| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5178297 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 13 days ago | opened | awhchk ♦2 | Where does the name "Lo Wu Classification Yard" come from? I've only ever heard of it referred to as "Lo Wu Marshalling Yard" (after it was no longer a freight yard). |
| 2 | ~ 4 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I think it's a mapping mistake. Lo Wu "Classification" exists as a firing range https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187627328 . | |
| 3 | ~ 4 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | @vectorial8192 You are misunderstanding the mistake, it's the terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard | |
| 4 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Then, the existing name is a descriptive name, and is still somehow a mapping mistake. | |
| 4577980 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 ♦2,173 | 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 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | `railway=abandoned` has a different meaning from `building=` + `abandoned=yes` | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | @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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | @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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Roads, paths, and embankments qualify. So both can be examined. | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | so its just gonna stay like this then? | |
| 14 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 12 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | I had planned to do Sha Tau Kok branch. Need to check what side of the road it's on. | |
| 17 | ~ 12 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 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 | ~ 12 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 11 days ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | 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 | ~ 11 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | 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 | ~ 4 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Wo Hop Shek Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179336974 | |
| 23 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Sha Tau Kok Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179482107 | |
| 5164334 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | name seems unsubstantiated |
| 2 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | https://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/thread-2229220-1-1.html ? | |
| 3 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | ; https://www.hb.gov.hk/tc/publications/housing/public/phpf/Attachment1tc.pdf : no results. | |
| 4 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | @vectorial8192 please see if you are satisfied with the quoted page. | |
| 8 | ~ 13 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 12 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 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 | |
| 5176553 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 15 days ago | opened | okainov ♦241 | everything mapped here as lvl3 should be lvl6! |
| 2 | ~ 14 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | No, above-ground counting is used for `level=` , and the actual numbering in `level:ref=` | |
| 5176554 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 15 days ago | opened | okainov ♦241 | and everything mapped as lvl1 should be 4 accordingly |
| 2 | ~ 14 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | No, above-ground counting is used for `level=` , and the actual numbering in `level:ref=` | |
| 5173115 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 17 days ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | todo: new footbridge? |
| 2 | ~ 16 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178809016 | |
| 5165906 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 23 days ago | opened | Daviddylan1 | WONG CHUK HANG RD |
| 2 | ~ 22 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | osm.wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps osm.wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 5164947 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | opened | --- | hong kong disneyland |
| 2 | ~ 24 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/377094298 ? osm.wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps osm.wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 5146803 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Duplicate funicular station "Garden Road". What is the standard for mapping funicular stations? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | I think the station was moved recently? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Then, sounds like this stop has simply expanded, and the platform moved. | |
| 5 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | But the midway stations really are request stops though. I don't see the problem, or how it relates to this note. | |
| 7 | ~ 26 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 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. | |
| 5025035 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Sing Mun River has fixme, presumably about boat access. However, afaik, there are no legal restrictions about boat access. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Well, if boats are not allowed, then https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493816164 would not exist. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Wait, fixme was raised by Kovoschiz; discussion needed. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Someone added `boat=no` in Fo Tan, which seems a mistake https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32559690 Originally it may have been `=drain` for being reclamation and channelized. That may not be considered accessible by default. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Well, at least for Shing Mun River, `boat=no` should be wrong. We can remove it, alongside with the `fixme=`. | |
| 5150715 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | todo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164259073 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | um, lgtm? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Broken: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607035 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607037 | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Then, how did you check whether the relations are broken? | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | ...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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178260481 ; closing. | |
| 5151410 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | needs discussion: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963900 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | the concern is whether "wall to wall connected houses but only 2 in house chain" count as "semi-detached house". See eg 103A and 103B. I think is no. from online picture examples of semi-detached houses, there should have a way for people to reach the backyard without entering the house. if no such method then is just regular rowhouse. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | I don't think duplex has such a definition. They are structural only, without regards to sideyard in the lot. It should be further distinguished there, not changed to `=terraced` for this. | |
| 4 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I quote the Wikipedia: > The name distinguishes this style of construction from [...] terraced houses, with a shared wall on both sides. Then, these are indeed semi-detached. | |
| 5 | ~ 21 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178577044 ; closing. | |
| 5150565 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | 散掉的冰块 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Probably should change the `building=` `name=` to `addr:housename=`, as per changeset discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172051373 | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Already is. This is correct for single main building facility/site. | |
| 5149136 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | --- | Please Change “ Hong Kong Student Aid Society Primary School“ to its newly changed named ‘Christian Pui Yan Primary School’ SInce I am a student that studying in that school |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170061955/history/4 | |
| 5149137 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | --- | Please Change “ Hong Kong Student Aid Society Primary School“ to its newly changed named ‘Christian Pui Yan Primary School’ SInce I am a student that studying in that school |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5149136 | |
| 5038052 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | individual buildings and streets, where name:en? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦372 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Skylark_H_C ♦214 | I believe these names are real. Refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5L_oSHKvck (vlog of the experience in this hostel) | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Skylark_H_C ♦214 | but yes, some of these streets have no English name. (4:50 in the video) | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 1. copyright 2. If it cannot be verified without entering an `access=private` premise I believe it would cause problems verifiability. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | > 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 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | well then | |
| 5027512 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | klorydryk ♦20 | "invisible from the road" The place has gone or never existed. 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: 2025-09-06T09:48:08Z POI has no name POI types: highway-path #CoMaps android |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Does this mean, there is no perimeter foot path? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | klorydryk ♦20 | Yes if is what I mean | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177555528 ; closing. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | This is unclear. It may be `trail_visibility=no` / `obstacle=vegetation` / `disused=yes` / `abandoned:highway=` | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | As in the connection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1002239786/ | |
