| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5058584 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Should Tai Hang Sai Estate still retain landuse=residential? afaik judicial processes are withholding reconstruction, which means this estate is technically still inhabitable. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Have they not lost all the cases? | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Hi there, we are long into December, I guess that means we can close this note with no actions to take? | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Any updates on this note? | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | the sidewalk along wai chi street now has beams along it in preparation for demolition | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | The purpose of notes is to "assist others in mapping/editing". If no action can be taken, how is it not closable? Cf. e.g. we have previously closed notes from maps.me placed at the centre of large polygons, making the location inaccurate, on the basis that it is impossible to know where the action is needed, even though the text of the note is perfectly fine. | |
| 14 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | well man tai house is currently being demolished | |
| 15 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | On top of tracking demolition progress, I rather keep this note open than to have someone update the Estate to be a residential area, which is technically correct but contextually very inappropriate. We can keep this note open until we are sure the last of the JR processes are complete; the Company will likely make press releases when that happens, and then we will know. | |
| 16 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | New JR: https://hkcourtnews.com/%E5%A4%A7%E5%9D%91%E8%A5%BF%E9%82%A8%E6%B8%85%E6%8B%86%E7%88%AD%E8%AD%B0%EF%BD%9C%E5%B1%85%E6%B0%91%E7%94%B3%E5%8F%B8%E6%B3%95%E8%A6%86%E6%A0%B8%E3%80%80%E7%A8%B1%E3%80%8C%E6%94%9E%E5%9B%9E%E5%90%88/ Apparently the estate is still mail-able. Like, we are frustrated, the residents (plaintiff) are frustrated, the residents (unsued) are frustrated, the Company is frustrated, and the Judges are also frustrated. The spiciness is justified, need not feel bad. | |
| 17 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | man lee, man shun and man hong house have been demolished | |
| 18 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | man on and man tai house have been demolished | |
| 19 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @HenryEK if you know about the situation, you may create a changeset yourself. | |
| 5296571 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | There are no bus relations here, which is nice. One challenge is to align this correctly along the hillside. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Actually, if we also check the nearby roads, then the changeset would also involve bus relations. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | We will start with the physical separation itself, with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185268030 | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It seems there are blocking issues that I am entirely unable to deduce/guess. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | I see this mapping has largely been improved. The discussions about `bridge=` can happen elsewhere. Closing. | |
| 7 | ~ 22 hours ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 8 | ~ 22 hours ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | The bridge issue indeed concludes itself. Not closeable yet. The scheduled next step is to confirm that the bus relations are not ruined due to the changes. Holding open until (hopefully quick) inspection of related bus relations reveal no changeset-caused problems. Given that it was me who started work on this note, it makes sense for me to see it to completion, which I haven't done so yet. | |
| 5523601 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo / issue: Link website says there is a 7-11 here, but 7-11 website doesn't. What is going on? |
| 2 | ~ 19 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | There are no references to 7-eleven in this neighbourhood in OSM. There is literally nothing to do. Dubious identity of this "link website", but not important, because there's nothing to do. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 19 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 4 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 1. If it exists, there's something to do 2. It's Link REIT | |
| 5 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | > Link website says there is a 7-11 here > There are no references to 7-eleven ?????????????????? | |
| 6 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.linkhk.com/tc/shop/22000 | |
| 7 | ~ 18 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | It's not shown in the map, but listed below https://www.7-eleven.com.hk/zh/store https://www.7-eleven.com.hk/sites/default/files/2025-05/5.2-5.5 StoreList.pdf | |
| 8 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Can't blame me for misunderstanding this; "link" is a generic English word. | |
| 9 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | OK, but with this, we can establish that the map component is faulty. I shall automatically believe that the text list is legit, per "website = irl" principle. | |
| 10 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Also, it didn't help that, when OSM Carto was showing a "7 eleven" red text (some sort of commercial/retail feature), and then I tried to open iD to have a look, I found no references of "7 eleven" in OSM. @kingkingHK | |
| 11 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | "Common" sense: Link is a well-known company; public housing shopping centres are run by Link; Link runs a website. Shouldn't be difficult to understand. "Common" sense: if you don't understand, don't instant-close it. | |
| 12 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Someone tagged the entire shopping mall as 7-11, which is obviously wrong: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185020744 But I didn't know whether I should create a 7-11 node, because I am not even sure if it exists, hence this note. @vectorial8192 given your level of experience in osm I somewhat expect you to be able to look up object histories and understand what happened. | |
| 13 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Taking the simplest interpretation, I could not help but wonder what it means by some sort of HTTP web link website. Of course that counts as "spam" and can be instantly closed with no emotional attachment. (e.g. see protectkhnames) @kingkingHK the lack of any OSM information hinting towards "7 eleven" does not help your cause. At minimum you should leave a placeholder node with like "note=xxx" or "fixme=xxx", and then I will instantly know. This feels like you are deliberately setting me up for some mistake. | |
| 14 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Imo this note is extremely simple to understand. But for preservation of mental sanity, I will not continue arguing on this. | |
| 15 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | @kingkingHK retaining the information on OSM as some sort of live accessible data object would have greatly reduced followup efforts. Now you have made this an ordinary "start from scratch" note. Once again, I am disappointed. | |
| 16 | ~ 2 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Anyhow, it must be incorrect to tag information about a shop on the shopping centre building way. There was no meaningful previous data. This is a "start from scratch" note because this is a "start from scratch" situation. | |
| 17 | ~ 23 hours ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Disappointing. While it is definitely wrong to attach shop info onto buildings, this configuration still provides some hints as to where the shop may be located. Past guy might have misunderstood something, then it is easier to followup. @kingkingHK your past actions have wastefully converted this note into a "start from scratch" note when it could have been a "wrong understanding" note that requires minimal effort to fix. | |
| 5109341 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | This section of Central Kowloon Route has been completed. Then, what is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/895849386 for? |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Probably indeterminate/limbo; afaik later give to Metro Park. Can defer as "haven't done that yet". | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I think `landuse=brownfield` can be used for undetermined landuse? | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Yes, we may do landuse=brownfield here. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190244196 ; closing. | |
| 5544750 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 13 days ago | opened | marcolibrary ♦6 | Unable to answer "这段阶梯哪头朝上？" – 樓梯 – https://osm.org/way/221153301 via StreetComplete 63.4: 上落樓梯也可 |
| 2 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Quoting @vectorial8192 from https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5394365 : > Honestly this question is just way too technical to be made available to gamified mapping apps. I don't know where to begin complaining. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190235293 ; closing. | |
| 5539313 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 16 days ago | opened | --- | Building has been fully demolished. The open-air carpark next to it has also been not a carpark anymore for quite some time. I think both sites are combined or to be combined as one (but I'm not sure) |
| 2 | ~ 4 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | correct | |
| 3 | ~ 3 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved by someone else via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190203911 ; closing. | |
| 2128691 | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | opened | --- | 不存在路徑 |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | 楊展博 | ||
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Nope, it very well exists. Closing. | |
| 4744567 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | 官方路牌警告有山泥傾瀉風險，仍可通過 |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | 楊展博 | ||
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Controversial but highly practical opinion: OSM does have "hazard=landslide" for this. The wiki page even has an example from Hong Kong. However, OSM is simply ill-suited for hike planning. In the foreseeable future, hikers will still be buying specialized maps printed by authoritative mapping agencies to properly plan their hikes (e.g. elevation, resupply, etc). Even if not using specialized maps, hikers should still pay attention to their surroundings during their hikes, as situations may have greatly changed in short notice, or no notice at all. This naturally includes landslide hazard warnings, which if truly exists irl, would be in visual range for hikers to notice. Be always prepared when hiking. There is therefore no outstanding value to add this into OSM, even if this really exists irl. This would be a different story if the signage is near/adjacent to urban areas. (Hong Kong is urban-centric after all). Closing. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | How so? Just because something should be expected to be seen irl, doesn't mean we can't map it. If it exists, it can be mapped. OSM does not have a notability requirement. No "outstanding value" is needed. I can't believe I have to say this for, like, the third time? | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Why did you mention `hazard=landslide` but conclude it's "no outstanding value"? | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Us inside Hong Kong and it being in rural area does not really sound like "outstanding". The notability non-requirement is to encourage people to make edits (i.e., "don't be afraid to make small/neighbourhood edits"). It does not seem to mean we can let these kind of rural notes clutter the notes view. Imagine there were 1000 notes scattered around saying "there is a missing rural feature here". If sticking faithfully to "notability non-requirement" and refusing to close them, then the notes interface is gonna be very unusable. I did clearly state this is controversial. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | "common" sense: It has never been a goal to close notes. The only goal is to resolve mapping errors as indicated by that note. Cure illnesses, not symptoms. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Why is `hazard=` not "outstanding"? | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Rural area is not outstanding. > This would be a different story if the signage is near/adjacent to urban areas. It is also common sense to keep the table clean and tidy. | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 1. This makes no sense. The info gap there should be filled. 2. Can you stop repeating this meaningless line? | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Very disappointing. Unsubscribing. | |
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | You are free to ignore, or unsubscribe on commented ones. But you shouldn't close them yourself. | |
| 15 | ~ 4 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | No such sign found irl. Closing. | |
| 5540564 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 16 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Situation: Edit War @kingkingHK is unable to accept that a small segment of Sha Tin Road is highway=secondary . The main issue is that there is a small section of Sha Tin Road that provides access to IVE (Sha Tin). This does not satisfy the community consensus that roads of motorway class (entering) must only reach the motorway and nowhere else. |
| 2 | ~ 10 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | We can discuss at changeset discussion. No need for a note. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 days ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Well, the existence of an edit war does justify an open note, at least until the situation is actually resolved. Closing the note without really addressing the allegation of edit war does not sound like "situation resolved". | |
| 5 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Note isn't for discussion. Linking to the changeset in `note=` on them is enough. | |
| 5480465 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | --- | Arts Duet Studio 繪樂重奏坊 |
| 2 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 3955633 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | --- | 有”此路不通”牌 |
| 2 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 5128944 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | We have https://www.facebook.com/p/Oceanic-Laundry-SHOP-61565660343314/ , which mentions Shop 1B, but then unlikely to be true when we already have Coco Espresso at this area. Also, website is dead. Do provide more info, or I am closing this. | |
| 7 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Coco espresso is next door. Laundry shop is between https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12189929101 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4796214521 . I have no further info to provide other than a pic of the shopfronts. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It's unusual, but OK, in OSM we trust. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190279967 ; closing. | |
| 5128949 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | Missing Location: 保美洗衣 灣仔盧押道11-13號修頓商業大廈 |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Website https://sammydryclean.com/ disagrees. Do provide more info, or I will close this. | |
| 7 | ~ 15 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Seems like I have made a mistake. POI doesn't exist, according to my survey on 1 March. But, rest assured, I have checked again, and the other laundry notes in this area do indeed exist irl as of 1 March. | |
| 4691875 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Kenkton ♦99 | "Capsule hostel." OSM snapshot date: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: Sleep HKG POI types: tourism-hostel internet_access-wlan #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | We don't seem to have a standard tag for capsule hotels. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | It has been decided to use `=hostel` https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Tag:tourism=hostel Not literal `=hotel` as they are communal, mostly shared facilities https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/hostel=capsule | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | Kenkton ♦99 | Ah, I'll know for the future then. Thanks. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Still, we can use this opportunity to improve the tagging of this feature. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Will there be any further discussion on this note? It seems like the current tagging of the feature is fine (already has `tourism=hostel`), and any further improvements of tagging probably isn't very related to this note. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Don't close it yet. Highly relevant to forum discussion; see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-should-we-tag-capsule-hotels/128371 The intention / end goal is to somehow get this through the OSM wiki / approval process. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kenkton ♦99 | I believe they should be tagged separately. They are not hostels, where rooms are shared, but they are also not hostels as facilities are shared. | |
| 10 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kenkton ♦99 | I believe they should be tagged separately. They are not hostels, where rooms are shared, but they are also not hotels as facilities are shared. | |
| 11 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | diosdios | ||
| 12 | ~ 10 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 13 | ~ 22 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | ...how is the progress on this note going? Do we really need a note to track the OSM wiki approval process? | |
| 14 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | @Kenkton There are hostels with options of non-shared rooms | |
| 15 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | As long as there are communal facilities for toilets, bathrooms, or kitchens, it could count. Cf student halls or accomodations, and co-living. | |
| 16 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | Kenkton ♦99 | I think a capsule is a specific thing in its own right. It is a very specific type of accommodation become increasingly popular as prices for hotels and hostels soar. Unrelated, there still isn't a marker for 'British' food, which also has some very specific items. | |
| 17 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 1. Capsules may be thought of as a shared room with secluded beds. Then there are "capsule" hotels with partitioned "rooms", which become indistinguishable. And Japan has always had "simple accomodation" with rooms, but shared toilets and baths. 2. There's `cuisine=british` , and `origin=british` | |
| 18 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 1. If sliding doors are added to bunk beds, they don't structurally become much different | |
| 19 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | Kenkton ♦99 | True, but you do then have a private space. The most reason capsule I stayed in in London, Zedwell Piccadilly isn't just enclosed bunk beds. I get your point though. | |
| 5525391 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: descriptive name? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14002520107 |
| 2 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Agreed | |
| 5525321 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | Is the construction of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1046775072 complete? |
| 5304280 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: why suddenly highway=secondary ? seems can be just highway=tertiary all the way through. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Connaught Road W -> QRW? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | If no further discussion after a week or two I will close this note. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | "two tertiary roads join together to become secondary" is not necessarily true, but can act as a rule of thumb. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | The 2 `=tertiary` have different functionalities. DVRW westbound is a roadway across the part of an area. Whitty St is connecting QRW. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Question answered with no more activity; propose closing. | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I intend to survey this a bit (Mapillary is difficult to click). Granted, I haven't done HKI notes for a long while so I may not immediately do this. | |
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | What needs to be checked? | |
| 13 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Echoing @Kovoschiz; what point can you not make without a survey? | |
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Whitty Street seems too generic to be highway=tertiary , but Mapillary imagery is incomplete. | |
| 15 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | What is "generic"? | |
