HenryEK for the last 12 MonthsHenryEK for the last 12 Months| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5455237 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | sign showing up for rent posted up around 2 months ago node/2297843206 |
| 2 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 29/04/2026 ** https://www.stheadline.com/food/3560810 | |
| 5449549 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | missing service road for car park entry and exit |
| 5416311 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | closed september 2024(?) building should still exist |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186931673 ; closing. | |
| 5408243 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | this is a bridge |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | The context is "integrated bridges", ie "bridges that do not have bridge joints". The current convention is "these do not get bridge=yes" but I semi-disagree with this convention. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | Where do you get that "current convention"? (Box) culverts should be distinguished by whether there's a continuous structure all around the thing it's crossing. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | It has joints. Is visible from remote imagery. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | I observe and deduce conventions, but in this case I have missed the bridge joints. I partially blame the iD polygon rendering obscuring the joint lines. If have bridge joints, then should get "bridge=yes". I believe @Kovoschiz you would also agree? | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/849477115/history/6 | |
| 5394365 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 1 month 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | towards the left is upwards | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 1 month 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Checking whether the staircase is open to the public is a valid todo. Can be tagged with `access=private` if not. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | I would do "access=no" if the staircase is closed due to the ongoing construction works. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | staircase and subway seem to be blocked off with metal panels | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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. | |
| 5396809 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | missing english name (?) |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | I can see this "rehabilitation garden" is a common hospital facility across multiple hospitals. Multiple references at various websites over many years. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185827111 ; closing. | |
| 5375969 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 亚比安炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | isnt stonecutters albion already dismantled and built over? i know the other batteries are still present although ruined, but im pretty sure this one was demolished | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | I do not think we are supposed to touch or clarify the Chinese barracks inside HK. This would likely violate CN mapping or national security regulations. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | this seems to just be part of a mass note creation related to hong kongs historical batteries, regardless of if they exist, or are already present on the map for this particular note, im sure albion battery no longer exists, so it can simply be resolved without change however the other stonecutters island batteries are indeed there, but due to what youve brought up, id say to leave it up to discussion before anything is done | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | By Gwulo https://gwulo.com/node/21091 it says the status is unknown. It is not definitely clear that the battery is really demolished. Granted we can't fully rely on Gwulo for decision-making, but given that the site is inside a continuously-active military area, there is no realistic way to even confirm/deny this note anyway. Might as well just close this directly. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | from what i understand, way/449189871 is in place of the albion batteries. comparing aerial from the past, it was demolished to make way for previously stated building | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Active military area; cannot confirm/deny. Closing. | |
| 5058584 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Should Tai Hang Sai Estate still retain landuse=residential? afaik judicial processes are withholding reconstruction, which means this estate is technically still inhabitable. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | Have they not lost all the cases? | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Hi there, we are long into December, I guess that means we can close this note with no actions to take? | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Any updates on this note? | |
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | the sidewalk along wai chi street now has beams along it in preparation for demolition | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Apparently, legal process is still going. See below May 2026. Again, "I am very afraid to close this". https://thewitnesshk.com/%E5%B9%B3%E5%B1%8B%E6%8E%A7%E5%A4%A7%E5%9D%91%E8%A5%BF%E9%82%A8%E6%8B%92%E9%81%B7%E5%B1%85%E6%B0%91%E5%8B%9D%E8%A8%B4-%E5%B1%85%E6%B0%91%E9%9D%A2%E8%87%A8%E5%9F%B7%E9%81%94%E5%90%8F%E6%94%B6%E6%A8%93/ | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | well man tai house is currently being demolished | |
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | man lee, man shun and man hong house have been demolished | |
| 5377849 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | boundary point 12 (22°14’21.4’’ N 113°49’35.0’’ E) is missing Order of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China No. 221 https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/A207!en.assist.pdf page 6 - (2) southern sea section - 4 |
| 2 | ~ 4 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1141737165/history | |
| 5376252 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 松林炮台（龙虎山炮台） |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | already present - node/26412912 - although improvements can be done to it i guess | |
| 5376154 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 昂船洲军营（驻香港部队展览中心） |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | fix - changeset/185131772 changed tag(s):name before: name = 驻香港部队展览中心 after name = 駐香港部隊展覽中心 PLA Hong Kong Garrison Exhibition Centre name:zh-Hans = 驻香港部队展览中心 | |
| 5128521 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | Todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813803780 name |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | typo needs fixing and requires chinese name only? or is there more to do here | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Name referenced in https://www.lcsd.gov.hk/clpss/en/webApp/ContactAccessDetails.do?lsb=ND&type=lsb&value=ND , which I believe is copyright-usable. At least I see we need to repair the name and also provide the Chinese name. Minimal HK mapping requirements regarding names. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185418889 ; closing. | |
