| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5382207 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 days ago | opened | xingshu | D1 |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5378014 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | issue: street distortion |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | offender: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185172923 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Why don't you revert it then? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185216672 | |
| 5374402 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 东龙洲炮台（佛堂门炮台） |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256863281 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 | |
| 5374412 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 博加拉炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1131047306 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 | |
| 5374432 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 鹤咀炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8657397296 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 | |
| 5374459 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 歌连臣角炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1093902109 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1093902109 | |
| 5374481 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 新界西貢魔鬼山軍事設施（歌赋炮台） |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/175259688 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/175259688 | |
| 3 | ~ 5 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5374702 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第十三座 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 days ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Nah. We cannot find the "Block 13" in the map. This note is valid. | |
| 5375693 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | opened | --- | 九龙寨城南门遗址（九龙寨城公园） |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263310044 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263310044 | |
| 5375697 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | opened | --- | 九龙寨城衙门（九龙寨城公园） |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18506822 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 | |
| 5376243 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 摩星岭炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/321778499 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 | |
| 5376352 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧三军司令官邸 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42255475 | |
| 3 | ~ 5 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5376424 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 卡素楼 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114282496 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 | |
| 5376430 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利军营罗年信楼 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114282497 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 | |
| 5376427 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利军营华褔楼 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114282541 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 | |
| 5376433 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利军营蒙高玛莉楼 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/815898761 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 | |
| 5376435 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利军营罗拔时楼 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/815898760 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 | |
| 5376436 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利军营军火库 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/863303779 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 | |
| 5376501 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 鸭巴甸炮台（香港仔炮台、鸭脷洲炮台） |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1072971168 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 | |
| 5376509 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 东涌炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102127581 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 | |
| 5376512 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 东涌小炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1167836696 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 | |
| 5376517 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 分流炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105234588 | |
| 3 | ~ 5 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5374725 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 days ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第三座 |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | OSM in general does not process historical map data; these data should be redirected to OpenHistoricalMap. OSM 一般而言並不處理歷史地圖資料；這些資料應被轉移至 OpenHistoricalMap 。 | |
| 3 | ~ 5 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Already added `historic=fort` (which can be improved) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/557930264 | |
| 5373666 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | opened | KMB Zone4 | 承豐道 |
| 2 | ~ 6 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5373663 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | opened | KMB Zone4 | 承景街 |
| 2 | ~ 6 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5373662 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | opened | KMB Zone4 | 承景街 |
| 2 | ~ 6 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5373659 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | opened | KMB Zone4 | 承豐道 |
| 2 | ~ 6 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5373656 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | opened | KMB Zone4 | 鑽石山站 |
| 2 | ~ 6 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5373655 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | opened | KMB Zone4 | 大成街 |
| 2 | ~ 6 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5373648 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | opened | KMB Zone4 | 大有街 |
| 2 | ~ 6 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5373639 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | opened | KMB Zone4 | 打鼓嶺道 |