| 16 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | A better word is "unremarkable". Maybe I should just check the street by myself, seeing that I can't justify the case well. We did have an answer for "why we have tertiary roads here", but the core issue "why we have a single segment of secondary road here" remains unresolved. To me, ignoring the situation at Whitty Street, it seems the secondary segment can be tertiary and it's still OK. | |
| 17 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | No more activity; propose closing. | |
| 18 | ~ 18 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Yeah I am starting to think this could have been a private study, and then I can decide what to do next. Closing. | |
| 19 | ~ 17 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 20 | ~ 17 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | It's connecting the `=primary` to `=secondary` , which could be promoted | |
| 5394365 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | MonsterTank ♦1 | Unable to answer "Which direction leads upwards here?" – Steps – https://osm.org/way/255289396 via StreetComplete 63.2: This section is closed now |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | towards the left is upwards | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Honestly this question is just way too technical to be made available to gamified mapping apps. I don't know where to begin complaining. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Aside from the technicality, @HenryEK notice the remarks are saying that perhaps the entire staircase is closed/demolished. Contextually this makes sense because we know there are / will be some construction works to improve Po Shek Wu Road. We should proceed by checking whether this staircase really is gone. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | my weekly commute passes through, i can check within a few days the surrounding area has construction barriers for a while and po shek wu has had the central dividing barrier replaced iirc, the barriers obscure the staircase so it will probably be hard to check, but i am just going off what i vaguely remember i dont think the staircase has been demolished but rather just closed and will reopen some time later. i can find if they have an info sign with the planned completion date too | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Checking whether the staircase is open to the public is a valid todo. Can be tagged with `access=private` if not. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I would do "access=no" if the staircase is closed due to the ongoing construction works. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | staircase and subway seem to be blocked off with metal panels | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | If it is simply closed, then it should be `access=private` because construction workers can still use it. If it is being actively demolished and reconstructed then just make it `highway=construction` and let data consumers imply the rest. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | The access tag topic (pending) is leaking. I will just no-explain re-recommend "access=no" and finish. The explain part is pending at Discord. | |
| 11 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @HenryEK any updates on this note? | |
| 12 | ~ 22 days ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | i havent paid much attention but the surrounding is mostly unchanged so id assume that applies to the staircase too | |
| 5220076 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1104518518 ancient todo |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | New towns don't have well-defined boundaries either. Not sure what can be done here. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Yes they have, according to OZP, Census, PDD/PPU, etc. However, this needs to be distinguished from addresses. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @Kovoschiz May you provide more info so that we know what action should be done in order to close this note? | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | But what do you want to know? | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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? | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | @Kovoschiz I think the hardest question is whether annex diagrams in legal texts can be used for OSM mapping. Do those count as regular diagrams (not for OSM) or extensions of legal documents (OK for OSM)? When we know the legality, things like checking the correct OSM tag should then be trivial. | |
| 9 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @Kovoschiz any updates on this note? | |
| 10 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Waiting for the geocoder to refresh | |
| 5394697 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | The air bridge for Gate 4 has been moved to the west, so that it is closer to Gate 3. See satellite imagery history and https://centreforaviation.com/news/hong-kong-airport-awards-contract-for-gate-s4-relocation-works-1188338. |
| 2 | ~ 25 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189152350 ; closing. | |
| 5493225 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | M15k_one | 7 eleven shop |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Store finder https://www.7-eleven.com.hk/zh-hant/store_locator disagrees. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 29 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 4 | ~ 29 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | There's always the possibility of it not being up-to-date. A previous Guru 24 was closed. However, there's indeed no recent info. | |
| 5 | ~ 29 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Guru 24 store list https://guruguruhk.com/article/stores does not list Soho West. The event of a large corporation (7 eleven) not having an up-to-date store list is improbable. Closing. | |
| 6 | ~ 28 days ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 7 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | How are you so sure? | |
| 8 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | @vectorial8192 I already said Guru 24 was closed | |
| 9 | ~ 25 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Another possible case of 7-11 not having an up-to-date store list: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5523601 | |
| 10 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | If you have their app, you could check it. Sometimes apps are more developed and therefore updated than websites, as I have found for OK. | |
| 11 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I think it was me, but visiting the website is equivalent to visiting the place IRL. Apps are part of the "closed web" and are therefore not eligible for referencing. Closing, hopefully for real this time. | |
| 12 | ~ 19 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 13 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | There's no such restriction | |
| 14 | ~ 18 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | It's listed https://7-eleven.hk/sites/default/files/2026-07/7CAFE%20Mango%20&%20Ccoconut%20Frappe%20Cup_Store%20Allocation.pdf https://7-eleven.hk/sites/default/files/2026-09/7CAFE%20X%20niko%20and...%20Coupon%20Booklet%20Redemption_Store%20List_20260921.pdf | |
| 15 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | No comment from me. We can review this some time later. Text lists are generally unintuitive and messy compared to map views. | |
| 5451713 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746368284 suspicious placement/existence |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | From street imagery, at least we can see there is some sort of shop space over here. Very unexpected, but OK. | |
| 3 | ~ 28 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | "Obviously" no problem here. Closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 27 days ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 5 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | No wait, what?! | |
| 6 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | The fact that there apparently exists a corporate office which is not listed in the website https://www.bachy-soletanche.com.hk/ remains unaddressed. | |
| 7 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | The key is that, a fancy MNC cannot possibly have a corporate office located at such a cramped lowly place just to do paperwork. Something must be wrong. | |
| 8 | ~ 27 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189045571 ; closing. | |
| 5417944 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | John Nevzer Avrung ♦28 | "Some small hinduistic or budhist temple." OSM snapshot date: 2026-07-14T04:20:21Z POI has no name POI types: amenity-place_of_worship #CoMaps android 2026.07.16-10-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Rural location, it's basically some Chinese folklore statues. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187972750 ; closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I don't see how adding a `note=` which by definition is only used by other osm users is any sort of improvement. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | osm contributors* not end users | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Also, government maps agree. Survey recommended. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Call me armchair, but I find "Hinduistic" generally inconsistent with the Chinese settlements in this area. Unsubscribing. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 1. How do you know the note creator got the "Hinduistic" part correct? 2. If you don't know, why do you still close the note with a useless changeset? | |
| 5493829 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | I think this is closed/repurposed? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | So far I see this is downgraded. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/188820483 ; closing. | |
| 5376163 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 银禧炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Feature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1353274115 etc; closing. | |
| 5440318 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: CTB 81A https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9447656 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9447657 Validator warning: route scheme is unspecified; clarify "public_transport:version" |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | You really don't need to make a note for every validator warning, you know. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | "Also avoid noting lots of data bugs which are already reported by automated Quality Assurance tools." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I see there is no community interest to keep track of those. Alright then. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | There's interest, but not here. Tools are already dedicated to it. | |
| 5432688 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | Shenmo Education HK - Abacus & Mental Math Classes Address: Room 533B, Star House, 3 Salisbury Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong Phone: +852 4423 7445 Website: https://abacus-hk.com WhatsApp: +85244237445 Description: Abacus and mental math classes for kids ages 4-12. Certified instructor Teacher Mak, 15 years experience. Small classes 4-6. Hours: Tuesday, Sunday Category: Education / Training / Children's Classes Suggested tags: amenity=training, name=Shenmo Education HK, website=https://abacus-hk.com |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Spam. This is the ocean. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | The address is valid though. This is actionable. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Address may be valid, but website vibes do not feel legit. We have two notes that point to two "distinct" webpages that are 90% same. Cannot be explained by DNS redirect. I am strongly inclined to no-action close this. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Extremely suspicious conceptual duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5432689 | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | The address is extremely convenient to get to though. I see no reason to not survey this first. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Indeed well-accessible, but this feels like a waste of time; my instincts say the business is a fake. | |
| 5432689 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | Shenmo Education HK - World's Largest Abacus Education Brand Address: Room 533B, Star House, 3 Salisbury Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong Phone: +852 4423 7445 Website: https://shenmo-hk.com Description: World's largest abacus education brand since 1998. Operating in 100+ countries with 2M+ students. Hong Kong branch offering abacus and mental math education. Hours: Tuesday, Sunday Category: Education / Training Suggested tags: amenity=training, name=Shenmo Education HK, website=https://shenmo-hk.com, brand=Shenmo |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Spam. This is the ocean. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | The address is valid though. This is actionable. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Conceptual duplicate; spiritual redirect https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5432688 | |
| 5425960 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: construction completed? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Website https://www.hksh-emc.com/en/contact-us/index.php says construction is completed. We may see this is a multi-building / multi-plot facility. | |
| 5419502 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | concern: I heard there is fallen scaffolding in this neighbouhood? Does this count as medium term closure? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Does it take that long? Reassess after a week | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Common sense: fallen scaffolding doesn't take 6 months to clean up. Propose closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | I quote https://programme.rthk.hk/channel/radio/trafficnews/index.php?d=20260727 > 長沙灣道危險棚架已清理：來回方向，介乎大南西街與興華街之間的全線現解封。2026-07-27 HKT 06:38 Closing. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Let's clarify this "common sense", at least from my perspective: - Short term: around 3 days, top 1 week max - Medium term: at least 1 week, probably for until 1 month - Long term: at least 1 month It was not immediately clear how bad the situation was. It's pointless to invoke "common sense" as a talking point. For example, an effective clean up would take 1 day, while if the structure is messy, this could take a few days, and would warrant "medium term closure". @kingkingHK while you are confusingly fixated on this notion of "common sense", I raised this note because obstruction to Cheung Sha Wan Road can be locally significant, at least in terms of general neighbourhood accessibility. It's more than just the duration of the situation. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Can see the situation is resolved IRL. Closing. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | OSM require changes to last for at least 6 months to warrant a changeset. "could take a few days" still fails to justify an osm changeset/note. I genuinely cannot comprehend how fallen scaffolding can cause any sort of damage that cannot be cleaned up in 6 months. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Jacking this back to "open". I fail to find this 6-month "requirement", but can find a similarly-worded "guideline". We at best can only offer guidelines since we won't always know everything before we offer these info, and we are supposed to digest the guidelines based on the local situation. Estimations are often based on personal experience, so not much to elaborate/converge on that. @kingkingHK maybe I am just too dumb. Can you find this 6-month "requirement" for me? | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | For example, I can find this forum post, which states a guideline of 6-month unavailability https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-temporary-road-closure-based-on-government-announcement-copyright-and-data-reliability-issues/136704/3 Coming from the DWG, because they can never always know everything, it is only a general guideline, and not a hard requirement. My personal take is that, given HK is a very dense city-centric place, we can do it much more frequently e.g. 1-month closure can also be considered long-term. Again, the above DWG post and my interpretation above are still guidelines, and not hard requirements. @kingkingHK where may your quoted requirements be found? | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Please don't discuss general questions in Notes. It isn't specific to here. | |
| 5417924 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | John Nevzer Avrung ♦28 | In dhis place is a many small buildings. Plaese check on the airplane/satelite photo. #CoMaps android 2026.07.16-10-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Yes, we know. The lack of data is not sufficient to warrant a note. | |
| 5417979 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | John Nevzer Avrung ♦28 | Hi, the metro/underground/MTR lines are not exactly aglin with real routs, especialy in the cases where is rote determined as bridges, tunnels - not under groud, railway paths. This high schematics presentation is confused and not represent reality. As second in some cases is the railway sa light train or tram showed as metro. For example the norden west district of Hong Kong, where is light trains and also MTR(metro), booth of this transports is marked as metro lines. They are independent in operation but they have same owener stock company with goverment majority. Because in othr city (Prague) is not tram line marked as metro. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Underground railway tracks being imprecise is a known limitation. Light rail is not tagged as metro. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | We try to ensure good accuracy of railway lines, but there's a limit to that. I see CoMaps has a "railway layer" which contains self-interpreted railway lines rendering that does not match irl shape. Still, how CoMaps etc decide to render the irl railway tracks are up to their discretion, and has nothing to do with main OSM. At least on OSM those tracks are already correctly tagged (e.g. Northwestern Railway is already railway=light_rail). | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Transit layers are schematic, for conceptual understanding to ride the lines as passengers. Therefore they would deviate into straight segments, and stick to each other at interchange stations. | |
| 5417954 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | John Nevzer Avrung ♦28 | "In the comaps is this point shown as one metro/MTR station but it is two separated location, you cannot walk betwen Kowloon and Austin station as on one station building - no corridor or direct conection." OSM snapshot date: 2026-07-14T04:20:21Z POI name: 九龍 Kowloon POI types: railway-station-subway-hongkong internet_access-wlan #CoMaps android 2026.07.16-10-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Austin is at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6610744414 though? | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | To slightly add to this: Currently on CoMaps, Austin Station is displayed as a train station. This makes sense in local context, but when Kowloon Station has an MTR icon but Austin Station doesn't (and HSR also doesn't), this may be confusing ("station extension"). In addition, it seems at some point in the past, CoMaps and etc can't update their Hong Kong maps (why?). Maybe this issue is already fixed at data level, just that CoMaps etc can't obtain updated info. | |
| 5416561 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue/concern: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12995394372 Should probably be marked as "demolished peak"; can't have a peak inside a (flat) football field. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Protecthkname's work again. I would have fixed it immediately without making a note. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I'm here to see whether it's allowed to use natural=peak to indicate a flattened elevation level. Sounds weird, but I am somewhat open to suggestions and guidance for this topic. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I am aware natural=plateau exists, but what if we need to indicate the "highest point" in the plateau (if exists)? | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Afaik OSM does not map elevation. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Flattened summit would be fine. But this is not the summit, not higher than Sau Ming Rd. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | protecthknames aside, this still points towards being a "demolished peak", just like how e.g. Kong Nga Po Sheung Shui gets a demolished peak as part of the training center flattening. Kong Nga Po is a legit hill name, and (hopefully) this ancient name is/was also legit. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186705995 ; closing. | |
| 5399215 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | jau4 ♦2 | Unable to answer "橋の下の車高制限はいくつですか？" – 耀興道 Yiu Hing Road (一般道（2車線以上）) – https://osm.org/way/264757497 via StreetComplete 63.2: no height limit |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Overall translation: what is the height limit (below the bridge)? No height limit. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Nglee ♦1 | 這座天橋為雙層設計，連接興東邨與東熹苑，橋面距離地面的高度約等同於一般大廈 4 至 5 層樓的高度。 | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Is this not a normal bridge? What "雙層設計" is there? | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Honestly this note can be instant-closed imo. Not every bridge has a signposted height limit. No idea what action this note is looking for. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | jau4 ♦2 | ||