| 5123548 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | awhchk ♦2 | * 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | This https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16555245 already has the name Cha Kwo Leng Promenade. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | `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 | |
| 5099138 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39550532 , etc., ? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦372 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | It seems like this is difficult to survey on foot. Might need to take a bus that uses https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113146414 e.g. 13X, 28, 213X, 224X, 297, X6C. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | To clarify this note, this really feels like duplicate mapping. eg this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1205404050 has construction=motorway_Link but then https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113146414 already exists. This might be an armchair mistake. I think I tried to delete this in the past, but it was reverted. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Updated (had already marked what they are supposed to be) | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 5132153 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | I vaguely remember https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341043773 does not exist anymore. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Old imagery (Bing Maps) and new imagery (ESRI World) both say "no crossings here". | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Iirc the barriers prohibiting jaywalking were removed in 2019, which could justify `crossing=informal` as it is no longer illegal to cross. However the barriers were readded later, making it `crossing=no` again. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | "2019" has too much ambiguity to be helpful to OSM mapping. Informal crossings are disallowed within x meters from legal crossings https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1180365855 . I forgot/dunno what x is. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | I quote Cap. 374G (39)(a)(ii): > No pedestrian shall cross a road within 15 m of a light signal crossing otherwise than at the crossing where such lights operate. This is around 39 metres from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1180365855. We can probably do `not:highway=footway` + `not:footway=crossing` + `crossing=no` + `was:highway=footway` + `was:footway=crossing` + `was:crossing=informal`. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | No need to invoke other crosswalks, but you should measure from the crosswalks at this intersections, which is within 15m. It's illegal to climb over barriers, and cross within 15m of footbridges. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | At least that's my understanding. You must detour via the upstream intersection, or go C-shaped around the intersection. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | I was thinking the footbridge doesn't count because it goes to a different place, but from the wording of the law it seems like it counts anyway... | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I scoff at "it seems like it counts anyway". If laws are this expressively precise (I wish), then we don't even need the Judicial Review. e.g. I hear there is a JR case unrelated to pedestrian crossing arguing that it's unclear/ambiguous which "right hand side" the law is talking about. Hardcore theoretical physics in the legal system, yay. A reasonable interpretation would be "you can't cross the road like this if there's dedicated facility within range along the same direction". In this case, we don't (it's out of range), but there's no marking, and there's likely guardrails, so indeed we can make it be "was"/"not". | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177673697 ; closing. | |
| 5128538 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Are they really constructing https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/774964181 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/774964743 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/774965667 ? Can't see any signs of construction from aerial imagery. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | You can refer to the surroundings. Most if not all non-T2 `=construction` seems should be `proposed:highway=` actually. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | All three roads are changed to be "highway=proposed" with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177805982 ; close? | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦372 | Yeah, was gonna do it myself but you did it first, thanks. Closing. | |
| 5126001 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | todo: now that reclamation is (probably) mostly complete/stabilized, review/partition into greenfields |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | There's nothing to be partitioned. Already done inside. TCE can be discussed as a `boundary=administrative` depending on definition. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | TCE feels like some sort of "urban block", but afaik no such urban block specification for HK OSM. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Why is it a "block"? I have already used `city_block` for numbered planning areas, but it's not always correct. TC E would be worse, as it's totally not one street block only. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Anyway, the first step is to move the TCE naming from the reclamation work area to the place=suburb as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177301892 | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | The next step is to make almost everything in this area a greenfield as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177369360 . The thought is, land plots that are planned but not allocated yet should remain as greenfields until someone acquire them and start construction. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Should be good now. Closing. | |
| 5123432 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | todo: this section of Route 2 probably should not have toll information. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦372 | It should as it can only be accessed from EHC. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11180794 | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Hammer Hill Rd off-slip seems an editing omission. You shouldn't assume it must be perfect. | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I will early-hint that my "exact area" is different from "continue until junction". | |
| 5057844 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Are https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8010179249 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3070117404 duplicates? Why is one of them `place=quarter` and the other `=village`? Any relevancy with https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4435507882 `=hamlet`? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Yes, the upper village is addressed as TKO Village. So it should be considered part of one somehow, for `addr:place=` to be logical. The most complicated cases are eg So Kwun Wat villages. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | With reference to e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/308770173 , can't there just be one/two node(s) with just place=hamlet with name "Tsueng Kwan O Village"? | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | What's the difference of 2 points with existing? | |
| 5115498 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | bpaz709394 | 您好: 在這地圖中所有顯示註記的Ｘ點.都不是我的. 煩請 貴公司代為清隊. 謝謝 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Please turn off "map notes" on the right from "Layers" | |
| 5104381 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | 1F616EMO ♦3 | Entrance to Kwai Lam Court and the mall here at surface level |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | We don't usually do entrances into individual (residential) buildings, but we can do entrances to the mall. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | The residential entrances sound like they could be `entrance=yes` + `addr:unit=` + `access=private`. They are verifiable after all. I intend to map some basic indoor footpaths in this area soon, so I guess I will also deal with the mall entrances. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | While we are at it, some indoor paths in this area are mapped as "indoor corridors" so OSMCarto doesn't render them. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | It's not "don't usually do", but "usually not done yet" | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | This time I am not gonna accidentally champion the addition of residential entrances. Such a large scope work is best left for later. Foot paths added via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177303341 ; closing. | |
| 5105251 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | todo: use motorway_link for multi-exit end-of-line junctions (e.g. see Western Harbour Crossing). |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | It turns out Route 6 is described as "merges into Route 3 (Kwai Chung Side)" (see https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/hk_strategic_route_and_exit_number_system/map/r6/index.html ) | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | This has no effect, as it's the same for others https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/hk_strategic_route_and_exit_number_system/map/r3/index.html | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | (There's even Rt 3 end on both directions) | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Counterpoint: Route 7 states "merges into Route 5 (Tsuen Wan side)" (see https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/hk_strategic_route_and_exit_number_system/map/r7/index.html ); we map it as "trunk road all the way". | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Northern terminal is further complicated by Tsing Long Hwy being on Rt 9 between the Interchange and San Tin Hwy north of NU22. It would be as if CKB is on Rt 3 between WHC and WKH. On the other hand, here it's complicated by Rt 9 merges into `noref=yes` Lin Cheung Rd first. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | If we are willing to break the "one road physical cross-section -> one OSM way" rule, then the solution becomes trivial. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Another counterpoint: Look at the Route 1 / Route 9 superposition near Racecourse. I think a solution is possible while staying inside the "one cross-section -> one way rule". | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 1. That's unacceptable 2. I don't see what's the relevance here. There's no Rt 3 and 6 concurrency. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦372 | ||