| 5357832 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 2 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | that was from lung cheung road though, never seen if it actually leads down to bhr | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Slop maintenance would be immediately access=private and then case closed. Still, we can see what is going on at the lower side. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 2 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Rethinking of access values is still in progress, but access=private or access=no will work here. | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185844215 ; closing. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | ||
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | Why did you delete it? | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | Didn't you say there's slope maintenance walkway? Is there no `informal=yes` between that and above? | |
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | The stairs could be connected. Or as it has existed before, this should be `abandoned:highway=` | |
| 5347303 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | pitch no longer exists, is only a construction site holding jacking pipes |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Yes that's exactly what current osm data shows, even though we may improve the name. | |
| 5306342 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | clp building of some kind probably substation |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | substation - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1520394713 changeset - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183092671 | |
| 5295117 Category: OsmAnd | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | --- | missing mcdonald here #OsmAnd |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | mcdonalds - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13859365922 changeset -https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183000852 | |
| 5286430 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736802187 "Eco" is not a known fuel company; outdated info? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | @vectorial8192 It's you don't know. They existed before. Exited the market. It's Towngas. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | @kingkingHK It's not an adjective "eco" for eco-friendly. It's a noun. `brand:en=Eco` | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 3 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Red/white is SINOPEC or Esso, and the website https://www.sinopechongkong.com/retail_hk/driver_oil_network agrees. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182974426 ; closing. | |
| 5286291 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813139621 "Feoso" is not a known fuel company; data mistake? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | is feoso not a fuel company? i remember a building with their name near lai chi kok | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/217283057 this station being feoso could be possible but il have to check some time later this week | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | (We have more info at Discord) The main issue is that I somehow cannot confirm whether Feoso is legit; they seem to be exiting the market, but some irl features still refer to it, and the website is basically "now WIP; check back later". And very unusually, no Wiki article for this. We can look at the 5 fuel company websites to determine which one(s) is/are running this petrol station. Will do this Soon™. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182978580 ; closing. | |
| 4577980 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 ♦2,266 | 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 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 10 months 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 | ~ 10 months 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 | ~ 10 months 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | `railway=abandoned` has a different meaning from `building=` + `abandoned=yes` | |
| 8 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | 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 | ~ 10 months 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | @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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | Roads, paths, and embankments qualify. So both can be examined. | |
| 13 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | so its just gonna stay like this then? | |
| 14 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | I had planned to do Sha Tau Kok branch. Need to check what side of the road it's on. | |
| 17 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 6 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 6 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Wo Hop Shek Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179336974 | |
| 23 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Sha Tau Kok Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179482107 | |
| 24 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | No disagreements for over a month, then nothing to do here; closing. | |
| 5152477 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Don't know what it looked like originally, but indeed can't find any "railway models" here so this is believable. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 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 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260005 ; closing. | |
| 5123768 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | new lift completed last week |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | ||
| 5123769 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | new lift completed last week |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | ||
| 5078637 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Anyone know what this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1455730544 is named? |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | Lung Cheung Road Sitting Out Area | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | zh 龍翔道休憩處 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1503005523 | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright? | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | Im not sure what you mean by that sorry Do you mean the place name cannot be used due to copyright or the source? | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | OSM has very high standards on what can/cannot be included. One of these standards is "non-copyrighted data". e.g., "do not copy from other maps, e.g. Google Maps". Problem: sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a certain information is copyright-protected. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Indeed, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#Can_I_trace_data_from_Google_Maps/Nokia_Maps/...? If you are unsure whether a map can be copied, it would be the safest to assume that it can't. For this specific case, the easiest solution would be just visiting the site, as park names are usually signposted, and this location is not inconvenient to get to. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5083046 https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | > and this location is not inconvenient to get to Technically, you are correct, but it just doesn't feel right. | |
| 10 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | checked today, it is one to one with the name i provided | |