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Let's clarify the situation before we close this note, lest some time later someone (e.g. me) reopen this for "closing with no comment". @jau4 (who created this note via app) has already edited the bridge to have "maxheight:signed=no". This is consistent with "no height limit"; no signposted height limit exists at this location. @Nglee speaks of "double layered bridge". By street imagery (e.g. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.281019516748017&lng=114.21913074529994&z=18.336078076486757&pKey=379614576696593&focus=photo&x=0.5274136125678327&y=0.34184435178209843&zoom=0.04978463073287828 ) we can see the bridge does have two walkable layers, though this information does not seem too useful in understanding the height limit below the bridge. Legally speaking, HK should have building regulation where all bridges must be built with approx 5 meters above ground. If we want some value of "height limit", we can use the building regulation as a starting point. Closing. | |
| 5362130 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z POI name: Jabbok Piano Co. POI types: shop-musical_instrument #organicmaps ios 2026.06.01-1-ios |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | By survey, no such shop. Can't determine/establish previous correct shop space, so we will just delete the node. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185995963 ; closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | > Can't determine/establish previous correct shop space Try harder? https://music852.com/shop_view.php?shop_id=261 | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | @kingkingHK very ambiguous for phrase "try harder". Generally a bad idea to use these "aggregation sites" to justify edits. These have copyright concerns (esp database rights) and we really can't guarantee their timely accuracy. By survey, doesn't exist. Now that Mapillary is seemingly back online (why unreachable?), can see music shop was right next to the congee shop (still exists), which then establishes shop space. The key has always been the physical placement in OSM in relation to other features. Again, very ambiguous for phrase "try harder", but previous changeset can be remade. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186007921 ; closing. | |
| 2776728 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | Whcohi ♦239 | Small temple |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Highly doubt this; can't see anything on aerial imagery or government maps. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | OP has largely gone offline. Trusting existing OSM data, it still does not make sense to have a temple right at a stream intersection far from existing (possibly informal) paths. A reasonable interpretation is that OP tried to describe informal small "offering tablets" sometimes found in HK wilderness. In principle OSM welcomes factual map data, but this small feature in the wilderness does not seem to justify having an open note for itself, especially when the placement is awkward and treacherous to survey, and drone usage in HK is heavily regulated. Unverified feature has negligible impact. Closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Difficulty in surveying is not a valid reason to close a note without action. This should be "common" sense. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Correct. Is common sense. However, not gonna be good when things are starting to clutter the list/interface. There is a bit of managerial perspective when it comes to OSM notes, or maybe this is (unfortunately) only my opinion. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | "common" sense: It has never been a goal to close notes. The only goal is to resolve mapping errors as indicated by that note. Cure illnesses, not symptoms. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I don't know what others think about this, but I (unfortunately?) don't share your opinion on decluttering. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Closing Note doesn't solve anything https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-notes-ecosystem-possible-changes/145324/4 Having many tasks to do isn't cluttering. This is a UI problem if anything. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It is also common sense to keep the table clean and tidy. I was about to quote the same post mentioned by @Kovoschiz . You cannot just claim "UI problem" and then ignore the problem. It is a problem, and I am gonna solve it. | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 1. What is "keep the table clean and tidy"? You are simply throwing the info outside the window. 2. You should complain to OSM frontend Github, not closing Note. This doesn't solve it. | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Very disappointing direction. Individual users should not be responsible for bearing the brunt of systemic (UI) design blunder. But I will just check the linked post in more detail. | |
| 13 | ~ 1 day ago | closed | Qqqhdhdjz | ||
| 14 | ~ 1 day ago | reopened | Qqqhdhdjz | ||
| 1499178 | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | opened | --- | The route is ambushed and almost vanished up |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | There is already `trail_visibility=bad` after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96255409 , which should be enough to describe the "ambushed and almost vanished" situation. Then, resolved, closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | `=bad` can be on empty land. Should check the `obstacle=vegetation`, and decide whether it's `disused=yes` or even `abandoned:highway=` | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Observation/question: Look at the mountain ridge. The ridge-top path show very clearly on satellite imagery (brown ground contrasts strongly with green shrubbery etc). However, the path mentioned in this note cannot be observed from satellite imagery. Perhaps the path has been reclaimed by nature. Does this path even exist? Are we mapping hiking trails "because I successfully walked through the area like this" or "because the path can be clearly observed from the outside/entrance area"? | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Yes, correct, the purpose of this note is to check "does this path even exist?" Don't tell me you are going to close this note for being difficult to survey. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | There is managerial interest to keep the notes list/interface clean, which may sometimes involve closing very difficult / non-outstanding notes. The impact is expected to be minimal. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | "common" sense: It has never been a goal to close notes. The only goal is to resolve mapping errors as indicated by that note. Cure illnesses, not symptoms. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It is also common sense to keep the table clean and tidy. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I am forced to refer to a recent post https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-notes-ecosystem-possible-changes/145324 > There are frequent disputes in the community over the closing of notes. "It has never been a goal to close notes" is not an effective defense against "keeping the table clean". Do we wish to reiterate the findings of that post or are we gonna focus on dealing with urban data issues? Human attention is always limited; what good are there to keep "very difficult" notes open? | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Difficult doesn't mean they shouldn't be done. Difficult is valuable. What bad is keeping them open besides your particular use of the website? | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Very disappointing. I believe I should further elaborate my "very difficult" point at Discord. Unsubscribing. | |
| 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | By survey, indeed. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Then, perhaps we just need to clarify the trail feasibility, and then we can finish. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Indeed. But for a few hiking-related notes (including this), the mapping could be made much easier with 1996 government maps, which is why I procrastinate a bit and wait until permission to use pre-1997 maps. But honestly I haven't wrote to LWG, and I am pessimistic about a response, seeing that the LWG apparently hasn't met for nearly half a year. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | iirc Crown Copyright (Colonial Office) is the usual 50 years. Ignoring the LWG, per the Joint Declaration, the Crown Copyright is still in effect. That would put us to 2046. To be honest with you, a clean notes list is much better than just waiting to 2046. I can't be sure sure whether I would be around at OSM till 2046. Same applies to you. Just do a simple changeset and close this. A clean table is better than a 20 year wait. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | In other words: If you are trying to write to the LWG in the hopes of them printing a response saying "British Hong Kong copyright can be automatically invalidated before reaching the natural lifespan by using some obscure technical trick" then I am gonna tell you, this is an extremely unlikely outcome. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | ...? Crown Copyright is Open Government License, which I reasonably suspect to be compatible with OSM. This is not an invalidation or technical trick of any sort. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | OK, now that you are getting into the details, let's briefly dive in. Who made those maps? (HK or UK?) If UK, then yes Crown Copyright (the OG one), and Open Government Licence. Proceed. If HK, then while it largely "starts off" from UK Crown Copyright, it notably has diverged post-1997. Legal reading is required, but I have some quick findings: Cap 528, para 182 ("Government copyright"). Was the map buyable? Other than that, no obvious trick to use. Seems to follow standard copyright restrictions, as previously deep-dived at Discord. (e.g. "no copying maps" vs "non-resemblance of derivative works"). | |
| 5304217 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | 198 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Possibly incomplete work of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1491526318 ? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Correction : possibly incomplete work of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180258566 ? | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @vectorial8192 It's entire possible OP just doesn't know about the house number. I don't know why you have to write a changeset comment to him. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I don't know why you have that conclusion. Given that the same changeset freshly provided the many houses in the area (with housenumbers!) but missed out housenumber for only a few houses, it is not possible to rule out editing mistakes. Editors will sometimes forget about something when doing long changesets; e.g. happens to me sometimes. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | It does not sound implausible that OP only knew some of the housenumbers. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It seems improbable that only a small percent is unknown. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | This is getting nowhere. What I am suggesting is that the probability of OP forgetting the housenumbers is much larger than the probability that the OP simply did not know the housenumbers. Then @kingkingHK how can you be sure that OP definitely didn't know? That it is definitely not human error? I gave example of how human error can contribute to this. How can you be sure that OP definitely didn't know? | |
| 5257118 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo/issue: Wo Yi Hop Road: physical separation |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I would out point out that it is highly discouraged to glue boundaries to other features. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | (for the non-widened section, it's still toleratable) | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Ignoring the boundary definition, one practical blocker was/is that iD cannot easily disambiguate/select features when they perfectly overlap each other. However, later I found that iD has option to hide admin-bounds. Then, roads become selectable. JOSM situation notwithstanding, this means we now have a friendlier entrance to at least tackle the physical separation issue. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | As it turns out, iD becomes very restrictive when there are hidden features, so we are unfortunately back at the first step. | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not too sure what blocker you are facing, but can't you just disconnect the nodes, or use ctrl+up arrow to select the correct way? | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | "This can't be disconnected because it connects members of a relation". It just so happens that both sides (bus relations and boundary relations) use the same nodes. Ctrl+down only selects all points of the way (which still disallows disconnecting). Ctrl+up doesn't seem to do anything. | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Admin bounds unglued using JOSM. Very messy. Hopefully basic connectivity is still fine. | |
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Finally, we will start with the junction separation, done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187275533 | |
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Then, relations are cleaned up https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187277034 All done; finally, closing. | |
| 5384946 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: long term cycleway closure expected due to drainage works |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Government website has this https://www.dsd.gov.hk/TC/Our_Projects/All_Projects/4200CD.html though it doesn't mention the exact closure dates. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Iirc it's 23 Jul. Don't count on me though. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | By survey, I have info. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186927516 ; closing. | |
| 5270671 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo/issue: verify physical separation |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Aerial imagery clearly shows "no physical separation". It's the "chain of laziness". Road expansion works, draw new WIP road (correct). WIP complete, change tags (correct). But then it turns out there are some sections with no physical separation. We can either focus only on this spot, or we do a sectional scan from Sam Shing to Aegean Coast. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not too sure what you mean by "sectional scan", but future reference: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.374573389378966&lng=113.98710550320993&z=18.736745870469665&pKey=1016588394374034&focus=photo and other images in the same capture. | |
| 5360205 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: online info says this bridge has been restored https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209631718 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | future reference: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/14fnVEzksaz/ | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It seems they took the bridge away and placed a new one back at the same spot? Either we need a survey, or we find a usable source and armchair this. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186697823 ; closing. | |
| 5386225 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802069339 descriptive name (?????) |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | It's just a dead end footpath source: survey | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Mapillary imagery exist for this area, but some do not reflect reality (nudge). Dead end footpaths are still valid footpaths when easily observable from aerial imagery. Isolated inaccessible paths may be given access=no to better guide navigation software. I will just clean this up. Is simple. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185490481 ; closing. | |
| 3980686 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | --- | 粉嶺沙頭角公路DD39, Lot 2645 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Is this information useful for OSM? | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Imo a plot name is just a fancier/more formal address. | |
| 7 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @vectorial8192 If you don't think this can be instant-closed, what actions do you propose to take here? | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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). | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I have decided to at least validate what we are looking at. The Land Registry has a free (money) online address lookup system https://www.landreg.gov.hk/tc/services/services_b_9.htm . According to this system, there is no such "Sha Tau Kok Road DD39L 2645" plot. This note is fake news. Factual references (especially for debunking purposes) should be copyright-waivable. Note is invalid; closing. | |
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 13 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | But we can find it on geoinfo map though. | |
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | To clarify, the registry has "Sha Tau Kok Road DD39L" but doesn't list specific "2645" plot. But, looking at the registry list, the whole neighbourhood has building name set to null. Technically because NT is leased, the lack of records is insufficient to prove the lack of land mastery (by government or by private entities), but administratively these "unclaimed" plots are just "greenfields with extra steps" (see Lands Resumption Ordinance). So far I believe, in OSM, it is perfectly OK to omit greenfields because for well-mapped areas (e.g. HK) every unmapped area can be safely assumed to be greenfields. This updated explanation should work. Leaving open for now, but will close soon-ish. | |
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | No-op for greenfields should be OK. Closing. | |
| 5213335 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Yes | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | pauline6luk | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Yogicat ♦13 | ||
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | This slipped past our notifications. Is this really done yet? | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Yes https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183597599 I can testify that my survey 2.5 months ago agree with the quoted changeset | |
| 5346823 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bus terminus will be opened on 21 June, according to online info |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | concern: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184412298 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I was about to ask the changeset for more details, but it declaring YouTube as a source could be a problem. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Ok, as as start, the quoted changeset needs to be reverted for ToS and/or copyright violation. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184417534 | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Someone did something: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184487035 | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | At least the scope is limited. Like, we can just look at the relevant TD announcements and then we know the bus terminus is open. We don't need YouTube videos for that. That said, we can use this opportunity to confirm the shape of the terminus, and also the situation surrounding the station (e.g. marketplace? old terminus? etc). | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | By survey, I'm gonna do it. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Btw see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184730262 | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | :( Ideally, we should confirm the roads before we add in the bus relations, but this time we were not fast enough. irl is different from OSM. | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | You can still correct the roads to match real life first. I can redo the bus relations Later™ | |
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | concern x2: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184730262 The node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13971781917 etc irl positions are wrong, not at OSM declared positions. Hmmm... same guy btw | |
| 13 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | This is unusual. Perhaps more information is needed. | |
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Upon further review, the situation is acceptable, though thanks to efforts by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/samho1234567 it seems there is no need for any extra rerouting. If no extra thing to clarify, then will close soon. | |
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Should be OK now. Closing. | |
