HenryEK for the last 12 MonthsHenryEK for the last 12 Months| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5058584 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | Should Tai Hang Sai Estate still retain landuse=residential? afaik judicial processes are withholding reconstruction, which means this estate is technically still inhabitable. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,198 | Have they not lost all the cases? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | Hi there, we are long into December, I guess that means we can close this note with no actions to take? | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | Any updates on this note? | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | the sidewalk along wai chi street now has beams along it in preparation for demolition | |
| 4577980 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 ♦2,198 | 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 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,198 | `railway=abandoned` has a different meaning from `building=` + `abandoned=yes` | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | @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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | @seurish Well, re Sha Tau Kok Railway, I would just like to point out that the addition was not without disagreements: see Kovoschiz's comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145944753 | |
| 12 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,198 | Roads, paths, and embankments qualify. So both can be examined. | |
| 13 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | so its just gonna stay like this then? | |
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,198 | I had planned to do Sha Tau Kok branch. Need to check what side of the road it's on. | |
| 17 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,198 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | Wo Hop Shek Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179336974 | |
| 23 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | Sha Tau Kok Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179482107 | |
| 24 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦436 | No disagreements for over a month, then nothing to do here; closing. | |
| 5152477 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | Don't know what it looked like originally, but indeed can't find any "railway models" here so this is believable. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | |
| 5123768 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | new lift completed last week |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | ||
| 5123769 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | new lift completed last week |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | ||
| 5078637 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | Anyone know what this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1455730544 is named? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | Lung Cheung Road Sitting Out Area | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | zh 龍翔道休憩處 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1503005523 | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | @HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright? | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,198 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | > and this location is not inconvenient to get to Technically, you are correct, but it just doesn't feel right. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | checked today, it is one to one with the name i provided | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | @HenryEK If you know the name, then you may add them into the system. | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦436 | name:zh of park? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/576655997 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | 赫蘭道／淺水灣道花園 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1810025496 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | @HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright? | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,198 | No https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question | |
| 5076281 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦436 | Is "Permeant" Aviation Fuel Facility supposed to be Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility instead? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | cannot find anything relating to the former so it most likely was a typo | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦25 | Explosives dumping ground here |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,198 | `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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,198 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | and now it isnt | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦436 | ||
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | @seurish Could you please elaborate? What "isn't"? Is the note information wrong? | |
| 9 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | i had a hike here not so long ago it got cleared | |
| 10 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | If it's cleared, then perhaps this note should be closed. | |
| 11 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | K H Fung | ||
| 13 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | K H Fung | ||
| 4559590 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Dimitar155 ♦4,113 | The 3 sets of 2 buildings each might be semi-detached. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | fixed | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | Related note see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4559591 ; we can further improve this. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | Some houses nearby are also semi-detached. Improved with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177960588 ; closing again. | |
| 2789883 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | Whcohi ♦239 | some of the path are creek |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | fixed | |
| 3025902 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | --- | there are two small routes here to go up/down |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | ||
| 4922555 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | todo: review roundabout mapping |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | The central island is traversable, so I think it should be `highway=turning_circle`. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,198 | There's a `=give_way` , so not entirely the most common `=turning_circle` , similar to `=mini_roundabout` | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | Not sure what you mean "visible", but there is indeed a painted circle in the middle: https://imgur.com/a/5uJE9Qi | |
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | this looks more like a mini roundabout than a turning circle | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Cypp0847 ♦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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | fixed | |
| 4964711 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | @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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | (oh at the end it does explicitly say 100km/h...) | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | --- | 扶輪亭（涼亭） |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | added based on street view the gazebo is located more south than this note. | |
| 3796163 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | --- | 涼亭 |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | there is indeed a gazebo here based on street view | |
| 4954527 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | todo: new buildings |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | im unsure of what to do so can you clarify what features i should delete for the edit (e.g. the construction plot) | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | so, delete the inland plot feature and add everything else? | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,198 | No, the `landuse=construction` is the `landuse=residential` | |
| 7 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | what change is wanted here then | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | Also see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4015897 | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | I see the pylon nodes are deleted from OSM some time ago. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | ||
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,625 | 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. | |
| 3654302 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | --- | Number of storeys: 22 Units per floor: 10 Population: 589 |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 ♦2,198 | 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 ♦1,330 | ||
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | why is this note still active | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | `population=` exists, and the 2021 census gives Tsui Chuk Garden population as 10071. However, the wiki says `population=` should only be used on `place=`. | |
| 4919256 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦25 | building shape is wrong |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦436 | The building shape seems to match the aerial imagery. Could you please elaborate on what is wrong? | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦25 | It does not match aerial imagery but i dont know how to explain it | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | You can also see that the building is currently not symmetric but almost symmetric (!), which is highly unusual. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | il just fix it myself but the position might be off | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | HenryEK ♦25 | ||
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | fixed | |
| 2237234 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | 312機槍堡 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | Pillbox 312 exists just northeast of this note. Although it is on the map, it for some reason does not show. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | ||
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,330 | To add more information: OSM itself only contains map data. It does not handle map rendering itself. The situation is that OSM Carto (the default rendering style used by OSM) does not render said military ruins, at least as of writing. Most likely, OSM Carto does not know how to render said ruins. This would then be an OSM Carto issue and should not be discussed here. | |
| 4855958 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | liiik ♦18 | "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: 2025-06-08T00:18:23Z POI name: Zac's POI types: wheelchair-yes amenity-restaurant #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | ||
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | HenryEK ♦25 | ||
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦25 | deleted point |