| 2 | ~ 6 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5304280 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | issue: why suddenly highway=secondary ? seems can be just highway=tertiary all the way through. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Connaught Road W -> QRW? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | If say this, then I presume is actually Route 3 -> Queens Road. Mapillary is difficult to click in this area, but it seems Whitty Street is just a generic internal road and might be highway=unclassified instead. Also/Then, consider "[...] -> Western Street -> Queens Road", which seems to be planning-intended path. No matter what happens, having a free-standing highway=secondary among highway=tertiary segment does not fit into the overall "coherent hierarchy" principle. Low-resolution rendering would show this segment of highway=secondary with no obvious reason of existence. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | What does mapillary have to do with this? Highway classification is functional, not physical. Don't understand why you mentioned Western Street, when it doesn't even connect to Route 3. This is also clearly not free-standing or violating highway continuity rule. The highway continuity rule only says highway classification shouldn't change without a junction, and here the `=secondary` is between two junctions. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | If no further discussion after a week or two I will close this note. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Western St: `=secondary` (incidentally) Whitty St: `=tertiary` What's the problem? And for leaving, Hill Rd is `=tertiary` , while there's Water St `=secondary` | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | To refocus the discussion, the core concern is: this section of Des Voeux Road West somehow got highway=secondary , which seems like a mistake, or somehow doesn't fit OSM Global standards. Either I missed something, or this is a real mistake. Disregarding my doubts on the "functional only" doctrine, it seems no problem if we demote this section (back) to tertiary level. Alternatively, which means I missed why this section should be secondary, do we have some elaboration on why this section is secondary? Hopefully this is not because "two tertiary roads join together to become secondary" which is just a very flimsy reason; tertiary roads can join together to form a wide network of tertiary-only roads, no reason why not. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | "two tertiary roads join together to become secondary" is not necessarily true, but can act as a rule of thumb. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | The 2 `=tertiary` have different functionalities. DVRW westbound is a roadway across the part of an area. Whitty St is connecting QRW. | |
| 10 | ~ 18 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Question answered with no more activity; propose closing. | |
| 11 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I intend to survey this a bit (Mapillary is difficult to click). Granted, I haven't done HKI notes for a long while so I may not immediately do this. | |
| 12 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | What needs to be checked? | |
| 13 | ~ 16 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Echoing @Kovoschiz; what point can you not make without a survey? | |
| 14 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Whitty Street seems too generic to be highway=tertiary , but Mapillary imagery is incomplete. | |
| 15 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | What is "generic"? | |
| 16 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | A better word is "unremarkable". Maybe I should just check the street by myself, seeing that I can't justify the case well. We did have an answer for "why we have tertiary roads here", but the core issue "why we have a single segment of secondary road here" remains unresolved. To me, ignoring the situation at Whitty Street, it seems the secondary segment can be tertiary and it's still OK. | |
| 5300387 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo: physical separation / traffic island ------------- While we are here, an experimental junction tagging method may be considered. The proposed method involves drawing two oneway=alternating ways to form a triangular junction area, with appropriate turn restrictions. This preserves junction topology while maintaining reasonable GPS accuracy for navigation / mapmatching purposes involving Hang Shun Street (west side). |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by your experimental tagging method. Can you discuss this on e.g. Discord first? | |
| 3 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | As a heads-up, if you don't clarify what your experiment tagging is by the time I/we resolves all actionable notes (could be in a month or two at the quickest), I will just map this junction the normal way and resolves this note. You say you have 10+ pending discussions and that you have to do it one by one to prevent overload, but seeing you haven't started even one of them, and it appears that you are never going online on Discord, I/we can't wait indefinitely. | |
| 4 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Don't worry, I will just force-revive this when that happens. | |
| 5 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Beyond this specific note, given that new notes are submitted at random interval, it may not be reasonable to expect that we can achieve "all notes are closed" situation. | |
| 6 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 97% closed should be top among cities. Germany is 95%. | |
| 7 | ~ 15 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | We are probably looking at the neis-one statistics. For fair comparison we should be looking at city-states (or equivalent), which I can list as Macau, Singapore, Gibraltar, and Liechtenstein; we should not be looking at "full countries", though the German 95% is very impressive. As of writing, LI 98%, HK 97%, SG 89%, MO 87%, GI 80%. LI has best "efficiency" here, but activity is also significantly lower there. Metric has limited ref value. Still, back to topic, give to Discord. The vibe is to ensure the notes side is stable, and then do Discord. | |
| 5352458 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | opened | --- | 邓氏宗祠 |
| 2 | ~ 21 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114392703 ; closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 20 days ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ||
| 4 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | OSM by default uses OSMCarto for basic map rendering, which may sometimes cause "missing names" due to lack of map space. Explore the large and diverse OSM ecosystem to find a specialized app/website that can render names appropriately. OSM 預設使用 OSMCarto 作基本展示用途，這有時候會因為地圖位置不足而出現「沒有名稱」的情況。 探索龐大而多樣的 OSM 生態系統，即可找到能夠恰當展示名稱的 app / 網頁。 | |
| 5 | ~ 20 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 6 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Please try other raster tilesets eg with higher zoom, if not different labeling engine, or using monolingual `name:*=` only https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/22.445092/114.009156&layers=PN Or vector https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/22.445092/114.009156&layers=VN | |