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I now see Route 3 -> Route 6 is using motorway; this makes sense because we have precedent for this in Route 5 -> Route 7, which contains an exit for Route 5 itself and also provide the (branching) starting point for Route 7. I see Route 6 -> Lin Cheung Road is also using motorway. Upon rethinking, I have no real proposals/ideas for the Lin Cheung Road -> Route 3 part. If anything, this can be revisited in the indeterminate future when highway reclassification happens. Then, nothing to do here. Closing. | |
| 5105750 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Most towers on podiums are tagged with `building=`, not `building:part=`. Then, is it appropriate to use `building:part=` for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142662166 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142662162 ? Personally I don't see a tower as being the same building as its podium, but maybe that's just me. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | That was Apple doing it without consulting us. Many others, eg TKO. The problem with `building:part=` is towers or podiums can have their own parts, meaning there's nothing in between to group those parts. (I'm guessing the proposal discussions didn't consider such complexities) They are considered as buildings by people too. Therefore practically and conceptually, they should use `building=` , not `building:part=` | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | So, ultimately, is this a "todo" note or is this a "it do be like this" note? | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Todo. My plan is to change all `building:part=` towers in Hong Kong to `building=`, then close this note. | |
| 5098623 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Has this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/780190087 been reopened? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176191677 | |
| 5093604 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Various "dots" exist in this area with nothing but "name=Yau Ma Tei Interchange"; what for? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Seems another user omission. In general, `junction=yes` can be used for named junctions, and the confusingly UK-named `=motorway_junction` for exits. However in this case, HK has the special practice of gazetting some roadways to be named "Interchange" as "streets", and it's not straightforward to determine the extent of YMT Interchange when it overlaps with Jordan Rd. For consistency and better support, they can still be considered. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | What I mean is, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2861669105 this is just a named "dot". The meaning is unclear. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦372 | ||
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I remember seeing named dots in the subway tracks, and that's to help with identifying which rail path the node belongs to when the rail paths are overlapping. Here the shape is complex, but the overlapping is minimal, so we may just clear the names from the dots. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177674914 ; closing. | |
| 4958371 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Quarry Bay station, Exits B1, B2, and B3 are original research. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | *also exit B4 | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | These B "subexits" are not signposted irl and do not appear in irl official diagrams. IRL only denotes "B". This is different from East Tsim Sha Tsui Station where the J "subexits" are delegated to be under the management of an external party, currently the manager of Victoria Dockside, and each have their own ref. I can personally attest these J "subexit" refs have been in use for at least 20 years. Evidence for these B "subexit" refs must be presented; otherwise I will delete them. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Detected faulty changeset as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/16819169 . | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | From Discord discussion, it seems like this note is a false positive? If so, perhaps we can close it. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | The next step is to check/confirm the railway protection details, and I haven't done that yet. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | So, there really are official documents that write down exist B1 to B4, but they are no longer signposted irl. Then, need to determine the proper next step. Should we keep only the B exit or somehow mix in the preexisting B1 - B4 exits with the newly-mapped B exit? | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Imo if it's no longer signposted irl then I don't see why it should still be kept. Official documents can still be outdated or simply wrong. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Also, `old_ref` can be considered if you really want to keep the B1-B4. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Would there be any disagreements if I make all of them `ref=B`, change the `=B1` to `=B4` to `old_ref=`, and close this note? | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I don't know the details, but it seems there can only be 1x `ref=B` as specified by the OSM schema. | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | It should be acceptable to have multiple `ref=B` | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | ||
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,682 | 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. | |
| 16 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Upon rethinking, we can do was:ref as if it is lifecycle. Some of us were there when it was still B1 to B4, and some of us (e.g. me) noticed it is now only B. | |
| 17 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Finally resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177305619 ; closing. Once again, I apologize for the false allegations stemming from confusion. | |
| 5082019 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Yau Tong Station: Review the layering; should probably be `layer=0` or `layer=1`. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Does `layer=` need to correspond absolutely to its surrounding features, though? Afaik `tunnel=` can be used as long as it's long and full covered, and `tunnel=` requires a negative `layer=`, but maybe I am wrong. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | `layer=` absolute number has no meaning, and can be anything. Only the relative order matters, and preferably be consistent with the surroundings. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Yeah, I don't think there are any problems with the `layer=`s here. @vectorial8192 do you have anything to add? If not I think we can close this note. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Alright, it seems I only had a wrong interpretation of what layering really means. Closing. | |
| 5078637 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Anyone know what this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1455730544 is named? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | Lung Cheung Road Sitting Out Area | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | zh 龍翔道休憩處 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1503005523 | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | @HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright? | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | > and this location is not inconvenient to get to Technically, you are correct, but it just doesn't feel right. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | checked today, it is one to one with the name i provided | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | @HenryEK If you know the name, then you may add them into the system. | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | HenryEK ♦23 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | name:zh of park? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/576655997 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | 赫蘭道／淺水灣道花園 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1810025496 | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | @HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright? | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | No https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question | |
| 5080918 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Does Tai Shue Wan https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8791675465 really deserve to be `=suburb`? I don't feel like it's that important. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | It's enough if it stands on its own, cf Sham Wan, Shouson Hill. You thinking it should be in Wong Chuk Hang? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | I feel like it is not really that important when it appears to be unpopulated. But nevermind if the standard is just "standing on its own". I originally noticed this when I saw Carto render Tai Shue Wan over Ap Lei Chau at zoom 12 even though I personally consider Ap Lei Chau to be much more "important", so I wondered if that is caused by the overrating of Tai Shue Wan. Perhaps that can simply solved by adding `population` to Ap Lei Chau, given it's an island so there's no problems with verifiability? | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 1. The definition of populated can be debated. If there are hotels, or jails (need to do revision on census definition), are those really "unpopulated"? That's not the same as census definition of populations. Eg Penny's Bay, or Chek Lap Kok may have no residents either. 2. Carto doesn't always work. `population=` is not the only factor in what's important. Eg HKI is less populated than Kowloon and NT. 3. I suspect Carto `population=` only affects `=city` https://github.com/openstreetmap-carto/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1461 | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | tbf renderers have their choice on picking what to render. Them picking Tai Shue Wan over Ap Lei Chau is their L. Still, specifically for Ap Lei Chau, supposedly renderers should prioritize Ap Lei Chau because it's an island. I would expect "island > suburb". | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | It seems we can close this. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦372 | Then, this note is simply due to my misunderstanding on how renderers work. Closing. | |
