. I don't know if you understand, I don't even know how to tag it. - The middle section of the Trail is significantly more reclaimed by nature, can barely see the way the Trail is going; significant wood overgrow blocking the Trail - I did not visit the western part of the Trail due to time constraints and exhaustion. - The vehicular road is normal, just with some gravel near the landslide. - It only took me 36 minutes to reach the eastern landslide from Tai Wai exit G, and I took a longer path (via Lower Shing Mun Road instead of Sha Tin Height Road) which Graphhopper says will take 50 minutes! I will make a changeset soon, but probably not today due to tiredness. I apologise if my previous messages in this thread was too direct/condescending; I was simply dissatisfied with your stubbornness in closing a note without surveying when aerial imagery is clearly insufficient. Imho if I were you I would just leave a comment with my thoughts and wait for someone to survey it, similar to what you did in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4756215 , but maybe that's just me.
	12	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	How to say it, it somewhat triggers me to see unfinished tasks lying around. If it can be somewhat reasonably finished by armchair (e.g. this, by aerial imagery + a bit of thinking) then I will do it by armchair. Sometimes it cannot be by armchair but can easily do irl-visit (e.g. various urban area notes). Then, I normally would shut and wait until someone else did it, or I somehow will go to that area and then look at them myself. Your quoted note/4756215 is the case where it cannot be by armchair and also cannot easily irl-visit there.
	13	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Imo the problem is that you are closing a note alongside with it, which makes it much harder for everyone else to spot potential rooms for improvement. Like, if I weren't here when you closed this note, would anyone notice changing the Country Trail to `access=no` is completely incorrect? Personally I prefer to make as little guesswork/thinking as possible as they are susceptible to human error/ignorance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5105750 Category: Unknown	1	~ 5 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Most towers on podiums are tagged with `building=`, not `building:part=`. Then, is it appropriate to use `building:part=` for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142662166 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142662162 ? Personally I don't see a tower as being the same building as its podium, but maybe that's just me.
	2	~ 5 months ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	That was Apple doing it without consulting us. Many others, eg TKO. The problem with `building:part=` is towers or podiums can have their own parts, meaning there's nothing in between to group those parts. (I'm guessing the proposal discussions didn't consider such complexities) They are considered as buildings by people too. Therefore practically and conceptually, they should use `building=` , not `building:part=`
	3	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	So, ultimately, is this a "todo" note or is this a "it do be like this" note?
	4	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Todo. My plan is to change all `building:part=` towers in Hong Kong to `building=`, then close this note.
5140972 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	4
	2	~ 4 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
5140971 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	3
	2	~ 4 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
5139307 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	Hong Kong
	2	~ 4 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; 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.
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.
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.
5034335 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.
5036242 Category: Unknown	1	~ 7 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Now that "錦田診所 Kam Tin Clinic" has been renamed to "錦田家庭醫學診所 Kam Tin Family Medicine Clinic", has there been any changes to the bus stop's naming?
	2	~ 7 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	It being KMB they probably won't even care about that.
	3	~ 7 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Also, now that I looked a bit deeper into the renaming, I am not sure whether it's the entire building being renamed, or that only the clinic (might not be in OSM) being renamed.
	4	~ 4 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	No change; closing
5137708 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: station is too small, and does not match track position.
	2	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	The hard part about this (and Sai Ying Pun Station) is that when the station is deep enough, the usual tunnel-building avoidance rule does not apply.
	3	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	However, one may walk in the pedestrian tunnels, allowing for dead reckoning. The hard part would be accounting for elevation change in the footways, which might not be uniform.
5137470 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	4
	2	~ 4 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
5137453 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	2
	2	~ 4 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
5137443 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	1
	2	~ 4 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not helpful; closing.
5134801 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	todo: Yau Tong Road ugly curves
	2	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177483693 ; would that be OK?
	3	~ 4 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Looks good, thanks. Closing.
5099138 Category: Unknown	1	~ 5 months ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39550532 , etc., ?
	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	It seems like this is difficult to survey on foot. Might need to take a bus that uses https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113146414 e.g. 13X, 28, 213X, 224X, 297, X6C.
	6	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	To clarify this note, this really feels like duplicate mapping. eg this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1205404050 has construction=motorway_Link but then https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113146414 already exists. This might be an armchair mistake. I think I tried to delete this in the past, but it was reverted.
	7	~ 4 months ago	commented	Kovoschiz ♦2,212	Updated (had already marked what they are supposed to be)
	8	~ 4 months ago	closed	Kovoschiz ♦2,212
5109341 Category: Unknown	1	~ 5 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	This section of Central Kowloon Route has been completed. Then, what is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/895849386 for?