| 4607075 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | Sewage Treatment Plant |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | There are no evidence supporting this claim. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 29 days ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 4 | ~ 29 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Government maps label this area as a sewage treatment plant. Aerial imagery also looks like one. We may survey this to try to see if there any signs/names, or just make a changeset if we trust the aerial imagery. | |
| 5 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | There is no evidence to support this claim, unless you are saying this site is managed by AA, which means the site is not publicly known and it may be reasonable to omit this. | |
| 6 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | If hypothetically there is a sign there saying it is a sewage treatment plant, would that be enough evidence? And if the sign can be found with a survey, why shouldn't we keep this note open to track progress? | |
| 7 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @vectorial8192 1. Evidence can be found for it 2. It had `name=` as something else (which I simply changed to `description=` and correct attributes) 3. The road is publicly accessible | |
| 8 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | It's very rare to have absolutely no remotely-related online info for this feature. Unsubscribing. | |
| 9 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Exactly, because there's no online info, so this is not armchairrable, so I reopened the note. | |
| 10 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | And, whatever this plot of land is, it's so tiny I would not expect any online info. | |
| 11 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.hongkongairport.com/en/sustainability/environment/water.page https://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/en/article/31251/hong-kong-airports-triple-water-system | |
| 3154260 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | --- | A building should be added here and known as "Wo Hop Shek Columbarium Phase II & IV". See pages 8 and 9 of https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr15-16/english/panels/fseh/papers/fseh20160412cb2-1220-3-e.pdf. |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Data (area) exists, but due to tree cover, if want to draw building outline, then need a site visit. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | Cypp0847 ♦189 | This is not exactly a building but an open area. Closing https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161374422 | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Government maps say "Wo Hop Shek Columbarium Phase II & Phase IV" is a building, not an open area. Survey needed. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | iirc this is a named area ("columbarium") with several unnamed small "mini-columbarium" buildings. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Ok, indeed what @vectorial8192 said was correct. I will need to think of a way to map this correctly. | |
| 8 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | I used `amenity=columbarium` for sites, and `man_made=tomb` + `tomb=columbarium` + `building=roof` for the structures. `cemetery=sector` on its own will be thought as graves, and it may be used for rows/groups/sections inside each structure. | |
| 9 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Sites meaning eg "Wo Hop Shek Columbarium". The phases should be something else. Or it depends on whether they are different facilities. The other problem is whether the 2 phases are different. If yes, they should be separated. | |
| 5326149 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | concern: By survey and recent bus videos, the border control area is signposted as "Airport Control Area". Then, what do? Give to aerodrome? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I haven't looked into the details yet, but first thought: airport control area =/= airport? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @vectorial8192 Only the part in between belongs to AA (previously quarantine facility) | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @kingkingHK I did use `designation=` https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30774625 | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209353389 | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | The latest situation is that even this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/639679829 is already AA. That's clearly not the quarantine area. Or maybe I got something wrong again. It feels natural that everything controlled by AA is part of the airport. Then again, I do not recall any airport in the world other than this one that handles both air and land clearance (and possibly sea clearance re SkyPier), so we may need to figure this one out ourselves without asking at the global level. I am leaning towards giving the Bridge (and possibly the SkyPier) to the aerodrome. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Meant the part in between centered around the quarantine facility, not only it. The elevated section is out of Airport Area. Is the indoors and vehicles check plaza included though? | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I can't find exact details, but the vibe is that part of the Bridge Area is to be given / has already been given to the AA for future dev and maintenance purposes. As of writing we can see some works going on e.g. the enclosed bridge between the Bridge and SkyPier, but we can potentially wait for future opening to look into this in more detail. Or maybe we have immediately usable information that we are not aware of. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Is it not for Airport City Link only, and SkyPier only? The area around quarantine was for supporting Airport, Airport City, and Expo. | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Quoting District Council https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/island/doc/2024_2027/tc/committee_meetings_doc/DIDPC/29830/DIDPC_2025_2_TC.pdf para 9, 11, 12, 14; annex 1. Do those count as "attached to the airport" (me think yes)? For example, the Changi airport mall is still counted as "attached to the airport" and is therefore part of the aerodrome, assuming no "in/out multipolygon" laziness. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Skytopia only includes the quarantine facility, and waters. Doesn't say the Clearance Building belongs to AA. | |