| 5360199 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: road closure on 28 June |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Armchair time. We will start by marking the affected roads as "unusable" since these are still observable on the ground. Then, when the time comes, we can mark them as "demolished". | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Desync. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184704033 | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Then, the next step would be to migrate the bus relations. We may survey this to really take a deeper look into the situation to improve the mapping, but it might not be the most important, as per "OSM is not a worksite management software". | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Someone did something: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184731579 | |
| 5129081 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/889581234 construction probably finished, according to aerial imagery. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Construction finished, but somehow I couldn't find the entrance irl. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Not sure which side you went, but aerial imagery suggests the opening could be at "22.438334,114.182104". It does not seem likely for the site to have an entrance next to the CLP site. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | However, per https://www.landsd.gov.hk/doc/tc/consent/monthly/t2c_2405.pdf , the provisional address does hint towards the entrance being next to the CLP site, contrary to what aerial imagery would suggest. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | If I remember correctly I went near your coordinates, but failed to find any entrances. Although maybe I just missed it. | |
| 6 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | By survey, it does open to the other side with an unusual geometry. | |
| 7 | ~ 23 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189245610 ; closing. | |
| 5357832 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | concern: from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180536189 , re https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1493588817 Is this path actually usable? @kingkingHK states they could verify the path was reachable from Lung Cheong Road, but only verified for halfway length. We should verify that the lower half is reachable from Beacon Hill Road, and therefore whether this path actually exists, is usable, and its actual conditions. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | was here a few months ago (around march) its just a slope maintanence stairway. gate is closed at the top. never used it. i assumed i would be tresspassing | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | that was from lung cheung road though, never seen if it actually leads down to bhr | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Slop maintenance would be immediately access=private and then case closed. Still, we can see what is going on at the lower side. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Actually I think we should check the laws for slope maintenance paths first. I don't know if there are laws specifically prohibiting unauthorised access to slope maintenance paths, but if not it feels very wrong to apply `access=private`, especially as the gates of some are rarely locked, or simply useless (e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/laapsaaptung/comments/1u5g0k9 ) | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | theres one path i know about (way/602397676) that is for slope maintanence but the gate is tied open and a lot of people including myself use | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | While I cannot immediately provide examples, some slope maintenance paths are green signposted as roughly "no unauthorized entry", which means instant access=private and case closed, which doesn't care about whether the gates are physically open or not. It is unclear whether this case is one of them. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | By survey, the lower half is indeed slope maintenance paths. Excluding those, no paths were identified to be going uphill. We will just split these paths up. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Rethinking of access values is still in progress, but access=private or access=no will work here. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185844215 ; closing. | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Why did you delete it? | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Sorry, I really do not understand. Previous OSM data says "there is a very visible informal path from the low side to the high side. By survey, no path matching these descriptions were found. The changeset does not seem to have any problems. The changeset simply disconnects the aforementioned path from the lower side. | |
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Didn't you say there's slope maintenance walkway? Is there no `informal=yes` between that and above? | |
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | OK, this can be confusing. At first we have https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1493588817 which claims to be a very visible informal path that extends to 22.341001, 114.173138 . However, it turns out at that location it is just a maintenance staircase. You would expect to perhaps see a very cleanly-cut mud path that leads uphill at the quoted coordinates, but it's only a maintenance staircase built onto concrete-reinforced slope. I now heavily lean towards w1493588817 being "it doesn't exist" but then we have two people confirming that it exists (from top-side). The least we can do is to disconnect it from the low-side, because we definitely cannot see this from the low-side, and for navigation purposes this is good enough. | |
| 16 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | The stairs could be connected. Or as it has existed before, this should be `abandoned:highway=` | |
| 5361744 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Jon Wang ♦40 | Messed up Border Label. Make sure to be careful when updating. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Are you trying to point out any issues in osm data? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Opening the map in this area reveals an unrendered, free-hanging point: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13895856702 The node seems to indicate a data error, where (based on the existing border areas) features are wrongly delegated to the HK OSM Group for maintenance. As members of the HK OSM Group. we should review the relevant PRC docs and determine the best course of action. ------------- Beyond the vague texts, given the advisory/notification nature of the message, "this could have been an email", or at least a Discord message sent to the HK OSM Discord Server. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Referenced by cross-border duplicate https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5361745 , which explains the border control situation in this area. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Special note: Because Sha Tau Kok border crossing is being rebuilt, and I don't think any HK mapper here has STK Border Area permit, we will have to fully armchair this. We should give this to Discord for discussion. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | some of the areas are only accessible from mainland side And there could be some trobule referencing/editing that,plus Not much mainland were contact with hk mapper on this issue.I think this worth a note anyway. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | i meant mainlander(i'm one of them)But you guys can get that idea. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Understandable. We use OSM notes to point out data problems. The OSM platform allows global communication, so CN-HK both sides can detect and know there is this data problem. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | So far I can see the problem is that the legal boundaries and the actual lines-of-control seems to be different; some places are outside HK border control, suggesting CN direct control. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | An effective international example is found: the River Moselle, running along Germany and Luxembourg, is a condominium of both. We can see that overlapping boundary relations is an acceptable mapping style. | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Upon further review, this is actually not a condominium. For example, the Hong Kong government does not pay for the upkeep of the Sha Tau Kok neighbourhood east of the defined borders. A more appropriate understanding of this border situation is "Schengen area with extra steps". While EU citizens may freely move between Schengen countries, this doesn't mean the relevant country borders are automatically extended to reach the frontiers of the Schengen area. Access control should be mapped per the usual access=* tags. Still, the Sha Tau Kok neighbourhood (both CN and HK) can be clarified to indicate the special access statuses. | |
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Because both sides (CN and HK) require readily-available special travel documents to access the respective sides of the open-borders Sha Tau Kok / Shatoujiao neighbourhood, all relevant streets are given access=permit . Note that HK Sha Tau Kok was previously closed off to the HK public (therefore should have been access=private ), but this policy was updated around 2025-2026 to allow for tourism purpose access grants, thus resulting in access=permit . This however still does not permit CN-HK border crossing, which normally should be done at the northwest-side checkpoint, the action which is currently unavailable pending checkpoint renovation works. All is done. Closing. | |
| 13 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | Jon Wang ♦40 | ||
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | wait wait what about the narrow space located southern than the second stone?the area between 新楼街 and south 中英街 wasn't opened for security reasons And were separated by walls,Which doesn't feels like the northern part where you can sure make it equal as the europe circumstances? | |
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I am not sure if I am understanding this correctly. Having walls at borders is "default settings". If you are referring to the line formed between (22.545253, 114.225428) and (22.544153, 114.226184), then the PRC documents have very clearly stated what is HK and what is not HK. If you are instead referring to the line formed between the 2nd stone and (22.545285, 114.225457), and you are trying to say the buildings can be entered from CN side, then you have discovered a very lucrative position (?) where the buildings legally are located in HK (follows HK laws) but serve primarily CN customers. There seems to have no issues here, though from business money-making perspective, this may be a uniquely valuable location. Please see whether I am understanding this correctly. | |
| 16 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Hello? Am I understanding this correctly? | |
| 17 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | um so Mainland customers could not enter 海山楼 from northern part of 边界管理区 Because it was blocked by the local check point.From my knowledge of the mainland tourist，they'd had to request foe visitor permit(禁区纸) To enter such area(海山楼&新楼街)And they couldn't just visit 中英街 at the same time so nope.The part between the both 新楼街警岗 (I'd be curious if one of them would be called 环城路警岗btw)Wasn't Accessible by both sides And under maintain For undocumented reasons So it miss-aligned with your explanation.（A bit more like Baarle-Nassau/Buffer zone examples perhaps？） | |
| 18 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | also The graph from wikipedia It's a bit outdated，It seems that 海山楼 Is accessible From the Mainland side for a decades ago（If referencing the old picture from Wikipedia）But now encountering an Administrative change | |
| 19 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | the uh,Post Pandemic border Has been changed a lot compared to this old Photograph from common wiki(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shenzhen_&_Hong_Kong_Bianjie_1.JPG) | |
| 20 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I will use several posts to respond to these new points. ------------ Legally speaking, it's crystal clear which side is HK and which side is CN, so the border boundary line has no need for changing. Enforcement (overwhelmingly usually) does not change legal status. In the past, maybe enforcement is more lax, and CN person may "freely" visit 海山樓. However, this is not guaranteed because legally the building is indeed in HK. Following post-pandemic attention from both HK and CN, we can be sure all these ambiguous situations are being addressed one by one. For example, notice HK side now has a new checkpoint building/facility at Chung Ying Street. Older photos largely only shows a tent. This is increased government attention. | |
| 21 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | The trend is "increased government attention". Both HK side and CN Shenzhen side has already implemented some sort of tourist permit system (access=private becomes access=permit). Naturally, the next step is to "funnel the people" into the pre-approved facilities, e.g. the new HK-side border checkpoint. This means the existing (?) informal checkpoints at Tsoi Yuen Kok and San Lau Street are very likely to have been closed and discontinued. Specifically for San Lau Street checkpoint, with the quoted photo, I can only say, that's very unsafe, because that is still a river channel, albeit "usually dry". These are reasonable deductions. We can later review the walls etc and then close this. | |
| 22 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | ……mmm ok,after all since I'm a bit unfamiliar with the current status or how the gaps between(river itself) were reinforced,and there would be some upcoming policy update in foreseeable time,i'll put aside some unnecessary problems for now.may be lablein' wall is examine-able for now. if this problem would be transferred/archived in other bulletin boards,there'll be no issues and we can leave & close this note then. | |
| 23 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | For the walls, I can find e.g. https://www.archsd.gov.hk/archsd/html/report2025/tc/case-study/3.html , which describes the (new) walls as part of the Sha Tau Kok improvement works. | |
| 24 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Should be OK now. Closing. | |
| 5361745 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Jon Wang ♦40 | pedestrian walking zone without border control layers(!) for reference 'cause this place has a messy border structure like the West Bank no matter how you check it from both sides.multi-polygon label shall be kept if no significant construction 's occurred |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Are you trying to point out any issues in osm data? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | West Bank? Jordan River and Israel????? From what I can understand, Sha Tau Kok actually has "open border" policy where approved HK persons may freely move between the HK and the CN side, for neighbourhood cohesion. However this is limited to HK persons that already have the Border Permit, so a random guy from Mong Kok will likely fail to move through this by virtue of "no Border Permit". Not sure how Palestine can help us in this case. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Upon further review, this is a cross-border duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5361744 . This hints towards a HK-side data problem. As such, I am crossing the line to close this note in favor of the HK-side note, which has a more practical explanation of the situation. | |
| 5360200 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: LRT stop will be renamed on 5 July, according to online info |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185117821 ; closing. | |
| 5323246 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | (Note: looking up land deed etc does not seem trivial, and should be tracked as longer-term discussion.) | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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` | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Question answered with no more activity; propose closing. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Me neutral. The key is the status of the "private road" section, but that could be reviewed as some sort of private interest study. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | At least, `highway=tertiary` is clearly wrong. Other reviewing/discussion is then unrelated to this note, and you may open another note if you notice a separate issue. Closing. | |
| 5325931 Category: OsmAnd | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | open time: daily 830 am to 5 pm #OsmAnd |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.tszwankok.org.hk/contact-us agrees | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184478126 ; closing. | |
| 5035617 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Well, that sounds believable. Then, situation clarified via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174362311 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174363905 ; closing. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I recently heard that this traffic signal is disused/malfunctioning with no plans of repair. This might be `disused:highway=traffic_signals`. Survey recommended. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184475322 ; closing. | |
| 5078374 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11620433869 What is this? Does this actually exist? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | The quoted node was created in 2024 when everything from 2019 should have vanished. But you can try. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | You never know. To some foreigners, the protests never stopped. We can do trigo. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | By survey, can't find any artwork here. But I won't stop you from doing whatever trigo you wants, so I won't touch the node or resolve this notefor now. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | By looking at the 2019 past photos (this gotta be copyright-waivable for being well-known and recurring facts / historic events), the banner trigo actually points towards the lion head at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3965148556 , which is clearly not here. Also, the viewing direction is from the east side. Then yes we can delete this. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185540786 ; closing. | |
| 5078375 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11620433769 What is this? Does this actually exist? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | By survey, nothing here. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185540282 ; closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Sometimes someone may put some excercise equipment in the wild, then it becomes gone. Could happen. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | But it's indeed low confidence from spammy Organic Maps together with the other `=artwork` | |
| 5339859 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659032301 dead sources, irl mismatch (Dedicated Rehousing Estate); what's going on here? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | By survey, they are really building a dedicated rehousing estate here. I mean, on Esri imagery, we can see the foundations. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | OK, upon review, my big eyes have missed the following: https://www.hkhs.com/tc/our-business/dedicated-rehousing-estates > 其他項目則位於土瓜灣馬頭角及市區寮屋區，目前正在規劃中。 | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | My apologies for the false alarm. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184479435 ; closing. | |
| 5346712 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | crossrowlatebrain ♦33 | "duplicate" OSM snapshot date: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z POI name: N1 Coffee and Co. POI types: amenity-cafe #organicmaps android 2026.05.27-11-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Basically, duplicate between nodes https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3771427619 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5182609990 . @crossrowlatebrain can you confirm whether the cafe is streetside or internal? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @vectorial8192 It doesn't really matter. Geometry doesn't need to be exact if the address tags are correct. <rant>What's the deal with mobile editors and low-quality changesets???</rant> | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | By survey, it's streetside. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I was about to say, the positioning of the feature can help with navigation ("should I enter through this mall door?"), but I see you have already surveyed this. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184478978 ; closing. | |