| 5074863 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Wang Fuk Court: ref=A to ref=G needs to be reviewed whether they are actually `abandoned=yes` or `ruined=yes`. Preliminary reports by structural engineers are indicating `abandoned=yes`, but full report is not out yet. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | It's no immediate danger, only meaning it will not collapse very soon, not no major damage. It's much more broken than the usual `abandoned=` which can easily be renovated | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Yeah, recent close-ups show as if the buildings were from an actual warzone. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175435505 ; closing. RIP. | |
| 5071079 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦23 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | `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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 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. | |
| 5070064 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | 1F616EMO ♦3 | From the news, Wang Chi House is mostly unaffected. I doubt that marking it as ruined (as with the other seven) is appropriate. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | 1F616EMO ♦3 | See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5068721 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Local Hong Kong idiom: never follow the car too closely. Technically the fire is not under control; we have no definite proof Wang Chi House is OR is not `=ruined`. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | I multi-edited them all for convenience. You can always correct it. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | 1F616EMO ♦3 | I agree with vectorial8192’s points, that we should put it on hold before things settle down. Relevant discussion on the English Wikipedia on the future of the other seven buildings: https://w.wiki/GLf6 | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Indeed. Reading the link to the English Wiki, yes my general point is basically "WP:TRUE". Now, as of writing, I think all fires from ref=A to ref=G are gone for good (await official confirmation). But even then, ref=H (Wang Chi House) is still covered in scaffolding. We need direct visual confirmation to the building itself (e.g. how are the actual walls?) to determine whether it should be "damaged" or "ruined". | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | @1F616EMO OSM is not Wikipedia. Immediate action is often done for disasters, and it works based on iterative refinement. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Ie there's no ban on breaking news https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Things should have settled down. I am hopeful Wang Chi House is entirely unaffected, but someone go look under the scaffolding? | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Latest news hint towards the building remains healthy because residents are allowed to retrieve some of their stuff. | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175434791 ; closing. | |
| 5068721 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Great fire; we may need to observe the irl situation and update OSM when needed, this seems like a full loss. Worst case the whole estate is condemned and needs to be rebuilt. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Unlikely to become `landuse=residential` directly, changed to `ruined` | |
| 5058584 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Should Tai Hang Sai Estate still retain landuse=residential? afaik judicial processes are withholding reconstruction, which means this estate is technically still inhabitable. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Have they not lost all the cases? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Hi there, we are long into December, I guess that means we can close this note with no actions to take? | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 14 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Any updates on this note? | |
| 8 | ~ 14 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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. | |
| 5052151 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | --- | Our hotel |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 5039442 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | I suspect that it is legal to cycle from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116287569 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/835665902 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | * and all the way to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/718063548 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/149908331 , but not https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/227648518 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I don't know the details yet, but bold claim to be allowed to walk/cycle in numbered highways. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | ok, so you mentioned https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/227648518 , but this already has `bicycle=no`. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Numbered highway does not mean anything. Strategic routes have no legal implication. See Lung Cheung Road. Afaik, there are only four situations where cycling is prohibited: 1. on expressways (Cap 374Q (4)(1)) 2. in tunnel areas (Cap 368A (10)(a)) 3. in country parks (Cap 208A (4)(1)) 4. beyond no cycling signs (Cap 374G Sch 1 Fig 126 & 127) Obviously here the first three don't apply. Then yesterday I was watching some bus videos and found out that when entering Tsing Sha Highway northbound from Tai Po Road, there is only a "no pedestrian" sign, and no "no cycling" sign until https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1311402563 with a "right arrow" sign, which should imply that it is allowed to cycle from Tai Po Road Sha Tin Heights or the Lower Shing Mun Road roundabout to Mei Tin Road and Mei Fai Street. But then I knew bus videos probably aren't acceptable sources for osm, which I why I made this note for future surveys to check where the no cycling sign actually starts. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Indeed you can legally bike on many roads dangerously without signage. It's likely forgotten to be exempted, as it's at least inconsistent with `=trunk_link` https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/850148615 | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | @vectorial8192 Try to find no bike sign on all `=trunk` fully (Lung Cheung Rd, Kwun Tong Rd, Tseung Kwan O Rd, Lei Yue Mun Rd; former Gloucester Rd, Connaught Rd C) | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦372 | My suspicion is correct. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175445268 ; closing. | |
| 5029552 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Route 8 inconsistency: This section is named Eagle's Nest Tunnel, but the other two sections (Sha Tin Heights Tunnel and Tai Wai Tunnel) are just generically named "Tsing Sha Highway". We should probably apply one of the above styles to all three sections to ensure consistency. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | This is intentional. The most well-known naming is applied. Eagle's Nest Tunnel is significant. Cf Lion Rock Tunnel is not "Lion Rock Tunnel Road" | |
| 5025033 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Any reason why Tuen Mun River changes from `waterway=river` to simply `waterway=drain`? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Editing mistake (not changing all) | |
| 5017619 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Does https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1443879805 really exist? There's already things there, and online searches do not return any helpful results. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Fake online business, can be immediately removed first https://www.facebook.com/IGCHKSHOP/ | |
| 1499178 | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | opened | --- | The route is ambushed and almost vanished up |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | `=bad` can be on empty land. Should check the `obstacle=vegetation`, and decide whether it's `disused=yes` or even `abandoned:highway=` | |
| 5012470 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | u-turn slip road has been reopened already |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86041189 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | juniusli | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | juniusli | ||
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | juniusli | ||
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | juniusli | ||
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | ||
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | To add to this strange note, know that OSM tiles are rendered by a separate service (OSM Carto), and sometimes changes are not reflected "immediately". Sometimes it takes up to 7 days for the new changes to "appear on the map". | |