| 5323246 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | concern: What does the e.g. land deed say about the access rights/conditions of O King Road? Why not make it highway=tertiary for giving access to Tiu Keng Leng? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | (Note: looking up land deed etc does not seem trivial, and should be tracked as longer-term discussion.) | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Not too sure about the land deed stuff, but iirc non-residents of Ocean Shores are not allowed to use https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/914594331 , making O King Road a dead-end. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | A very simple proof is that if O King Road can be used as a through-road, then the traffic levels obviously won't be so low. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | The tricky part is that, because O King Road is the first car-usable road into TKO, I feel like the land deed etc should have something which grants some limited public access to it. Or that the guys at Ocean Shores has to pay for road upkeep, or sth. Details are unclear. It interacts with the hypothetical Yau Tong - Tiu Keng Leng tunnel project. This is kind of the forgotten historical remnants that can really influence what tags to give to O King Road. What if the enforcement guys at Ocean Shores got it wrong and in fact O King Road should be highway=tertiary ? On-the-ground principle would use the as-is situation, but we can indicate the legal access level somehow. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | You didn't respond to the question. Regardless of how's O King Rd, vehicles aren't allowed between it and Chui Ling Rd, making it a cul-de-sac. At most `=residential` in general, might be `=unclassified` | |
| 7 | ~ 18 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Question answered with no more activity; propose closing. | |
| 8 | ~ 17 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Me neutral. The key is the status of the "private road" section, but that could be reviewed as some sort of private interest study. | |
| 9 | ~ 17 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | At least, `highway=tertiary` is clearly wrong. Other reviewing/discussion is then unrelated to this note, and you may open another note if you notice a separate issue. Closing. | |
| 4957095 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | By pure coincidence, it is discovered that MTR is quite possibly using "vibe routing" here: TKL LOHAS branch LOHAS bound takes distinct paths per the vibes of the signaling system. Some instances may take the upper path while remaining instances take the lower path. This is highly unusual. Then, would the current mapping be correct? How should we map this situation in OSM? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Sorry I am not too sure what you mean, could you please elaborate? Specifically, which paths does the trains take? Which paths are the "upper path" and "lower path"? | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | So basically, one day in September I was irl-reviewing some stuff and noted that the train took the upper path https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485648069/history/8 Later, something else happened irl and I decided to visit this area again, but this time, the train took the lower path https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1428978599/history/1 This is highly unusual/unexpected. | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I want to add that the OSM track layout near LOHAS Park has been confusing/wrong for a long time until the fateful 2-visits discovery that finally resulted in the current OSM track layout. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Disclaimer: I am not very familiar with railway tagging It seems like the direction of travel of railways is tagged with `railway:preferred_direction` and `oneway=reversible` (only on tracks with a clear normal direction of travel. Then, based on what you said, it seems like www.openstreetmap.org/way/32226078 is used for both train to and from LOHAS Park station, in which case it should get `railway:preferred_direction=both`, which you have already done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171679335 (although it also has `oneway=reversible` which should probably be removed). Add that with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485648065 having `railway:preferred_direction=forward` and `oneway=reversible`, it seems like the current mapping can express the situation well. | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175614946 | |
| 7 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Not too familiar with railway mapping myself, but it seems almost all segments implicitly have `oneway=reversible`; why this needs to be stated clearly idk. The idea is that at this moment, `oneway=?` is some value, but for another moment, `oneway=?` becomes another value, therefore `=reversible`. Trains may use "the opposite rail" depending on deployments and blockages. The concern is not on the physical rails themselves, but the logical "MTR service" relations. How do we even describe which rail is which direction when the pathway(s) is/are vibe-based? | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I think we can map the relations if we can somehow identify a more commonly used route/main route. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Cf. island platform termini with reversing tracks before the station | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | The rails were updated some time after my edits. I have a feeling the immediate sections outside of the x-rail is wrong, but that's way too long ago I cannot compare it from memory. What I can claim as "from memory" is that (from TKO) the train "switches to right side lane" without using any railway switch (ie the rails are curving like a proper x-rail), and then reach the real x-rail as entering on the west side. This does not seem to match what is currently depicted, which shows the curve as entering on the east side. aka memory says https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/22.298182/114.272152 should have the rail continue and merge into https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/22.297435/114.271097 | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Anyway, it does hint towards a possible fact that LOHAS Park station rails are not built in the "usual" symmetric way. We should (re)survey this. | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Support a resurvey, but probably wait until we figure out how to properly measure railway curves (see e.g. Tuen Ma Line Hin Keng <-> Diamond Hill remeasurement; have you forgotten about that?) | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I still remember the Tuen Ma Line thingy, though admittedly with these many stuff going on (both on OSM and irl), that one simply doesn't "float back up" the task queue. For railway curves we can once again give to the ol-reliable Discord. | |
| 14 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Re too many stuff, understandable. I am certainly not immune from it either. But not sure what you mean by "ol-reliable Discord". What does giving to Discord do, when the OSM HK Discord server is largely just an echo chamber of me, you, and Kovoschiz? | |