| 5346713 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | crossrowlatebrain ♦33 | "Duplicate" 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: 2026-05-27T00:05:23Z POI name: N1 Coffee and Co. POI types: amenity-cafe #organicmaps android 2026.05.27-11-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5346713 Duplicate note complaining about duplicate data. Ironic. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correction: dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5346712 | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Minor comment: Bad network connectivity can cause innocent resends and duplicates. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct in principle (I have known this since https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286293 ), but for this specific case I find it unlikely to be a network problem as the note text is different. | |
| 5351705 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | worldforhome | Vu |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 1385516 | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | opened | --- | King Nga Court Playground |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | closed | seewhyso ♦189 | Location should be at 22.44032,114.16609 and marked already, resolved | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I doubt it is walled with `access=private`; "gated communities" are rare in Hong Kong other than a few posh low-density estates. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Newer HOS estates (e.g. this) are not posh but are walled off and access=private . Try it yourself. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Anyhow, this location is easy to get to. I see no reason to not survey this to make sure. | |
| 11 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | > 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | `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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | `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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | If no further comments I will map the playground and tag it as `access=permissive`. | |
| 20 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I am leaning towards access=private ("semi-open") but other than this point, I have no more effective comment. | |
| 21 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Well consider this: private roads with no guards and gates is `access=permissive` (e.g. Cityone Shatin); how is this different? | |
| 24 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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. | |
| 26 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | After rethinking, I now agree that this should be `access=private`. Resolved viahttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184260921 ; closing. | |
| 5300387 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by your experimental tagging method. Can you discuss this on e.g. Discord first? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | As a heads-up, if you don't clarify what your experiment tagging is by the time I/we resolves all actionable notes (could be in a month or two at the quickest), I will just map this junction the normal way and resolves this note. You say you have 10+ pending discussions and that you have to do it one by one to prevent overload, but seeing you haven't started even one of them, and it appears that you are never going online on Discord, I/we can't wait indefinitely. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Don't worry, I will just force-revive this when that happens. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Beyond this specific note, given that new notes are submitted at random interval, it may not be reasonable to expect that we can achieve "all notes are closed" situation. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 97% closed should be top among cities. Germany is 95%. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | We are probably looking at the neis-one statistics. For fair comparison we should be looking at city-states (or equivalent), which I can list as Macau, Singapore, Gibraltar, and Liechtenstein; we should not be looking at "full countries", though the German 95% is very impressive. As of writing, LI 98%, HK 97%, SG 89%, MO 87%, GI 80%. LI has best "efficiency" here, but activity is also significantly lower there. Metric has limited ref value. Still, back to topic, give to Discord. The vibe is to ensure the notes side is stable, and then do Discord. | |
| 5347303 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | pitch no longer exists, is only a construction site holding jacking pipes |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Yes that's exactly what current osm data shows, even though we may improve the name. | |
| 5249442 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | --- | Shipyard |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | AlfieWong314 | ||
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | AlfieWong314 | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | AlfieWong314 | ||
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 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 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | According to the Company Registry, a company with the same name has been dissolved in October 2020. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Then, it seems we may close this? | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Timmy Wong HK | ||
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 13 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Upon further review, we have this https://www.facebook.com/dogistic/ This is evidence of "company activity" but doesn't say much about the company location. Then, a good interpretation of the situation is that the organization "dissolved" and is no longer a registered company, but is still around for dynamic on-call services. Thus, it no longer has an HQ. (The "HQ" is probably a car anyway.) Then, this note is invalid/just an ad. Closing. | |
| 5344188 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | --- | 沙田新城市 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | |
| 5342638 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: KMB 41M: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14193642 Validator warning: route scheme is unspecified; clarify "public_transport:version" |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184082286 ; closing. | |
| 4607075 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | Sewage Treatment Plant |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | There are no evidence supporting this claim. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Government maps label this area as a sewage treatment plant. Aerial imagery also looks like one. We may survey this to try to see if there any signs/names, or just make a changeset if we trust the aerial imagery. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | There is no evidence to support this claim, unless you are saying this site is managed by AA, which means the site is not publicly known and it may be reasonable to omit this. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | If hypothetically there is a sign there saying it is a sewage treatment plant, would that be enough evidence? And if the sign can be found with a survey, why shouldn't we keep this note open to track progress? | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | @vectorial8192 1. Evidence can be found for it 2. It had `name=` as something else (which I simply changed to `description=` and correct attributes) 3. The road is publicly accessible | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It's very rare to have absolutely no remotely-related online info for this feature. Unsubscribing. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Exactly, because there's no online info, so this is not armchairrable, so I reopened the note. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | And, whatever this plot of land is, it's so tiny I would not expect any online info. | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | https://www.hongkongairport.com/en/sustainability/environment/water.page https://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/en/article/31251/hong-kong-airports-triple-water-system | |
| 4957095 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175614946 | |
| 7 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I think we can map the relations if we can somehow identify a more commonly used route/main route. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Cf. island platform termini with reversing tracks before the station | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | In terms of FOSS: Matrix somewhat works (but no threads and posts) | |
| 19 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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. | |
| 20 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Agree with your workaround, but the HK OSM wiki pages look kinda abandoned. We might want to clean them up first, before adding any new info. | |
| 4922350 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: review / update Lee Garden Eight |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Could you please elaborate on what needs reviewing/updating? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | eg, old demolished buildings from 2019 still exists here, and we can kinda see the shapes of new future buildings from satellite images, and also to determine what exactly will be built here (e.g. new district court?) | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | * as in exists in the OSM map data | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | A very trivial first step to make progress in this note and also to declutter the data in the area is to delete the demolished buildings, which is done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184008897 . | |
| 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 ♦1,521 | Data (area) exists, but due to tree cover, if want to draw building outline, then need a site visit. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | seewhyso ♦189 | This is not exactly a building but an open area. Closing https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161374422 | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Government maps say "Wo Hop Shek Columbarium Phase II & Phase IV" is a building, not an open area. Survey needed. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | iirc this is a named area ("columbarium") with several unnamed small "mini-columbarium" buildings. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Ok, indeed what @vectorial8192 said was correct. I will need to think of a way to map this correctly. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | I used `amenity=columbarium` for sites, and `man_made=tomb` + `tomb=columbarium` + `building=roof` for the structures. `cemetery=sector` on its own will be thought as graves, and it may be used for rows/groups/sections inside each structure. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Sites meaning eg "Wo Hop Shek Columbarium". The phases should be something else. Or it depends on whether they are different facilities. The other problem is whether the 2 phases are different. If yes, they should be separated. | |
| 5286451 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286446 "EXXO" is not a known fuel company; did you mean "Esso"? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | By survey, indeed this is an Esso. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185259536 ; closing. | |
| 5195386 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | Is there a "Sushi Masa x Taiko Sake" at Shop H2B, G/F, Fashion Walk, 9 Kingston Street? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Turns out, it is already mapped: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13343748386 but the info seems wrong/incomplete | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183778796 ; closing. | |
| 5318728 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89595505 , etc. descriptive name |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183778116 ; closing. | |
| 5324843 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: physical separation along median (check Mapillary) |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183777664 ; closing. | |
| 5239739 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 6 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Seems like elevator reference number. Deferred survey recommended. Unsubscribing. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | By survey, should actually be 315B. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183736553 ; closing. | |
| 5239740 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 6 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Seems like elevator reference number. Deferred survey recommended. Unsubscribing. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | By survey, indeed. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183736432 ; closing. | |
| 5276753 Category: OsmAnd | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | --- | no u turn from V City to Tuen Mun Park #OsmAnd |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Believable. Should clarify directions. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Google streetview does not show any no u-turn signs. Survey recommended. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | You can try, but the changeset is very intuitive and trivial. | |
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | @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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Applications should be able to penalize these heavily. There's no need to do this. | |
| 15 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | @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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | (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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | By survey, there are actually no u-turn restrictions for all directions of this junction. | |
| 27 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183725357 ; closing. | |
| 5052159 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | I think https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188837279 should be 132 kV and not 132 V? |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I went to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1994601826 , and disappointingly there were no indication of voltage at all. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Someone on the OSM World Discord server said it was 132 kV, judging by the number of insulators. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183698815 ; closing. | |
| 5326149 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I haven't looked into the details yet, but first thought: airport control area =/= airport? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | @vectorial8192 Only the part in between belongs to AA (previously quarantine facility) | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | @kingkingHK I did use `designation=` https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30774625 | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209353389 | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Is it not for Airport City Link only, and SkyPier only? The area around quarantine was for supporting Airport, Airport City, and Expo. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Quoting District Council https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/island/doc/2024_2027/tc/committee_meetings_doc/DIDPC/29830/DIDPC_2025_2_TC.pdf para 9, 11, 12, 14; annex 1. Do those count as "attached to the airport" (me think yes)? For example, the Changi airport mall is still counted as "attached to the airport" and is therefore part of the aerodrome, assuming no "in/out multipolygon" laziness. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Skytopia only includes the quarantine facility, and waters. Doesn't say the Clearance Building belongs to AA. | |
| 5312241 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo/issue: status? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | What is the status of this T2 concourse? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Under constrution. Read the news. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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. | |
| 5296568 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Aerial imagery is showing something that looks like concrete slabs/kerbs. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Yes, which is physical separation. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | First, we split ways with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183973843 | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Then, we clean up relations with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183973916 | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | All done; closing. | |
| 5309379 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | At least we are making sure we know the FMC is at a separate building not affected by the reconstruction. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Fine, although I still disagree, this issue is so trivial and nonconsequential I don't even want to spend my energy debating, so whatever. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186704228 ; closing. | |
| 5294038 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1505900060 descriptive name |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | probable motivation https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5276301 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | No https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Indeed. Further reading: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185256327 ; closing. | |
| 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | what change is wanted here then | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Also see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015897 | |
| 5 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I see the pylon nodes are deleted from OSM some time ago. | |
| 6 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 8 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 9 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Also see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015896 It seems the towers are now gone? | |
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173778439 But I guess can still verify if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448005785 exists? | |
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 8 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 9 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183398143 ; closing. | |
| 5166716 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | the radar station ball thing is being dismantled |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14Znxy9BWRS/ agrees. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183159361 ; closing. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Isn't this note about the western radar? Your quoted article and changeset concerns only the eastern one. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | What I mean is, the west ball is obviously removed. One should update that before closing this note. | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Should be for real this time. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183398579 ; closing. | |
| 5146803 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Duplicate funicular station "Garden Road". What is the standard for mapping funicular stations? |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I think the station was moved recently? | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Then, sounds like this stop has simply expanded, and the platform moved. | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | But the midway stations really are request stops though. I don't see the problem, or how it relates to this note. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Please see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183154394 works. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | I vaguely remember a similar discussion about MTR stations, and I think the conclusion is that railway stations can stay as | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Sorry misclick. ...and I think the conclusion is that railway stations can stay as a node. | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Anyway, adopted Kovoschiz's suggestion of `area:railway=station`. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183397689 | |
| 14 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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. | |
| 2218616 | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | opened | kleeah | Public transport Routing at Lam Tin to be added |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | Josephfunny202603131237_ | ||
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | substation=substation seems redundant |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Can observe/confirm this tag is picked up by OpenInfraMap for display purposes. Hmmm. | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | ...I can't notice how OpenInfraMap renders this differently than any other substations. May you provide more info? | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I have not really determined whether this tag positively influences rendering, or that OpenInfraMap already renders this feature due to power=substation. | |
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Seeing that it renders identically with other `power=substation`s, I'd say it does not influence render. I.e. useless tag. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | If no further discussion I am inclined to simply remove all `substation=substation`. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I have nothing to add. This was only discovered while I was looking in detail at the railway. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183352652 ; closing. | |