| 11 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | @HenryEK If you know the name, then you may add them into the system. | |
| 12 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | Resolved - (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177026868) Sorry for the delay as I don't check things on OSM as often | |
| 5078742 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | name:zh of park? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/576655997 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 赫蘭道／淺水灣道花園 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1810025496 | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright? | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | No https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183161334 ; closing. | |
| 5076281 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | Is "Permeant" Aviation Fuel Facility supposed to be Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility instead? |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | cannot find anything relating to the former so it most likely was a typo | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Well, "permeant" does not make sense in this context, and the name was added by a relatively inexperienced user, so a typo is not unlikely. Official websites e.g. http://hkpaff.com/ https://www.hongkongairport.com/en/the-airport/aviation-logistics-services/ https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/sites/default/files/epd/english/boards/advisory_council/files/ace_paper_2007_10_AnnexC.pdf also agree with "permanent". Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176396214 ; closing. | |
| 5073245 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | Explosives dumping ground here |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | The hydrographic office writes that "航海人員不宜在爆炸品傾倒區內錨泊、拖綱或進行其他水低或海床作業。Mariners should avoid anchoring, trawling or carrying out any submarine or seabed activities in the explosives dumping ground." on their "charts for local vessels" | |
| 5071079 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | Just curious, how are some roads classified as motorways on OSM yet they are not classified as such by bodies such as the Transport Department and instead considered trunk roads? https://www.td.gov.hk/en/road_safety/road_users_code/index/chapter_5_for_all_drivers/expressways_and_trunk_road_/ I apologise if I am mistaken |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hong_Kong/Transport/Road#%E8%A1%97%E9%81%93%E5%88%86%E9%A1%9E_Classifications_of_streets Currently, tunnel areas are considered `highway=motorway`. | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | `highway=` is a functional class. Although `=motorway` is quite an exception, it can be argued for following closely. Tenatively, they are distinguished by `motorway=no` + `motorroad=yes` to reflect their function and status. HK is complicated by Tunnel Area appearing in the middle of Expressway, as in here, and Cheung Tsing Tunnel; as well as Tsing Sha Hwy. This doesn't play well with how `highway=` should be classified between junctions, specifically the last diverge where you can exit before entering the Tunnel Area or Expressway. We had short preliminary discussions on changing them https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hong_Kong/Transport/Road | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | Also there's no legal traffic classification as a "trunk road". That's engineering standard, and for census. Expressways, or Tunnel Area, are designated on Trunk Road, and Primary Distributor. Strategic Routes can be routed on Trunk Road, and Primary Distributor. | |
| 289507 | 1 | ~ 11 years ago | opened | K H Fung | Trails have been submerged weeds and shrubs this area. |
| 2 | ~ 11 years ago | closed | masahiro57 | ||
| 3 | ~ 11 years ago | reopened | masahiro57 | ||
| 4 | ~ 7 years ago | commented | --- | р | |
| 5 | ~ 7 years ago | commented | --- | д | |
| 6 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | and now it isnt | |
| 7 | ~ 10 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 8 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @seurish Could you please elaborate? What "isn't"? Is the note information wrong? | |
| 9 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | i had a hike here not so long ago it got cleared | |
| 10 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | If it's cleared, then perhaps this note should be closed. | |
| 11 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Yeah, I just thought "now it isnt" is not really clear enough to understand why the note is closed, so I reopened it. Now with further clarification, then note information is no longer correct, closing. | |
| 12 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | K H Fung | ||
| 13 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | K H Fung | ||
| 4559590 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Dimitar155 ♦4,601 | The 3 sets of 2 buildings each might be semi-detached. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | fixed | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | ||
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Related note see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4559591 ; we can further improve this. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Some houses nearby are also semi-detached. Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177960588 ; closing again. | |
| 2789883 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | Whcohi ♦239 | some of the path are creek |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | fixed | |
| 3025902 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | --- | there are two small routes here to go up/down |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | ||
| 4922555 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | todo: review roundabout mapping |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Could you please elaborate on what the issue this here/what is to be reviewed? I do notice that the mapping around here is a bit odd and most certainly wrong | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | The roundabout feels wrong, but aerial imagery cannot see if this is an actual roundabout with an actual concrete kurb or simply just a turning circle. | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | The central island is traversable, so I think it should be `highway=turning_circle`. | |
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | There's a `=give_way` , so not entirely the most common `=turning_circle` , similar to `=mini_roundabout` | |
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Is the presence of a give way a factor in determining whether something is a turning circle though? I feel like its main purpose is to let buses from the bus terminus do a u-turn and leave, fitting the definition of "a widened area of road that allows vehicles to turn more easily". | |
| 7 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | I think the distinction is whether a "central circle" is visible. If a "central circle" is visible then it's basically a `=mini_roundabout`. The problem is, satellite imagery cannot see whether such "central circle" exists. | |
| 8 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Not sure what you mean "visible", but there is indeed a painted circle in the middle: https://imgur.com/a/5uJE9Qi | |