| 5004149 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Does https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705213942 really exist? Stand-alone traffic signal in a roundabout? If not, then what is this element supposed to be referring to, and where is traffic signal "NT417" actually at? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | No idea why this was not discovered earlier. Would guess this traffic light tries to refer to the traffic light system located southeast of this note; Wai Tsuen Road & Shek Wai Kok Road. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | But then, Wai Tsuen Road / Shek Wai Kok Road is already mapped as NT203. Even if we are sure this traffic signal doesn't exist, the bigger mystery is where "NT417" is; is there a way to look up a traffic signal's location based on its ref? | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Well, for starters, we have open data published by the HK gov. See https://data.gov.hk/en-data/dataset/hk-td-tis_16-traffic-aids-drawings-v2 You would need to check whether it's OK to use this, and then interpret the data format yourself. Find this mystic "NT417" from the data dump, or discover that it doesn't exist. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | You can't use that. It doesn't have controller numbering data either. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Well then, according to Overpass Turbo https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2dQa this is the only known instance of "NT417" in Hong Kong. I am then thinking maybe this is a fabrication, that IRL there is no such "NT417" anywhere. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | OSM data has NT414 and NT415 in Fo Tan. It also has NT418 in Yuen Long, NT419 in Kam Tin, and NT420 in Kwai Chung. It seems these serial numbers are dependent on the completion date of these traffic signals. One would guess perhaps some of the traffic signals in Fo Tan (lacking ref) might be the real NT417. If anything, I see no problem deleting this and then wait for IRL survey to look at the no-ref traffic lights in Fo Tan to see whether there contains NT417. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Turns out, NT417 is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10025317359 | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦372 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173447973 ; closing. | |
| 4989681 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | Emoria ♦2 | Unable to answer "What surface does this road have?" – Service Road – https://osm.org/way/640101062 via StreetComplete 61.3: Closed private road |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | This is known. It can still be added eventually. | |
| 4977665 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Shatin station; should outer platforms (aka 1 and 4) be `=siding`? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | This seems simply an editing mistake https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/208232752/history/16 | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Good find. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172570414 ; closing. | |
| 4980973 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Why is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/817460283 `highway=unclassified` whereas the rest of Siu Yip Street is `highway=tertiary`? Forgotten to change in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147584989? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | You know you can simply correct these obvious omissions | |
| 4978548 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | Cypp0847 ♦189 | the bridge area got divided up into various pieces as to differentiate opening dates and features. this made the rendering of name is quite clumsy over here. could we try and hide some of the names? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | This is more of a renderer discussion rather than an osm one, isn't it? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | (`bridge:part=` is not a good format either, as `bridge=` isn't a feature, unlike `building=` ) | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 4. Minor note: I didn't bother to draw the whole IEC western `=viaduct` , so doing this is also a lazy hack | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 5. `ref=` is another factor that needs to be considered to define a `man_made=bridge` , aside from `name=` and `start_date=` (etc) | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | ||
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,682 | 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. | |
| 4954527 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | todo: new buildings |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | im unsure of what to do so can you clarify what features i should delete for the edit (e.g. the construction plot) | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | so, delete the inland plot feature and add everything else? | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | No, the `landuse=construction` is the `landuse=residential` | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172531268 ; closing. | |
| 4706786 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | BallBILL ♦8 | "closed down" 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: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: Jimmy Cake Shop POI types: shop-bakery #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦372 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | @Kovoschiz Why is this note closed without a comment? Is there really a bakery here? | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | User tried to delete it already https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164848701 | |
| 4706787 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | BallBILL ♦8 | "closed down" 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: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: 7-Eleven POI types: shop-convenience #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦372 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | @Kovoschiz Why is this note closed without a comment? Is there really a 7-11 here? | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | User tried to delete it already https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164848701 | |
| 4922555 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | todo: review roundabout mapping |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | The central island is traversable, so I think it should be `highway=turning_circle`. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | There's a `=give_way` , so not entirely the most common `=turning_circle` , similar to `=mini_roundabout` | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Not sure what you mean "visible", but there is indeed a painted circle in the middle: https://imgur.com/a/5uJE9Qi | |
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦23 | this looks more like a mini roundabout than a turning circle | |
| 10 | ~ 2 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 | |
| 470359 | 1 | ~ 10 years ago | opened | nevilcheung | 凱昇藝術中心 |
| 2 | ~ 10 years ago | closed | nevilcheung | ||
| 3 | ~ 10 years ago | reopened | nevilcheung | ||
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Correct | |
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3841741635 , but it seems we don't have a tag for "arts school"...? | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | roylo5112 | ||
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦372 | ||
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Perhaps `education=art_school`? | |
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I am half split between "yes let's do it" and "but it also targets school kids". | |
| 10 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I might understand this wrongly, but I feel like `education=art_school` is for adults and teens. Like, a higher-education school for future artists, and not for kids. | |
| 11 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Then, perhaps `amenity=prep_school` + `school=art`? | |
| 12 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | `=prep_school` is preparing for exams. This is `=training` | |
| 13 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Agree in principle with @kingkingHK and @Kovoschiz, but also consider doing `education=*` instead of `amenity=*` as per latest OSM recommendation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:education | |
| 14 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | It's both `amenity=` + `education` | |
| 15 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | So, `amenity=training` + `education=training` + `training=art`? | |
| 16 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Technically, `amenity=training` is correct, but that doesn't feel right. I feel like "training" is for adults / professionals, but this being a kid's school doesn't fulfill this requirement. | |
| 17 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | I don't see why it must be for adults. The wiki defines it as "public places where you can get training". Precedent see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12428711030 | |
| 18 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Good precedent; we can type this in later. | |
| 19 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177956622 ; closing. | |
| 4957458 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Kwun Tong Line, the directions are sus. "Westbound" but approaches Tiu Keng Leng; and vice versa? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | (Problem observed at Mong Kok) | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Must have switched the `railway=` , while correct `route=` | |
| 4949223 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Why is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1205283541 a link? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | User mistake, but should all be `=secondary_link` | |