| 2758068 | 1 | ~ 5 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 ♦2,280 | ||
| 6 | ~ 4 years ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Not yet added? Please don't resolve without comments if not yet worked on. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183351453 ; closing. | |
| 5077746 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Rare data incompleteness: name:en of street https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243663400 ? |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | irl totally no signage, and yet osm history insists this street has name. | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Curiously, searching the name online returns absolutely no result, which shouldn't be the case for any name with actual use. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I propose removing this name from osm for being unverifiable. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183345710 ; closing. | |
| 5296579 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | This is extra easy because no bus relations are directly involved. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Or not. The bollards (Mapillary) extend towards the non-bridge section. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | We will start with the actual separation itself https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183032086 | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | > The bollards extend towards the non-bridge section. Are you talking about the east side or west side? | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Lgtm now, after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183136566 ? | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Lgtm; propose closing. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | East side done with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183409060 | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Now, truly, all is done. Therefore, closing. | |
| 5025035 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Sing Mun River has fixme, presumably about boat access. However, afaik, there are no legal restrictions about boat access. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Well, if boats are not allowed, then https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493816164 would not exist. | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Wait, fixme was raised by Kovoschiz; discussion needed. | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Well, at least for Shing Mun River, `boat=no` should be wrong. We can remove it, alongside with the `fixme=`. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I will remove `boat=no` and `fixme=` from Shing Mun River if no further comments. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183345102 ; closing. | |
| 5313162 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 4 months 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Palm trees are broadleaved, no? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Yes, but user wants to add somewhere `=palm` ( most rigorously `taxon:en=` + `taxon:family:en=` | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months 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 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1322030181 name:zh of building? or no name? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Website of one of the tenants https://www.avseco.com.hk/zh-hk/contact : "機場行政大樓2座" | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Thanks for the finding. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183261119 ; closing. | |
| 5078742 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | name:zh of park? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/576655997 |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 赫蘭道／淺水灣道花園 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1810025496 | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright? | |
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | No https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183161334 ; closing. | |
| 5106613 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: this does not look like a mini-roundabout; can also irl-review nearby features. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | > 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Please see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179028772 works. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | At first glance: - changeset too large - can still improve (I also have data) | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Nothing to do here, closing. | |
| 5292869 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705014448 suspicious traffic signal |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Should be referring to the Shau Kei Wan Road / Chai Wan Road / Aldrich Street junction. Same poor import that we dealt with before. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183153560 ; closing. | |
| 5180357 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: station is too small |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | for the observers, iirc a question was asked at Discord about "station area" vs "(many) station building parts" for underground MTR stations. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | If no effective conclusion, then at least we can fix the station building size. | |
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | "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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: Some clinics have generic names, which may be improved. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | seewhyso ♦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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | This is more of a renderer discussion rather than an osm one, isn't it? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | (`bridge:part=` is not a good format either, as `bridge=` isn't a feature, unlike `building=` ) | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 4. Minor note: I didn't bother to draw the whole IEC western `=viaduct` , so doing this is also a lazy hack | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 5. `ref=` is another factor that needs to be considered to define a `man_made=bridge` , aside from `name=` and `start_date=` (etc) | |
| 8 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 9 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 10 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @Kovoschiz does https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181152791 resolve this note? | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | No, I didn't do anything on them, only `layer=` | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Tbh I don't really understand what this note is asking for / what can be done to resolve this note. | |
| 14 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | That's a good question. But I thought IEC is effectively the de facto naming of the structure at the same time. | |
| 17 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Citation needed. If you ask 10 people what "IEC" is 11 of them will think of the road, not the bridge. | |
| 18 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | It's effectively identical here though? If I ask what's that bridge, they will still answer IEC. | |
| 19 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Or maybe I have misunderstood the bridge joint tagging. | |
| 5065723 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | Does this https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4349317190 actually exist? |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | probably public light bus hail-and-ride | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | * So the intention of this note is to check if there's anything physical indicating a (mini)bus stop at this location | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Nothing here. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183110736 ; closing. | |
| 5305499 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705233079 suspicious traffic signals |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | This is only outdated. There was an intersection here where Wui Man Rd is connected with Austin Rd. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bus stop vs stop position |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109753 ; closing. | |
| 5254676 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.supretail.com.hk/sup-shop-address/3 agrees | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109667 ; closing. | |
| 5297353 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7186040 Validator warning: unusual value of distance ----------- Also, this bus relation is very broken. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109341 ; closing. | |
| 4049857 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | Peter Newman ♦3,087 | 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 ♦1,521 | 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 ♦1,521 | 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 ♦3,087 | 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 ♦1,521 | 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 ♦3,087 | ||
| 8 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Peter Newman ♦3,087 | 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 ♦1,521 | Guy was/is recently around resolving notes with no explanation. | |
| 10 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | "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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183066373 ; closing. | |
| 4917522 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | Traffic signals have been added to this junction. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Future reference https://www.cedd.gov.hk/tc/our-projects/major-projects/index-id-70.html | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Yeah, traffic signals have been added, and it seems like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705213882 is removed. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Can confirm, we do have this. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183065880 ; closing. (Note: bus relations will be migrated in a separate changeset) | |
| 5296588 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183056730 ; closing. (Note: bus relations will be migrated in a separate changeset) | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 3145328 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | ckyu | there is a gate which is locked by villaget |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | @kingkingHK do you vaguely remember where you encountered dogs? This may hint towards an area where everything within is `access=private`. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Depending on the gate material/construction, I would expect a shadow line on the aerial imagery, but I could not find this. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Ultimately, in OSM we trust. Seeing this is in Yuen Long, this note is believable. There are definitely rural areas that belong to villagers. Contextually this area is built for (private) aquaculture though it seems recent years the villagers want houses more than ponds. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185530110 ; closing. | |
| 5302548 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | Our Centre |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | @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 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Ok, understandable. Close this? | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | It's simply to close it with a comment. Not hoping for resposne. | |
| 5141141 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: this has been converted to a roundabout |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Coordination, splitting, experiences etc is best discussed e.g. in Discord. (Soon™) | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | (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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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. | |
| 5164334 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | name seems unsubstantiated |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/thread-2229220-1-1.html ? | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ; https://www.hb.gov.hk/tc/publications/housing/public/phpf/Attachment1tc.pdf : no results. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @vectorial8192 please see if you are satisfied with the quoted page. | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | > 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 ?????? | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | As it turns out, before we even get to review the unsubstantiated name, the plot is nearing completion, and the plot has been officially allocated into the new "Wah Fu North Estate". No more unsubstantiated estate names now. Closing. | |
| 5141822 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444187633 feels like a descriptive name, but I'm not sure. (Also, it should probably be "Ventilation") |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | By survey, I can't get into here (poor/incomplete OSM data), but I intuitively believe the description. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182963664 ; closing. | |
| 5296627 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296607 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bridge has physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Distinct from (but is also highly relevant to) https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5296561 . For management convenience, progress is to be recorded over there. | |
| 5296606 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296585 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296580 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296578 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296577 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296576 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296561 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5296560 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 5292909 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.saizeriya.com.hk/shop-info/?lang=en agrees | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260079 ; closing. | |
| 5292908 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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.) | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Remember that not every OSM member is an OSM mapper. Some are advocates (e.g. Google Maps hater), some others are just "friendly neighbours" that uses the gamified OSM mapping apps. Though, from operations standpoint, if a guy can produce a lot of notes via OrganicMaps, then the guy probably should learn e.g. how to use iD to streamline the update/deletion process. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260447 ; closing. | |
| 5287505 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/558985076 , etc. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | ? only connects to IEC, or is that not what you are trying to point out | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | @vectorial8192 Can you please explain or be more specific than "todo/issue"? This is not your personal notebook. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | @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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | `=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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | And gazetting street names on all slip lanes/roads (where OSM would expect no `name=` on `highway=*_link` internationally) | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | A link only connecting to a `highway=x` would be `highway=x_link`. Is it really that difficult to understand? | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 15 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | It is just `amenity=place_of_worship`, what are you talking about? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 5286470 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo/issue: review petrol station (confusing layering) |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | > `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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182981837 ; closing. | |
| 5286430 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736802187 "Eco" is not a known fuel company; outdated info? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | @vectorial8192 It's you don't know. They existed before. Exited the market. It's Towngas. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | @kingkingHK It's not an adjective "eco" for eco-friendly. It's a noun. `brand:en=Eco` | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Red/white is SINOPEC or Esso, and the website https://www.sinopechongkong.com/retail_hk/driver_oil_network agrees. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182974426 ; closing. | |
| 5208863 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Mateusz Konieczny ♦41,467 | 唐人茶居 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1566866228/history is it really amenity=restaurant and shop=kiosk at the same time? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I mean, this is not completely unbelievable... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦41,467 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | It's `=general` | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦41,467 | And for shop in shop - I would map both as separate objects. Maybe outer one as an area? | |
| 10 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦41,467 | well, note can remain open until someone can survey this location | |
| 12 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | pinging with no notification @kingkingHK | |
| 13 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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. | |
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | This is indeed a swamp. Either we keep it to the single node (current situation), or we do full indoor mapping to properly describe which part of the building is the restaurant-proper and which part is the storefront. The latter option seems like poor use of resources. I will just summarize this thread and add a "note=*" to the restaurant node, to at least document this unusual irl situation. | |
| 15 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185534412 ; closing. | |
| 5274944 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: slip lane opened? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | It's for the footbridge. Should be opened around the same time. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | (Should be to open) | |
| 4 | ~ 4 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187944052 | |
| 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Started a discussion in OSM World Discord https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/413070502580453387/1499408018129944697 | |
| 13 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not too sure what you mean, I thought we already knew that Crown Copyright can't be used? | |
| 15 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | What I said should be it needs to be clarified by LWG. Contours should be fine, and especially survey spots . | |
| 17 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Strangely colonies may be better. Only OS is not OGL, only Crown Copyright, thus 50 years. | |
| 18 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | (I'm referring to the previous status, and historical works. The problem is printed maps contain other org's data.) | |
| 19 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Prepare to reactivate the old platforms (irl construction nearing completion) |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Worst case this will wait for YOHO WEST Phase 2 to complete, which is expected to be in 2026. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Online info says platform 1, 3, and 4 has reopened today whereas platform 2 and 5 will reopen in July. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | (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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | If it's only slightly changed and not moved significantly, no need to redraw. Simply adjust it. | |
| 12 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | By survey, seems like the station dimension is kinda wrong, which tbh is expected. I will probably summarise my findings in Discord first (Soon™). | |
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Seeing no updates to this note, perhaps I may ask some extra questions. Given that the observed dimensions are different from the OSM mapped dimensions, how different are both measurements? Is it because e.g. the platforms are shifted along some direction, which is not in OSM? | |
| 5269824 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo/issue: review mapping of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16312559 ; probably against "relations are not categories" |
| 5269556 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 5 months 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | No it is not. | |