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Discord is great for in-depth exploration e.g. images and long message chains and topic organization, which unfortunately OSM website / wiki is not too good at. I have general reservations against Discord ("closed web") but I have no effective alternative proposals. One mitigation would be we debate it to the very base level very intensely at Discord (so we cover almost all the possible cases and discover the relevant principles), and then post executive summaries to the OSM wiki for the wider OSM mappers to look at. Now hopefully people are not the kind of "intuition" guy like me and will therefore read the wiki... | |
| 16 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | A Discourse forum category requires 3 moderators. That doesn't make sense if all 3 are the main active members. It doesn't have a chat for short questions either. | |
| 17 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's possible to regularly make public Discord content, and Matrix should be possible, but can't see whether threads and posts are supported. May not be the best either. https://yui-kitamura.github.io/Discord2Html/index.html | |
| 18 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | In terms of FOSS: Matrix somewhat works (but no threads and posts) | |
| 19 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I worded it poorly. Matrix is well-meaning but still "closed web". What I care is that e.g. Google Search can see our discussions and conclusions, for efficient info dissemination. Again, the mitigation / workaround is to discuss intensely at Discord, and then expand the HK OSM wiki page(s) with summaries. | |
| 20 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Agree with your workaround, but the HK OSM wiki pages look kinda abandoned. We might want to clean them up first, before adding any new info. | |
| 5294038 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1505900060 descriptive name |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | probable motivation https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5276301 | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦27 | could www.map.gov.hk provide a potential solution & description to the area nearby? It doesn't seem very precise and i just don't know how to deal with it | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | No https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦27 | Fine,but i'll keep that name for reference only(since it's likely havin'a same name to the 岗下 parking area nearby yet i couldn't confirm it online so i'll assume it had an independent name as that anyways) | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Outside of the copyright concerns, it's actually ok for car parks to have no names. Either it really doesn't have a name (rural informal parking area), or it really does have a name but that it's too unobvious (e.g. urban area "unnamed" parking area in unused land). Alternatively, we could put the "name" into description, which may be more appropriate than a descriptive name. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Indeed. Further reading: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only | |
| 8 | ~ 3 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185256327 ; closing. | |
| 5313162 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | Iulian Arcuș ♦6 | Unable to answer "Do the trees here have needles or leaves?" – Tree Row – https://osm.org/way/780937954 via StreetComplete 63.1: Option is pines or leaves. They are palm trees |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Palm trees are broadleaved, no? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Yes, but user wants to add somewhere `=palm` ( most rigorously `taxon:en=` + `taxon:family:en=` | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Iulian Arcuș ♦6 | Just doing the street complete level of detail so broadleaf is the answer I was looking for. | |
| 5310630 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | Fent Thanakon | HOTEL |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 4978548 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | This is more of a renderer discussion rather than an osm one, isn't it? | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | (`bridge:part=` is not a good format either, as `bridge=` isn't a feature, unlike `building=` ) | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 4. Minor note: I didn't bother to draw the whole IEC western `=viaduct` , so doing this is also a lazy hack | |
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 5. `ref=` is another factor that needs to be considered to define a `man_made=bridge` , aside from `name=` and `start_date=` (etc) | |
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 9 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ||
| 10 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,631 | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @Kovoschiz does https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181152791 resolve this note? | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | No, I didn't do anything on them, only `layer=` | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Tbh I don't really understand what this note is asking for / what can be done to resolve this note. | |
| 14 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | One way out is to start a discussion at Discord, to confirm the tagging method for individual bridge joint parts. Then, we will know how to tag these, and then apply the new tagging, and then finish. private guess it's probably gonna be many nameless parts linked up with a "IEC highway" relation. | |
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Actually, IEC is the name of the road, not of the bridge, which is nameless. Perhaps we can just remove the `name=`, which solves the "clumsy rendering" issue this note is complaining about, then at the very least this note can be closed. | |
| 16 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | That's a good question. But I thought IEC is effectively the de facto naming of the structure at the same time. | |
| 17 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Citation needed. If you ask 10 people what "IEC" is 11 of them will think of the road, not the bridge. | |
| 18 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's effectively identical here though? If I ask what's that bridge, they will still answer IEC. | |
| 19 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | I'm thinking of West Kowloon Corridor, where there are Stage II, and Stage III (Stage IV is folded into Stage I Gascoigne Rd Flyover) East Kowloon Corridor was East Kowloon Way translated into "East Kowloon Elevated Road" | |