| 4939458 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | "U"nderpass? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Is the name even gazetted? If not that could explain it. E.g. in https://www.td.gov.hk/en/traffic_notices/index_id_76124.html it's called "The underpass leading from Chatham Road North northbound to Gillies Avenue South southbound", and such a clumsy description likely won't be used if there's a gazetted name. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | `name=` is for common names, and many names are in fact not gazetted despite both public and government use. I do a trick to use lowercase for these. Google 1st page results: https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_13/tokptiso/tdn41159en2.pdf https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr2025/english/subleg/negative/2025ln072-e.pdf https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_13/TOK/YTM/YT_PDF/2014/tdn_drone_show_in_ https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_13/TOK/YTM/YT_PDF/2014/tdn_drone_show_in_ | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Most famous example might be Rumsey St Flyover. It is used extensively, including at planning and construction historically. But the road is still not gazetted as it or Connaught Rd C. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I think I saw a map that marks this segment as "Gillies Avenue South" but I can't recall which map. If no gazetted name + no irl signposted name then might as well make it `noname=yes`; at minimum it does not seem like it should be "Wuhu Street". | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 1. You have to know whether that map is correct first. Even government map has many mistakes, or at least deviation from reality (depending on definition). They may overextend the gazetted naming. 2. It's not Wuhu St, but an underpass of it. Naming by what it passes is standard. 3. You would have to remove many names by this standard, when those do have common names. Eg Princess Margaret Rd Link and Ferry St Flyover was only gazetted as Hung Hom Bypass and Gascoigne Rd Flyover in recent years. | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | There's some official and historical basis on top of the above https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/embed.aspx?src=https://www.emsd.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_1148/Appendix%20A%20-%20Building%20Code%20v1.0.xlsx&activecell=B2412 https://search.grs.gov.hk/repository/img?id=%2BB3GmARcUkiYebJGfIJqKA%3D%3D#page=3 https://search.grs.gov.hk/repository/img?&id=2Q7T7wF%2BeKyyliWLygafDw%3D%3D#page=6 | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | OK, then the current situation is good enough as-is. Therefore, closing. | |
| 4927540 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I don't think this is a tomb. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | `=tomb` + `tomb=columbarium` is simply what's used for this. It's only needs to change from `historic=` to `man_made=` | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Indeed, I was looking at `historic=*` because that's obviously not the case. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171004732 ; closing. | |
| 4921002 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | --- | marina cove E side |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 2902724 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | pslau | AED Location 遠東金融中心 高層客戶服務台 香港金鍾夏愨道16號 每日 09:00 AM - 09:00 PM |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | closed | pslau | ||
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | reopened | pslau | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9184291180 | |
| 4911234 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Name of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6315211233 is dubious. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | `name=` is debated against `board:title=` , which this is should not be `=guidepost` | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | It's actually just a banner on a railing. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | If it's just a banner, then it probably isn't even a "guidepost". imo banners are not worth being mapped into OSM; too transient. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Yeah, agreed on not mapping banners. Originally I thought Kovoschiz might have something to say after my comment on 29/8, but since there doesn't seem to be any further discussion, I guess I will just remove it. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦372 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174190901 ; closing. | |
| 4908929 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Wan Po Road south-east bound, why does the `highway=motorway` end here? Shouldn't it be extended to the end of the Wan Po Road/Chiu Shun Road/Po Yap Road Flyover, based on the continuity rule? Cf. Tsing Yi North Coastal Road. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Yes, this is a good question. We had a great argument over these situations. But for here, I do think we could slightly relax the standard when it changes at the gore. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Also Tunnel Area is proposed to be changed to `motorroad=yes` only, and `=trunk` here, instead of all `=motorway` | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | On MOS Rd, this was avoided by justifying a `highway=` change at the bus on-slip (although it was edited by someone now) | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦372 | Changed via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170453952 ; closing. | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | ||
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Re MOS road, I would think there is nothing to continue since both the "main" road and the "slip" road have their motorway status end right at the junction linking them together. But this would be going too off-topic. | |
| 4899068 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦372 | Very dubious speed limit (why suddenly speed limit 30 at the middle of a roundabout?). |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Wrong `maxspeed=` and `maxheight=` | |
| 4904578 Category: --- | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I don't think node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10984688382 should be here / should exist; Fui Sha Wai is 99% located near Ping Shan. See same-name bus stop at Castle Peak Road. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | No, it's simply referring to a location of the same name that historically existed here. This only needs to be judged by relevance in OSM compared to OHM. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I just don't see its irl relevance when a same-name irl location exists elsewhere quite obviously. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | It's possible for currently relevant locations to share names. That can't be a criteria for deciding. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Also this is `=locality` | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | The actual situation is no one remembered to create it (did now) | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I now see node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10984688382 has a `fixme=...`, so I guess this situation is done for now. Closing. | |
| 4903801 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11353455226 is suspicious |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | It's simply another historical location | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | To be fair this is my first time hearing about this. For a long time I would just call this area Pat Heung. Again, quoting you, perhaps this should be moved to OHM. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | That's the `=suburb` , and there can be other `place=` under it. `=locality` is already the lowest level. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Then, this note is due to my lack of local (rural) knowledge. Therefore, closing. | |
| 4896453 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | (northbound) Which of the 3 toll gantries is the real toll gantry? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | The one here should be wrong. You should be aware there's always a pair of them for redundancy, not a single one only. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | The one on the slip road is wrongly positioned. Should be upstream. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | And southbound is completely wrong (and duplicating one of the correct one by me) | |
| 4894772 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | no name road, why access=private? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Drainage reserve access road (was even `access=no` ) | |
| 4894603 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | There exists both https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315897141 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12846837 , which may indicate inconsistent data. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | No you should check how `type=waterway` works first | |
| 4894594 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12996644577 is suspicious |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | Indeed, and in fact the same user has also added a lot of very dubious names in July. Some of his edits also seem to correlate with names prescribed by protecthknames. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | if protecthknames, then is potentially bannable; we will need some help. | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | This is not actionable unless you have commented on at least one changeset to show unresponsiveness and cooperativeness. Discussing here alone isn't enough. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Apologies, I have forgotten about the "comment on the changeset" again. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I see this specific case is mostly resolved. Therefore, closing this. | |
| 4886544 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | Dear Mapper, There is a couple of new residential buildings here - the town plan is already gazetted. These should be government's housing. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1266836324 ? | |
| 4886547 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | Dear Mapper, There is a confirmed construction project here where a few government housings are being constructed at this very moment. The primary development is underway. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419355192/ | |