| 9 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | this looks more like a mini roundabout than a turning circle | |
| 10 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | seewhyso ♦189 | seems we could close this one - with the imagery evidence confirming this to be a mini roundabout instead of a turning circle | |
| 1991488 | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | opened | --- | The road ends here |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | fixed | |
| 4964711 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | Todo: Check speed limit of Fanling Highway south-east bound between Kai Leng and Wo Hop Shek Interchanges. (I think it's probably 100 or 80, instead of 70) |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | OSM Deep History says it was decreased from 100kmh to 70-80kmh. The context would be temporary speed reduction to install noise barriers. Now that the work is done, I suspect this should then be restored to 100kmh, but yes, a survey is recommended because I am also not sure. | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | pretty sure its the second roundabout from here but i dont know if it affects it https://www.td.gov.hk/en/traffic_notices/index_id_81860.html | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @seurish Pretty sure it's not? The temporary reduction you cited only starts on 5 Aug, while the 100->80 change was in 2014 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24419558), and the 80->70 change was in 2020 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92812210). And such a short temporary measure should not be mapped anyway. | |
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Still, if a notice mentions temporary reduction to "80km/h" then it is a very strong hint it should somehow be higher than that, i.e. might actually be "100km/h" originally. | |
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | (oh at the end it does explicitly say 100km/h...) | |
| 7 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Well, if it explicitly says 100 km/h, then I think it's good enough to believe it without further investigation. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173263058 ; closing. | |
| 3796160 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | --- | 扶輪亭（涼亭） |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | added based on street view the gazebo is located more south than this note. | |
| 3796163 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | --- | 涼亭 |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | there is indeed a gazebo here based on street view | |
| 4954527 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | todo: new buildings |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | im unsure of what to do so can you clarify what features i should delete for the edit (e.g. the construction plot) | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Well, from aerial imagery, there are indeed some new buildings here, so I guess we should add the building elements and update its latest state? | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | indeed, because the buildings are nearly completed, the intention is to draw them on the map, and also draw the roads etc (now usually good building shapes are provided by someone else; not sure how they can draw nice-looking building shapes) | |
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | so, delete the inland plot feature and add everything else? | |
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | No, the `landuse=construction` is the `landuse=residential` | |
| 7 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172531268 ; 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 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | what change is wanted here then | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Also see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015897 | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | I see the pylon nodes are deleted from OSM some time ago. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | ||
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,686 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183398143 ; closing. | |
| 3654302 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | --- | Number of storeys: 22 Units per floor: 10 Population: 589 |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | Number of storeys already in OSM data. We don't store population; it is too volatile. We do not have "units per floor"; however, we do have "total units in building". But is it a good idea to store the total? | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,266 | What do you mean? `building:flats=` is a standard, and I haven't seen any question about its usefuleness. Not having units per floor now doesn't mean it can't be created. Also it would be useful to have an `addr:flats=` per floor to show how they are numbered on each floor, as the format is not scalable to list all reliably. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | hersonsl | ||
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | ||
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Will there be any further discussion on this note? Discussions regarding units per floor and address format notation isn't very relevant to this note and is probably better suited elsewhere. | |
| 7 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | imo population should not be stored in osm, but I am not too familiar with how that works. can use this opportunity to recheck Tsui Chuk Garden building level/unit correctness, I guess. | |
| 8 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | why is this note still active | |
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | `population=` exists, and the 2021 census gives Tsui Chuk Garden population as 10071. However, the wiki says `population=` should only be used on `place=`. | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | General blunder by past self for suggesting to recheck level/unit correctness. I can't seem to find any usable sources for this, but supposedly there should be ancient sales brochures which should contain these info. Unsubscribing for now. | |
| 4919256 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | building shape is wrong |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | The building shape seems to match the aerial imagery. Could you please elaborate on what is wrong? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | It does not match aerial imagery but i dont know how to explain it | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | It really does not match aerial imagery. One technique in the iD editor I have learned: select the building, press M to move it, and then move the building to the top most level shown in the aerial imagery. The theory is that, even if aerial imagery is wrong about the actual location, it really cannot be wrong about the shape and the size. Here, in this case, with ESRI Imagery, we can see the east wing and the south wing is not large enough / not far enough from the Core. This is a valid todo. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,496 | You can also see that the building is currently not symmetric but almost symmetric (!), which is highly unusual. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | il just fix it myself but the position might be off | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | HenryEK ♦42 | ||
| 8 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦42 | fixed |