	2	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Probably indeterminate/limbo; afaik later give to Metro Park. Can defer as "haven't done that yet".
	3	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	It's still fenced and has construction equipments inside, but can't see any activity. Probably `landuse=brownfield`? Or just do nothing and wait long enough it starts to become part of Metro Park.
	4	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	How to say it, afaik the government isn't fully sure whether there will be a Metro Park. The plans related to that kept changing.
	5	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	I think `landuse=brownfield` can be used for undetermined landuse?
	6	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Yes, we may do landuse=brownfield here.
5080646 Category: Unknown	1	~ 6 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Is Lantau Link Visitors Centre (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12271148) really a `highway=rest_area`?
	2	~ 5 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Hong Kong does not have rest areas. At most this is a park.
	3	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	But then, the park already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158307216, the relation merely includes it and the parking nearby (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903452942). Maybe that means the relation is useless?
	4	~ 5 months ago	closed	bpaz709394
	5	~ 5 months ago	reopened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371
	6	~ 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.
	7	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Not entirely useless. Using the American interpretation, a feature must have its "main building" plus its car park. Here, both sub-components are separated by the highway. I can see the mappers decided to use separate polygons to establish each component, then use a multipolygon (in OSM this would be a relation) to join them and describe the full feature. The logic is sound. It seems there is nothing to do here.
	8	~ 4 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	After consulting the international osm Discord server ( https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/428214296695144458/1453748562541154472 ), it seems like this can be considered a rest area. Then, really nothing to do here. Closing.
5133341 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Todo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303927
	2	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Bus relation cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177642107
	3	~ 4 months ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Residue stuff cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177642161 Therefore, resolved, and 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.
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.
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.
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.
5035617 Category: Unknown	1	~ 7 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Does https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4442544111 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1102985991 really exist? Why are there traffic signals in the middle of nowhere with no junctions?
	2	~ 7 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Could be "road too narrow" so they set up traffic signals to ensure mutex access. Not every traffic signal needs to be at a junction (e.g. also see tunnel entrance traffic signals).
	3	~ 7 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Could be, but then there are many roads in Hong Kong narrower and busier than this road that still doesn't have traffic signals, and afaik this road is actually wide enough for two light vehicles to pass by each other. Would still recommend a survey to prove/disprove their existence.
	4	~ 7 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	To add to this, aerial imagery (ESRI World Imagery) (see northeast) shows a section which is single-lane only. We may also faintly see a "stop here" line that often indicates a traffic signal. OSM also has `lanes=1` here. Mutex access is very very likely. It really isn't that wide. Perhaps survey is not needed because there is nothing to do.
	5	~ 7 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Well, that sounds believable. Then, situation clarified via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174362311 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174363905 ; closing.
	6	~ 4 months ago	reopened	kingkingHK ♦475
	7	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	I recently heard that this traffic signal is disused/malfunctioning with no plans of repair. This might be `disused:highway=traffic_signals`. Survey recommended.
5132152 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Todo: add residential entrances, more indoor footways, indoor details, etc. (continuing from https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5104381)
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.
5130601 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419082513 descriptive name, etc
	2	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	It mentions McDonald's. This https://mcdonalds.com.hk/en/find-a-restaurant/ says they have a McDonald's here but it isn't open 24/7. It then becomes "how should we map non-24/7 foot paths".
5129818 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2247720552 should probably be deleted
	2	~ 4 months ago	commented	Cypp0847 ♦189	https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177413789 wikidata relocated
	3	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	"Skylineblick" doesn't refer to any feature in Hong Kong, and is also a German descriptive name. Node can be deleted.
	4	~ 4 months ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177548991 ; closing.
5128521 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813803780 name
5125630 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	todo: bad railway curves
	2	~ 4 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	While the existing curve are indeed ugly/odd, with what you said in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175836968 in mind, I don't see what one can confidently do other than perhaps smoothening curves. The current ones are believable enough (buildings and tunnels avoid each other; curve not very sharp).
	3	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Correct. We can beautify/smoothen the railway curves.
	4	~ 4 months ago	commented	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	To clarify, I was surprised there could be an update to rail curves here. The previous version seem reasonable enough to not need refining.
	5	~ 4 months ago	closed	vectorial8192 ♦1,371	Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177327642 ; closing.
5122892 Category: Unknown	1	~ 4 months ago	opened	---	1
	2	~ 4 months ago	closed	kingkingHK ♦475	Note is not useful; closing.
5037695 Category: Unknown	1	~ 7 months ago	opened	kingkingHK ♦475	Has this construction https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/767852603 been finished? It was last modified almost six years ago, and aerial imagery does not seem to show any signs of construction.
	2	~ 5 months ago	commented	kingkingHK ♦475	Seems like it has.