| 4861256 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Improbably narrow cliff/ridge? On the public map? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Should be changed to `=ridge` | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ( Should draw `=ridge` , but this is possible) | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | If the improbable cliff is trying to describe the ridge line, then yes, I can see where this is going. However, the south side is just improbable imo. Does that mean the terraformed platform extends narrowly for very long towards the north side? I don't think so. Therefore, something sus is going on, and the improbable cliff is probably a mistake. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | They can be different land formations, only coincidentally represented by the same object partially. This doesn't matter. | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 7 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | The top of the ridge is actually flat for a width of around 1.5 metres, and both sides have a slope of around 40 degrees, which I believe is not steep enough to justify natural=cliff. For the south side, the "cliff" south of the substation is actually of a different elevation of the "cliff" north of it, just tagged with a single way. West of the substation, the hill almost exactly the same, whether north or south of the substation, except that there is a flat margin of around 1.5 metres wide surrounding the substation. The substation simply "interrupted" the ridge, forcing it to end early. There is no cliff at the north margin of the substation either; it was smoothed out to a 40 degree slope. In the end, the confusion simply arises from attempting to use the linear natural=cliff to map a 2d slope. So changing it to =ridge should be fine, or simply deleting the entire southern part; we don't need to map contours, do we? | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | OK, I think I am starting to understand this situation. The improbable cliff should be redrawn as a ridge. Embankments are a thing. If the slope is moderate but is still difficult to navigate perpendicular to it, then it is most probably an embankment. Afaik we do not need to draw contours (heightmap is separate from OSM), but some places there are several cliff lines that further describe the shape of the cliff; see near Choi Fook Estate. | |
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | If the top is flat, it can have both `=ridge` along the center, and `=cliff` on both sides. If the latter is argued to be not steep enough, it could be eg `=earth_bank` . The problem is `man_made=` has `=embankment` , but not `=cutting` for cut slopes. | |
| 10 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | A "contour" can be drawn if it is a fill or cut slope. That's similar to `=embankment` which can be said less sharp topographically than these in some sense. Again the problem is missing `=cutting` , more difficult to observe, and people not being interested in them. Not that this can't be done. | |
| 11 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Thanks all for the information. The terrain is improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169542238 ; we can close this. | |
| 12 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 13 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Edited (to show what I meant) | |
| 4865203 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | 陳家小宅 |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | 小宅陳家 | ||
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | 小宅陳家 | ||
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4857598 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | j6rj |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4857600 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | Mike Tsang | YLRN 25031117 |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. For example never create notes such as "I was here on Saturday" or "There was a crime at this location". | |
| 4857597 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | 6u6 |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4845771 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | zzhccf | tin sau swimming pool |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/313120676 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4838137 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | signselects ♦3 | 新達招牌製作公司 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | signselects ♦3 | ||
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | signselects ♦3 | ||
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4838136 | |
| 4838129 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | 新達招牌製作 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | signselects ♦3 | ||
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | signselects ♦3 | ||
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4838136 | |
| 4835097 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | 綠匯學苑 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435199974 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4820784 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | Brietta Tsang | Hong Kong Jockey Club New Club house |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/639059945 | |
| 4820783 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | Brietta Tsang | Hong Kong Jockey Club Old Club House |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/639059945 | |
| 4150043 | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | Are these quarantine facilities still here? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Facilities are still here but are largely unused; however also not abandoned with minimal maintenance. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Changed to `disused:*=` | |
| 4803571 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | hellowillay ♦1 | Not the Cattle Depot Artist Village building, the correct building is the rectangle building behind it to the bottom left |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | hellowillay ♦1 | ||
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | hellowillay ♦1 | ||
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | No problem here. What you are looking at is the entire site's icon coincidentally overlapping with it. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225873669 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225873672 | |
| 4795501 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | HKMapper1 ♦1 | Unable to answer "Which direction leads upwards here?" – Steps – https://osm.org/way/750364456 via StreetComplete 61.1: Both up and down |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Hi there, do you know whether the escalators are both-sideways or front-back? And do you know which side escalator goes up? | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | This is not what it's asking. `incline=` is only about which side is upwards, not the direction of movement (or escalator). | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Also something has already wrongly used `escalator=up` | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | ||
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | It is entirely possible that irl has 2 escalators instead of 1, which would then cancel the entire discussion. Reopening this. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Oh, @Kovoschiz I see you have found out about the "2 escalator" situation before my comment. I now see/agree this is resolved. | |
| 4798398 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | start point |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4796542 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | 不知名地点 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4781601 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | 1123 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4771561 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | 22.25478,114.19601 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4770587 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | ehcchan ♦2 | Work in progress (May 2025) |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 2128691 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | 不存在路徑 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | 楊展博 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4744567 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | --- | 官方路牌警告有山泥傾瀉風險，仍可通過 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | 楊展博 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4756198 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | 屎 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4655375 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | kaikaitai36 | my hotel |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | No. 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". | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kaikaitai36 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4754323 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | kaikaitai36 | hotel |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4752831 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | 3 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4750986 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | 鄧智洪 | 香港係一個亞洲嚟㗎 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4749081 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | --- | '' |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4743815 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Road can be potentially remapped (turn restrictions are too crazy/confusing) |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | No, there's no raised separation. I tested this was routed correctly by Apple Maps before they changed their data source in HK. | |
| 4742116 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Tung Wing Road: why motorway? I do not see it being special enough to be motorway. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | It's a Tunnel Area | |
| 4736309 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | feel_like_me_ ♦4 | "Free hot shower 7:00-23:30" OSM snapshot date: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI has no name POI types: fee-no wheelchair-yes amenity-toilets #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4736308 | |
| 3789147 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | --- | Ko Kee Metal & Building Materials Ltd https://goo.gl/maps/eAKXob3KN4vF5rDWA |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Note invalid; closing. OSM is not allowed to just copy stuff from e.g. Google Maps. | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | It could be acceptable if they know this, and only tried to use Google to tell others. But anonymous notes should be cautioned. | |