| 20 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | So I didn't think it must have a bridge-related generic suffix. Cf although Fat Kwong St Flyover is gazetted as the street's extension, it's basically carrying Fat Kwong St. | |
| 21 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Looking at named `man_made=bridge` in Hong Kong it appears that (almost) all the names are names of the bridge, with a bridge suffix, including bridge names that are not as well known as the road, where if you ask what's that bridge people are likely to answer the road name. | |
| 22 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Clarifying names for @kingkingHK Some roads are not gazetted and currently hold descriptive names e.g. "Wuhu Street underpass" but then we can find ancient (government) documents using those names. This doesn't fully fit the OSM "map what can be seen on the ground" principle but we can't dispute the official informal endorsement. Re bridge/road naming: It's the same old "both sides intertwine" theme again. Planning wants a road, gives it to engineering, and then a bridge gets built. The road (logical / conceptual) shares the same name as the bridge / structure (physical), and both sides can't separate. Bridges (or bridge joints) can have refs but obviously refs aren't names. | |
| 23 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Or maybe I have misunderstood the bridge joint tagging. | |
| 5305499 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705233079 suspicious traffic signals |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Same poor import. Imo just delete it. (Side note: why wasn't that undiscussed import reverted??? I think @Kovoschiz was there when it happened) | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | This is only outdated. There was an intersection here where Wui Man Rd is connected with Austin Rd. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Wasn't that intersection already closed at the time that import happened (2019)? Anyhow, it just shows how low-quality it was. Seeing the intersection has been removed, just delete it. Resolved viahttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109836 ; closing. | |
| 5302548 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | --- | Our Centre |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes > For example never create notes such as "I was here on Saturday" or "There was a crime at this location". > 例如，千萬不要創建諸如“我星期六來過這裡”或“這裡發生過犯罪事件”之類的筆記。 To share an OSM location, please see: 如需分享一個OSM的位置，請參考： https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | @vectorial8192 I appreciate the attempt at communicating, but seeing this note was created by an anonymous user, you are practically talking to the void here. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ||
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I am following @Kovoschiz 's practice. Not fully appropriate to claim "void". One possible scenario is that an anon made this note, and then use the note URL to give to people. Then, either the same anon or the recipients will see this note *and the extra comments "that's not how you use notes"*, and hopefully habits will change. Normally this note is instant-closed, but with this extended discussion, leaving this open for a bit longer then. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Ok, understandable. Close this? | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's simply to close it with a comment. Not hoping for resposne. | |
| 5220076 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1104518518 ancient todo |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | New towns don't have well-defined boundaries either. Not sure what can be done here. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Yes they have, according to OZP, Census, PDD/PPU, etc. However, this needs to be distinguished from addresses. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I can see this polygon largely coincides with the Town Planning "Tin Shui Wai" definition, but there are copyright concerns on whether we may directly make use of the graphical definition. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @Kovoschiz May you provide more info so that we know what action should be done in order to close this note? | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | But what do you want to know? | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | E.g. which definition should be used? How to find the boundary according to that definition? Is Is the copyright compatible? How to tag it? | |
| 5294906 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/100824558 "Eco" is not a known fuel company; oudated data? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Can you update your description template, already explained in last https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286430 | |
| 5286443 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4851750173 extremely unlikely petrol station |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Obvious Lying to Validator https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4851750173/history | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | From https://www.shell.com.hk/en_hk/motorists/shell-station-locator.html we can see there is a legit fuel station down the block. A theory for this is that someone placed the right node at the wrong place (a shop in the fuel station?), and then other people blind-trusted the validator. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | No, there was a bottled gas `shop=` https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=779127392786721 https://www.hongkongssa.com/index.php/Home/Index/CharacteristicMerchant.html https://www.eeb.gov.hk/food/download/committees/fcab/c_SW0150_SW0152.pdf They moved to inner street (map not updated) https://dsg-energy.com/cylinder-shell-gas/ | |
| 5 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | By survey, the "outer side" is now all generic shops. In OSM we trust; very believable the (new) fuel shop is at the "inner side" now. Perhaps the Shell gas sales agreement expired so the underlying seller had to start a new shop. | |
| 6 | ~ 19 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Granted, I made the mistake of not checking the inner street, but in the grand scheme of things, having a correct feature at the approx position is better than having a wrong feature. | |
| 7 | ~ 19 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184387156 ; closing. | |