| 5267129 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo/issue: this section of Kwok Shui Road drives on the right, but the turning circle is clockwise? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | May be editing mistake (HK-wide) | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1704049753/history/5 | |
| 5267124 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo/issue: some parts of Heung Yip Road should be bridges |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | For future reference: This is a "bridge-over-culvert" area. Similar examples and tagging practice can be found at e.g. Tai Chung Road, Tsuen Wan. | |
| 5165553 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | junction has fixme: propose to split; separation continues from traffic island |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I see this fixme was adopted and implemented in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178627723 . Therefore, closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | It's fine to follow the `lane_markings=yes` | |
| 5264909 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: Foot path(s) cutting into a construction area? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Upon closer look, not enough information. How does this intersect with the parking area on the south side? | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | By survey, the polygon is just misleading. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184091140 ; closing. | |
| 5259315 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Imo this doesn't need a note for tracking. Just do it. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Correct in principle, but I simply don't know what this v1/v2 thing means. You can do it if you know this. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ooof, then this can be classified as a large edit, and we will need to track this. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | We got a tool to track that. Closing. | |
| 5264444 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.pricerite.com.hk/hk/en/storeInfo/ agrees | |
| 5115217 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | special note: note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/758446 is covered by other notes; this note is to help with note management. |
| 2 | ~ 9 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 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Meta-Note: this note helps others to more conveniently notice/click other notes. | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Referenced note is closed. Therefore, closing. | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Reviving with parent note. | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | No more overlapping notes; this note is now unnecessary. I propose closing. | |
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13349030768 ; ????? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 99.9% just a copy-and-paste error; don't know how that happened | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Left a comment at OP; hopefully they will reply later and review this. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | hkbus-fandom says this bus stop doesn't have a pole, so I doubt it qualifies for `highway=bus_stop` in osm. | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ... 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | There's `pole=no` , `flag=no` | |
| 9 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | One solution I can think of is to tag `hail_and_ride` along the section intended as a stop. | |
| 5214067 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | --- | Fairy Pita |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not too sure what this means. Does anyone know? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 5263460 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo/issue: 2x Exit 9C |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Should this be a Family Medicine Clinic? |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Seems like it; the placement makes it very unobvious. | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Indeed there is a FMC here. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo/issue: Unexpected connection between railway and stream. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Editing software should really warn about this kind of stuff. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181697331 ; closing. | |
| 5259988 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | --- | 路不通行 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 5259823 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | --- | 终点：北潭凹 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | --- | 起点：万宜东坝 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo/issue: Exit E/F |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Uh, can you elaborate? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Whatever happens, this is definitely not a "grill spot / picnic site". | |
| 4 | ~ 26 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189074201 ; closing. | |
| 5128913 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181540997 ; closing. | |
| 5122127 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | user_10539745 ♦97 | "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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Online info says there's another two at 105 Jervois Street and 9 Kingston Street | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | By survey, indeed there's one at at 105 Jervois Street and none here; haven't checked Causeway Bay yet. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Opinion: open a new note for Causeway Bay, or sth. | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Wellington Street see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179518884 | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Tai Kwun resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181535317 ; closing. | |
| 5239628 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | --- | ooPharma LTD |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note invalid (item does not exist irl); closing. | |
| 5128915 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | 晴天專業洗衣服務 堅尼地城厚和街49號Shop A2 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 5128914 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | Goodwins of London (Kennedy Town Shop) 乾洗店 堅尼地城卑路乍街183號 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 5231208 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | Has this part of Kam Tin Road been widened? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Yes. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181501054 ; closing. | |
| 5254629 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | Hayden wong | 這條公路是收費公路 #CoMaps android 2026.04.07-8-Google |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | No it is not. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Yes it is. If you are referring to the Bypass, it *is* a tolled road. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | We can double check whether it is currently tolled or free. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | It is currently free though afaik. It is already tagged with `proposed:toll=yes`. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Come on, it "is" not now. We don't need to check. | |
| 5156487 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | I doubt https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97816026 is really `surface=fine_gravel`. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | At this point I am suspecting software issues (e.g. StreetComplete or related apps giving wrong instructions), but I have no proof. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved by someone else via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180232988 ; closing. | |
| 5175577 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: new traffic signals? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Potentially close-able; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180391465 | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I still have some data myself; will make changeset soon. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | perdestrian stair toward entrence #OsmAnd |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | We should be able to do this with old maps; unlikely the cemetery changed much. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181215894 ; closing. | |
| 5134778 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: station is too small |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | Solved | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5128946 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | Missing Location: Sunshine Laundry Convenience Store 自助洗衣店 http://www.sunshinelaundry.com.hk/ |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 16 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189594988 ; closing. | |
| 5128947 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | In OSM we trust. | |
| 7 | ~ 16 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189595659 ; closing. | |
| 5128950 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | Missing Location: 保仕 乾洗公司 地舖, Shun Pont Commercial Building, 9號 Thomson Rd, Wan Chai |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | In OSM we trust. | |
| 7 | ~ 16 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189595469 ; closing. | |
| 5128943 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | Missing Location: British Dry Cleaners 英商乾洗 灣仔月街7號 http://www.britishdrycleaners.com/ |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 16 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189594415 ; closing. | |
| 939664 | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | opened | Koala888 | (可能)日軍手掘洞 (OSM data version: 2017-03-06T16:48:02Z) #mapsme |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Perhaps this is referring to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11245354726 , which is not located here. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Then, closing. | |
| 5123432 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: this section of Route 2 probably should not have toll information. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | It should as it can only be accessed from EHC. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11180794 | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Hammer Hill Rd off-slip seems an editing omission. You shouldn't assume it must be perfect. | |
| 12 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I will early-hint that my "exact area" is different from "continue until junction". | |
| 16 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | Josephfunny202603131237_ | ||
| 17 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 18 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 19 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Indeed. I often lose focus. My plan was to discuss this first, but it seems we can discuss SMP side first instead. | |
| 2337702 | 1 | ~ 6 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 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | awhchk ♦8 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | The estate appears to be `access=private`. This information might be unverifiable. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | lol rofl; we be armchairing this, and then aerial imagery (MapBox) can clearly show the anticlockwise direction. facepalm moment. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181842154 with a facepalm; closing. | |
| 5213189 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | --- | Speed limit missing report. Suggested limit: Unknown km/h Location: 22.375450388960736, 113.96111385596463 Reported via Speed Defense System app. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Country default speed limit. We already documented that. However, what is "Speed Defense System app"? | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181045513 ; closing. | |
| 5239843 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 6 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 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5239740 | |
| 5214761 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | concern: 2x Yuk Po Court (should be multipolygon relation?) |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180887294 ; closing. | |
| 4577980 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 ♦2,280 | 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 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | `railway=abandoned` has a different meaning from `building=` + `abandoned=yes` | |
| 8 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | @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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Roads, paths, and embankments qualify. So both can be examined. | |
| 13 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | so its just gonna stay like this then? | |
| 14 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | I had planned to do Sha Tau Kok branch. Need to check what side of the road it's on. | |
| 17 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Wo Hop Shek Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179336974 | |
| 23 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Sha Tau Kok Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179482107 | |
| 24 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | No disagreements for over a month, then nothing to do here; closing. | |
| 5218722 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | They say this area will somehow be completed soon, but satellite imagery does not show anything obvious or useful. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Do you have any source to support that Phase 2 will be completed soon? | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Coincidentally someone made a changeset very recently: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180695155 Does this resolve your concern about access roads? | |
| 9 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Re note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5056582 , see whether this Saigon Street becomes "eastbound only" later. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Ok, it really is oneway eastbound now... | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Wait, I think I made a mistake. Need to recheck. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Nevermind, it is still oneway westbound. Somehow, I messed up my sense of direction. Nothing to do; closing. | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 10 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It's time. | |
| 12 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | It's delayed again until 22 March... | |
| 13 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It seems the arrangement is over. | |
| 14 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180490726 ; closing. | |
| 5220075 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1049993024 ancient todo |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | City blocks don't have well-defined boundaries. Not sure what can be done here. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5220074 | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182210820 ; closing. | |
| 5220074 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1049686177 ancient todo |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | City blocks don't have well-defined boundaries. Not sure what can be done here. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Yes, they have, if according to numbered planning areas inside a scheme (as I have used) | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | The polygon seems to (aim to) describe some sort of neighbourhood rather than a specific development plot (e.g. Area XX). | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | For reference, e.g. "Tin Shui Wai South" is currently an OSM quarter. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182210763 ; closing. | |
| 5214733 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 6 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 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Google translate: "Victoria Peak" Then, note is not helpful, closing. | |
| 5214756 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | concern: I don't think these are cycling crossings. Or, there is a mapping mistake. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Given that Hong Kong does not define "cycle crossings", I will just refactor these to be regular crossings. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185410079 ; closing. | |
| 5177854 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Chi Tin Street I vaguely remember this will become a public road as part of the Lam Yat House works? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180233757 ; closing. | |
| 5203129 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179758941 , check latest state of the bus stop |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180204953 ; closing. | |
| 5198573 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 7 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 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | Josephfunny202603131237_ | ||
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180204079 ; closing. | |
| 5210960 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | --- | 1 |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 5210559 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Alisonlui | 1 |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | PLEASE don't use notes for personal uses unrelated to mapping. | |
| 5190973 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | Location of TMA |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | ...does anyone know what "TMA" is? | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 5208077 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | KAM7201 | TM-250249 |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | KAM7201 | TM-250249 | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | KAM7201 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | KAM7201 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 5209369 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Alisonlui | 黃泥墩水塘 |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 5209367 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Alisonlui | 千島湖 |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 5209366 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Alisonlui | 休息點 |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 5209361 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Alisonlui | 麥理浩徑第10段 |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 5209359 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Alisonlui | 掃管笏村路 |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 5209358 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Alisonlui | starting point |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | private access, need modify road property #OsmAnd |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | That's a simpler interpretation that also works. Then, this note is easy to deal with. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179811304 ; closing. | |
| 5123548 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | awhchk ♦8 | * 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | This https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16555245 already has the name Cha Kwo Leng Promenade. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | `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 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | Josephfunny202603131237_ | ||
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Correct | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | In OSM we trust. In practice there could be multiple fountains at the same location (expecting many people? wheelchair compatibility?), but to indicate that we have a fountain here, one fountain would be enough. People would clarify it when they pass by. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186921482 ; closing. | |
| 5177073 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: Improve data quality from aerial imagery |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | This is a very general description. Can you elaborate on what improvements you expect? | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | e.g. alignment, features, etc. | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @vectorial8192 I suppose you intend to fix this note yourself, given that you appears to have visited this place a while ago? | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | *this note and https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5177084 | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Correct, but you may notice my current focus is Ma On Shan. I will revisit this Soon™. | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | This side LGTM; closing. | |
| 3304147 | 1 | ~ 4 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 | seewhyso ♦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 ♦2,280 | 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 ♦2,280 | `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 ♦2,280 | 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 ♦2,280 | 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 ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | ar_on_hk | ||