| 4728291 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | --- | Lam Tei Quarry |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102400027 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes Notes is a core feature of the OpenStreetMap.org website. It enables you to add a comment on the map to assist others in mapping/editing OpenStreetMap. Other users can respond to your notes, for example to ask for additional details if necessary. Please do not use notes for general discussion or storing information not otherwise used in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 4722578 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Review site of LPH with reference to https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/files/applications/en/pp_656/dir_1318/profile/dir296.pdf , figure 5.2 |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Please don't rely on these. They are copyrighted. | |
| 4722929 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Yau Pok Road, why access=no? |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Forgotten to update? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/756616939/history/4 | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167634943 by someone else; closing. | |
| 4705824 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Free-hanging foot paths in the sea are suspicious. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164825617 | |
| 4706784 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | BallBILL ♦8 | "closed down" 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: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: 高高酒家 POI types: amenity-restaurant #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4706785 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | BallBILL ♦8 | "closed down" 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: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: E Cosway POI types: amenity-pharmacy #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4706783 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | BallBILL ♦8 | "closed down" 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: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: 西貢巴黎越南料理 Cafe de Saigon POI types: amenity-cafe #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4706794 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | BallBILL ♦8 | "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: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: Maiams Kitchen POI types: amenity-restaurant #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4706782 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | BallBILL ♦8 | "closed down" 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: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: 櫻之滙素食料理 Meet at Sakura Veggie POI types: amenity-restaurant #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4706781 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | BallBILL ♦8 | "closed down" 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: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: IP Shop POI types: shop-appliance #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4702891 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | "Causeway Bay" as a place is undocumented in OSM. (?!) |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/255829293 | |
| 4697657 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Both the pedestrian street and the service road cannot possibly coexist because they seem to be describing the same irl feature. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Reworked | |
| 4695048 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | Kenkton ♦84 | "Not here." 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: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: Milu Thai มิลู่ไทย POI types: amenity-restaurant cuisine-thai #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4695112 | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kenkton ♦84 | ||
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4695112 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | Kenkton ♦84 | "I previously sent a message that Muli Thai wasn't there, apologies, but it is, it's a small door that isn't easy to see. Sorry." OSM snapshot date: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: 天星大廈 Astoria Building POI types: building #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4696524 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | Kenkton ♦84 | "It is indeed difficult to find, but it is certainly not here, the address and the location are wrong" 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: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: 添好運點心專門店 Tim Ho Wan POI types: cuisine-chinese amenity-restaurant #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | It exists in the station. There are 3 duplicates. | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kenkton ♦84 | ||
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Kenkton ♦84 | Yes, but what's the point in it being so far away, it's literally at the other side of the building. I have eaten there today and added the real one, please update. The address, according to their own official website, is: Shop 12A & 12B, Level 1, MTR Hong Kong Station, Central, Hong Kong. I have marked it accurately today. | |
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 4694249 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | Kenkton ♦84 | "I wouldn't consider this a viewpoint, it's just some step." OSM snapshot date: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: 石板街 POI types: tourism-viewpoint #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Definitely some sort of tourism item, but exact type can be reviewed. | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Maps.me spam. I had already added `historic=yes` and `heritage=` , but forgot to add `*_name=` for some reason. `tourism=yes` added further. To draw an area, the surroundings will need to be tidied up. | |
| 4691875 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | Kenkton ♦84 | "Capsule hostel." OSM snapshot date: 2025-02-27T10:33:49Z POI name: Sleep HKG POI types: tourism-hostel internet_access-wlan #organicmaps android |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | We don't seem to have a standard tag for capsule hotels. | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kenkton ♦84 | Ah, I'll know for the future then. Thanks. | |
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | ||
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Still, we can use this opportunity to improve the tagging of this feature. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦372 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kenkton ♦84 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kenkton ♦84 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | diosdios | ||
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | ||
| 4690035 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | --- | 落馬洲全球口岸 |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/565660647 ? | |
| 4685959 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | 錦河路 Kam Ho Road has potential to be upgraded to highway=secondary |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Depending on the situation, might as well upgrade it all the way to `=primary`... | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | `=secondary` should be used for cross-district. `tertiary=` is important inside a part of a district. Tung Wui Rd is connecting between Kam Sheung Rd and Kam Tin Rd, and connecting Kam Ho Rd. | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | ||
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | The idea is that this section of Kam Ho Road can act as an "extension" of Tung Wui Road. Then, it acts as an alternative path to reach Kam Sheung Road station from Yuen Long. It also has high designed capacity as you can see from its almost-finished road upgrading works. | |
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | This is not relevant. The `=secondary` is not from connecting KSR station, but from connecting Kam Sheung Rd with Kam Tin Rd, and Kam Tin Bypass . `highway=` class is determined from functionality, not physical design standards. I would rather consider demoting the western section of Tung Wui Rd. | |
| 7 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 8 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Even for physical standards, that should wait until the dualing is fully opened (at least not edited now) | |
| 4686997 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Because Pok Oi Interchange has recently received traffic lights, Long Lok Road has potential to be upgraded to `highway=secondary`. This upgrade allows Yuen Long Kau Hui Road to follow along the `highway=secondary` Long Lok Road towards Castle Peak Road. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Moreover, Long Yip Street / Castle Peak Road can also use Long Lok Road to travel towards Castle Peak Road. Another reason Long Lok Road has potential to be `highway=secondary` instead of currently `highway=tertiary`. | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | What relationship does this have? The `=secondary` is CPR-YL turning right. Banned turns are served by `=tertiary` fine. | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Please avoid using Note to discuss. No one is obliged to read them. They are for adding info. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes | |
| 4244063 | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | Fun Fact: you can walk past The Gate |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | *through | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,283 | I ain't gonna get myself hate-crimed because of this. This inside joke / urban myth can allegedly ruin lives. Therefore, closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | ||
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | Rather, we shouldn't draw a `=footway` through any structure with a gap under it. Should be usable. | |
| 2218618 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | kleeah | Bus Routing along Hoi Yuen Road to be added |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492140546 | |
| 4673741 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | --- | Mong Kok Air Quality Monitoring Station |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,173 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746310376 |