| 16 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 17 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Some extra thoughts: Museum tag should be "museum=science" because this museum does demonstrate some science theories. The museum tag should "converge" to the fields of study at universities. Subject tag should be "subject=astronomy". Taginfo shows a lot of country names for this tag, which we can infer as "clarification of history museums". In particular, there is no usage of "subject=cosmology". We should still converge into the wider "subject=astrology", because e.g. this museum iirc demonstrates Doppler effects, gravity, and black holes, and these are general astronomical phenomena. Museum "type" should be avoided. It is ambiguous whether we intend to describe the subject of the museum (e.g. astronomy), the way the knowledge is presented (e.g. interactive displays, room-size demos, theatrical performances, ...), or the governance/funding structure (e.g. municipal, private, ...). As such, having "museum=science" with "subject=astronomy" is sufficient. | |
| 18 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | (continuation) In particular, the subject should not be "space science". Wikipedia describes "space science" as astronomy and astronautics. For this museum, looking at the astronautics topic, other than human spaceflight (which likely exists in all astronomy museum in the world anyway as general adjacent topic), iirc this museum does not talk about extraterrestrial colonization, life support systems, or cosmo-agri stuff. There is no (or just not much) astronautics in this museum; it still largely is just astronomy. | |
| 19 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186391412 ; closing. | |
| 20 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | ||
| 21 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Can you not instant close a debated note? Space Exploration is its own Hall. `subject=` is used for the exact topic. At least it can be semicolon. `museum=` as you discussed is for the broadest categorization of museums. `museum:subject=` can be used for categorizing the topic. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Subject#Examples | |
| 22 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | `=astronomy` alone makes it seem it's focused on `planetarium` only. It has other panels and exhibits. | |
| 23 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It does seem like there is no *extra* debate, given the general inactivity, and no additional responses on my museum/subject interpretation. For me, following the Wiki definition, astronomy should simply "contain everything" which naturally includes "planetarium" and other stuff. Holding open for now to collect more info; but imo we should be pretty close to the true solution / tagging method. | |
| 24 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | You said "I am thinking perhaps", which seems you are undecided. And it needs progress on defining the use of `musuem=` , `subject=` , and `museum:subject=` | |
| 25 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | That was 6 months ago. It was definitely not final back then, but now I have some more (concrete) ideas, which was written down in this note. Still, pretty sure we are almost there. | |
| 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Another path nearby was marked as inaccessible https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/154333345 ; related? | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | `=discouraged` , or `=no` ? | |
| 11 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | It's not prohibited explicitly. But technically it seems damaging plants is illegal. | |
| 2690777 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | 懸崖洞 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I think "hole" is supposed to mean caves? c.f. nearby https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1668864566 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2140236934 | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | From online sources, this seems to refer to an abandoned police (training) firing range. | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | Are https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173722555 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1205445683 connected? |
| 5115204 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | special note: note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1036042 is covered by another note; this note is to help with note management. |
| 2 | ~ 9 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 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Meta-Note: this note helps others to more conveniently notice/click other notes. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Adequately handled with https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5155801 ; closing. | |
| 1036042 | 1 | ~ 9 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | The only path that matches the description would be https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1104107657 . At least it is easier to survey there. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5155801 for convenience | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | me no objections. The other guy is probably here for the procedure and will likely not respond. | |
| 10 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Yes, that's why I made this note so that someone in the future can check the current state when they pass by. | |
| 7 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | dewbhudhew | 11 | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5177281 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: Consider Nullah Road -> Prince Edward Road East -> Tung Choi Street. Is this allowed/disallowed? Check lane markings, consider traffic, etc. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | I intend to fix this myself. I have a feeling I might have misjudged/misunderstood the related geometries. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180064102 ; closing. | |
| 5117986 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | There is no way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1459714974 is actually 30 degrees steep. (Also, `incline=` should be in percentage, not degrees.) |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Haven't been to this exact area before, but never say never. This "extreme" slope is half believable. | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not believable imo; it's 30 degrees, not percent. That's 57.7%. Probably can't even stand if it is that steep. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | seewhyso ♦189 | Did a quick survey at the site. The incline should be around 10 degree only or at most 15 degree. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | seewhyso ♦189 | ||
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | It's actually 10 degrees. | |
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179394604 ; closing. | |
| 5188738 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6330287444 I doubt this exists anymore. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | The entire university is still `access=private`; I think it is more likely removed than not so can delete first. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | theoretical possibility of loc_name | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185416384 ; closing. | |
| 5188594 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | There is a new building on construction and will be finished by next season |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Larry_marcon | ||
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | Larry_marcon | ||
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Apparently, the entire university is still `access=private`. I guess we would have to wait until aerial imagery updates this. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Cross-checking with EdUHK website, we do have this https://www.eduhk.hk/eo/our-projects/new-academic-building-tai-po-campus Anon is probably really bad at geography/mapping because we definitely can see a WIP building at the ESE of this note. We will just leave the "building is completed" event to the relevant access=private mappers, per "general stream". | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185415153 ; closing. | |
| 5175576 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: new u-turn lane? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Indeed. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1481293106 ...??? What's the plan here? | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | ...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. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | By survey, we do have this u-turn, but the u-turn is very short, I do not think there is much alignment to speak of. Propose closing. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | This is a minor issue, and the current data is passable. Someone will naturally review this when doing Pak Shek Kok station in the future. This is in vision range. Therefore, closing. | |
| 5191006 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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. |
| 5188736 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: descriptive name https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6309742344 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | The feature type is also wrong. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185415845 ; closing. | |
| 5178492 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10777311726 node was ejected out; is this node still valid/exists? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | It seems like the entire `building:part=` was dragged. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153504633 | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Can't find this irl in this hood. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | An attempt was made to fix the building parts via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180062125 . Resolving. | |
| 5034364 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It seems there might be two such clinics right here? | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not sure why you think it seems there might be two clinics here, could you please elaborate? | |
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Just curious, what clinic list did you use? | |
| 6 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Indeed there is a FMC here. | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | We do have a FMC here, with some other stuff. | |
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179305069 ; closing. | |
| 5036099 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Nope. Closing. | |
| 5099408 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1240353927 construction probably almost finished, according to aerial imagery. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | still pretty raw imo | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Construction not yet finished, but can make a rough sketch first. | |
| 2865034 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | This portion of route is blocked. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | It is covered in dense vegetation, but definitely not covered by anything. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | not blocked* sorry | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | We do have "informal=yes" here. We can add in extra "visibility=bad" but given that it is illegal to chop trees (?), it seems like this path will eventually be reclaimed by nature, and then we can just delete it in the future. PS: perhaps the chop-tree laws only concern the country park area, which does contain this path section. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185580534 ; closing. | |
| 5152477 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Don't know what it looked like originally, but indeed can't find any "railway models" here so this is believable. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260005 ; closing. | |
| 5177084 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: Improve data quality by aerial imagery, etc. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | This is a very general description. Can you elaborate on what improvements you expect? | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | e.g. alignment, features, etc. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | One challenge is that multiple aerial imagery sources have distortions here, which makes cross-referencing difficult, or at least just very unsmooth. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Finally, this side also LGTM. Closing. | |
| 5034337 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178900392 ; closing. | |
| 5175205 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | fliicker | 关系：multipolygon |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Yes, there is a multipolygon here. Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 5174782 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | fliicker | 关系 |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: new footbridge? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178809016 | |
| 5043056 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | Wright One ♦173 | CLP substation |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Indeed there is a power substation here, seemingly built with the data centre. | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Then, where is this new substation relative to this construction site? | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180773440 ; closing. | |
| 5166282 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: bad railway curves ------ preliminary vibes indicate that the curves are just plain wrong. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | ...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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Those are some really unexpected railway curves. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179066259 ; closing. | |
| 5161916 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | junction has fixme: turn restrictions |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Looks like it has chevrons, which would mean the turn restrictions do exist. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | OK, trusting the chevron observation. Then, resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178591191 ; closing. | |
| 5159342 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | fdjskalfjalwk；fjas；fjaslk |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Note is not helpful; closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | uh | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Oops | |
| 5161909 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | junction has fixme: Tung Chau Street -> Chui Yu Road; can? |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Mapillary says can. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178578447 ; closing. | |
| 5161922 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | cycle path has fixme: probably ancient schema |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178575319 ; closing. | |
| 5160781 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | Regal HongKong Hotel |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Feature exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198589969 ; closing. | |
| 5160778 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | Mid-Levels Escalator |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Feature already exists; closing. | |
| 5157078 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1150866494 I think this has opened. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Can also see if the exit numbering has been updated as well; not sure if this belongs to the MTR or the government. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | I doubt it has been; don't know the why they would. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Turns out, no ref changes. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179044665 ; closing. | |
| 5156760 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/674605645 descriptive name; could have tried harder |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | While we are at it, also fix https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/674605644 , added by the same user in the same changeset. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | I doubt https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105586327 is really `surface=fine_gravel`. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | A stream already exists nearby as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323624592 ; I presume this is already done. Therefore, closing. | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Unexpected, but can take a look at them; I think the latest free map is from 1975 as mentioned in Discord. | |
| 8 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | It turns out the old map mentioned in Discord does not have data for this area. @kingkingHK may you provide more info? | |
| 9 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | todo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164259073 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | um, lgtm? | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Broken: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607035 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607037 | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Then, how did you check whether the relations are broken? | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | ...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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178260481 ; closing. | |
| 5034332 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | We do have a FMC here, plus some other stuff. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180210490 ; closing. | |
| 5043144 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | Lkwokon | 賀龍汽車維修中心 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Indeed. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178575756 ; closing. | |
| 5038052 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | individual buildings and streets, where name:en? |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦524 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Skylark_H_C ♦226 | I believe these names are real. Refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5L_oSHKvck (vlog of the experience in this hostel) | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Skylark_H_C ♦226 | but yes, some of these streets have no English name. (4:50 in the video) | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 1. copyright 2. If it cannot be verified without entering an `access=private` premise I believe it would cause problems verifiability. | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | > 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 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | well then | |
| 5150565 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 8 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | Probably should change the `building=` `name=` to `addr:housename=`, as per changeset discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172051373 | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,280 | Already is. This is correct for single main building facility/site. | |
| 4559591 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Dimitar155 ♦4,971 | The 3 sets of 2 buildings each might be semi-detached. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 ♦4,971 | 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 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | @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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Another blocker would be to really manually review the several dozen (or hundred?) of buildings. | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961308 by trying to identify the semi-detached houses. | |
| 12 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | `building=terrace` + `house=semi-detached` improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961520 | |
| 13 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | house -> semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963622 | |
| 15 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Fixed mistagged semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963756 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963900 | |
| 16 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Identified semidetached_house with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963931 | |
| 17 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Finally, lgtm; closing. | |
| 5150539 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | todo: https://overpass-turbo.eu/?w=%22building%22%3D%22semi-detached%22+global&R |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦524 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177961274 ; closing. | |
| 5150201 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦524 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | My armchair says that the road is ownership=private | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,521 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182940740 ; closing. |