| 5287505 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/558985076 , etc. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | ? only connects to IEC, or is that not what you are trying to point out | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @vectorial8192 Can you please explain or be more specific than "todo/issue"? This is not your personal notebook. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's almost "don't ask to ask". I have to guess what you are asking to explain it. This wastes our time waiting that could be used to directly answer you. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I can't always immediately reply/do stuff. Normally I will make the changeset myself, but when at that moment I do not have time, and I believe I have noticed a mistake, then I make a note, and hope that someone else (future me, or present others) can do that while I do something else. I believe this is standard practice, and I am not treating OSM as a personal notebook. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Specifically, @Kovoschiz you should know what this note is referring to because you just did the same thing in another place within these few days. Actual issue: `highway=trunk` cannot produce `highway=motorway_link` without a "supporting" `highway=motorway`. I am pretty sure this is a "too large; didn't notice" mistake from the recent (multiple) highway reclassification. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Upon closer look e.g. by @kingkingHK, are we trying to justify this motorway link with the east-side Route 4 motorway? Seems very unusual when e.g. there is a section which is `highway=trunk` already. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Sigh. If you hope others can help, then at the very very least explain what help is needed. We can't read your mind. When you are leaving what is practically giberrish, it should be expected that others are annoyed. Re issue, extend motorway rule. If you disagree, please take it elsewhere (e.g. existing Discord thread). We don't need notes to track our discussions. I am inclined to closing this note with no action. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @vectorial8192 No, we are asking you to be clear what the problem is. Not "todo/issue:", simply "`=motorway_link` ?" would do. "Don't use notes for yourself in a way which is useless to others. Although you can use notes as a reminder to yourself, you are also inviting others to look at it. Descriptions must make sense to other people." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `=motorway_link` / `=motorway` on `=trunk` should have been argued before (eg Lei Yue Mun Rd southbound) HK is unusual with completely no-lane-change on all tunnels, and Tunnel Area midway through Expressway. That's the reality. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | And gazetting street names on all slip lanes/roads (where OSM would expect no `name=` on `highway=*_link` internationally) | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | A link only connecting to a `highway=x` would be `highway=x_link`. Is it really that difficult to understand? | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Need not repeat "OSM is not a personal notebook" and "link is link". Basically, I initially thought this would be a simple tagging mistake. It turns out this is (disappointingly) being reduced/redirected to the motorway tagging topic. It seems I currently do not fully approve of the existing motorway approach. We may see there is an ever-increasing need to really review / go through the motorway tagging situation. | |
| 14 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | We repeat "OSM is not a personal notebook" because this is not the first time this has happened, and certainly it won't be the last if we don't warn you about it. Better repeat it now, than waste time waiting for you to clarify potential future ambiguous notes. We also need to repeat "link is link" because it is a fundamental principle on how links work, that you clearly don't fully understand yet. It's not even the extend motorway rule, not even highway continuity rule, just the definition of links (tangentially you can see that they are just corollaries!) There is also no "reduction/redirection" to the motorway tagging topic, because motorway tagging is the sole topic of this note the whole time; the only disappointment here is your inability to understand that, and your reduction of anything you don't understand as a tagging mistake. Yes, we can see that you do not agree with the extend motorway rule. Then, please discuss it elsewhere as mentioned above, e.g. relevant thread in Discord. | |
| 5287748 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | Vera German ♦149 | "Why isn’t the category just “place of worship”/church???" OSM snapshot date: 2026-04-04T03:36:32Z POI name: 耶穌基督後期聖徒會灣仔教堂 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints POI types: amenity-place_of_worship-christian-mormon #organicmaps ios 2026.04.07-8-ios |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | It is just `amenity=place_of_worship`, what are you talking about? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Vera German ♦149 | The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - why specifically this type of church has its one icon on a map, all I meant. So far in all countries I’ve only seen one icon for all Christian churches | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 1. Please ask the app, or discuss elsewhere, for questions about the app. This is not a data problem. 2. Simple, it's exactly because `denomination=mormon` has been coded with an icon in that app. It has been explained there. https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/issues/4931 https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/pull/5821 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolism_in_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Guidelines | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 5276753 Category: OsmAnd | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | no u turn from V City to Tuen Mun Park #OsmAnd |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Believable. Should clarify directions. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Google streetview does not show any no u-turn signs. Survey recommended. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Google Street View is most probably unusable for OSM. Also, https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.395865984836234&lng=113.97423979631367&z=16.601495464296814&pKey=820288731911992&focus=photo&x=0.49481272368082974&y=0.7102780052402858&zoom=1.2229014414427262 | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Yeah, why do you think I recommended a survey? I thought this note was about u-turning from Yan Ching Street eastbound to westbound, because u-turning from Heung Sze Wui Road northbound to southbound is already mapped: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7239851 | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | The note is poorly worded, but I believe it tries to refer to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7239851 . Among the 3 parts, I take "u turn" and "Tuen Mun Park" to construct a consistent info piece. Then, regardless of whether a survey is planned or not, this https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182239427 must always be correct. I intend to unsubscribe from this. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I fail to see why the quoted changeset "must always be" correct. If you fail to provide a source I will just revert the changeset for being groundless guesswork. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | You can try, but the changeset is very intuitive and trivial. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | To clarify, among all the kinds of "guesswork" that you may want to guard against, this is the kind of changeset that is a direct consequence of how some of us chose to map the junction in the past. Normally / by default / compared to "normal" I-shape mapping, that Y-shape section is not u-turn-able. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Calling everything "trivial" does not make your argument any stronger. (proof by intimidation?) Like, how do you know Yan Ching Street has a double white line and not a dashed line? | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Details of a (mathematical) proof may be skipped when they are trivial or not directly relevant, the details which may then be left as an exercise to the reader. No intimidation involved. I have no reason to care about the double-line / dash-line thing, because while it's a valid concern, it's never appropriate to u-turn immediately after exiting a junction. This should be trivial. | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I'm gonna need a source for "it's never appropriate to u-turn immediately after exiting a junction." My feeling is that, usually people who keep omitting proofs for being trivial either don't have a proof, are too lazy to write one, or just want to mess with people. Imo just bad form; what is obvious to the writer is not necessarily obvious to the reader. The "proof by intimidation" wording was inspired by a reddit post; not trying to imply there's some intimidation happening here https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/uictdw/common_proof_techniques_shared_by_one_of_my/ | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @vectorial8192 There's no such law. It's only when you obstruct others. If it's really never acceptable, it should be a default to be treated by applications, not added explicitly in OSM. | |
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Applications should be able to penalize these heavily. There's no need to do this. | |
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | This is going nowhere. You both try to push the ball to software side. Software side can then try to push the ball back to data side (here) by claiming "it's too risky to decide things in absence of actual data". Someone has to do it; I choose data side. Honestly, what's the actual problem with that changeset other than "this doesn't fit our philosophy"? There is no way software can correctly distinguish inappropriate u-turns (this) vs legit sliproads. What if there is a legit u-turn that's exactly at this extreme angle? How can software know? This is what I often say as "undecidable". This is exactly what data is for. Not sure why this strange high alert. It is correct that there is no law prohibiting "u-turn right after junction". However, irl this is almost always inappropriate. We are here as data guys to guide software to not do these kinds of inappropriate routing by creating a new "no u-turn" relation. We tell software, "actually, we do not recommend this". Software may ignore this (e.g. unimplemented) but that becomes their problem, and no longer our burden. When we already have a "no u-turn" relation, it's natural and probably obligatory to also block the "one edge away" u-turn as a companion to the main "no u-turn" relation itself. This should be trivial. | |
| 16 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I can say more about the underlying theme of "undecidability", but seeing this is just an OSM note, I caution to say, maybe the changeset is all that we need, and no survey is actually needed. | |
| 17 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | You are completely missing my point. I am trying to point out that "u-turn right after junction" is not necessarily inappropriate, and instead is just a "legit u-turn that's exactly at this extreme angle". The problem with that changeset is that you seemingly pulled it out of your arse. And, I have already pointed out that I dispute the existence of the existing no u-turn relation. It is also not natural or obligatory to block the "one edge away", as it effectively is the legal way to u-turn under the presence of a no u-turn sign. Cf. u-turning on a double white line by turning into a side street (where u-turning is permittied) and u-turning and turning back out . Seeing you still fail to explain why it's "never" appropriate to u-turn after a junction and instead dismiss it as "trivial", everything you have just said (software/data side whatever) is meaningless. | |
| 18 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @vectorial8192 It seems the misunderstanding is from using the wrong reason. The correct logic here is this is a fake "y" caused by the road changing between divided and undivided in this intersection. The "Y" is inside the intersection. There's no "exiting a junction" as I got confused by your wording. | |
| 19 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | But actually I myself have visited here recently. There's no u-turn ban sign for Yan Cheung St eastbound. So you are wrong in fact. You need to set it up so that it only restricts Heung Sze Wui Rd northbound. However in general, it would be a good theoretical question whether u-turn is allowed around a far-side island when the intersection prohibits it. | |
| 20 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | To summarize, the other possible misunderstanding on the problem is you have mistakenly set it up to wrongly restrict Yan Ching St. Or quite the opposite, you need to use `implicit=yes` to show this is about the u-turn already allowed via Heung Sze Wui Rd southbound. | |
| 21 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Or actually this is illegal because it is a straight-ahead movement, and it's still inside the intersection. In any case, we should use clearer arguments. | |
| 22 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | For the sake of clarity, it's not illegal to turn right, move forward somewhat significantly, u-turn, and turn left, to go opposite direction on the original road. But this Y is ("correctly" drawn) inside the intersection. | |
| 23 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | If you explain "This is to prevent a u-turn via the right-turn" and "Yan Ching St can u-turn inside the "square box" on Heung Sze Wui Rd", and even better realize "the Y-shape is inside the intersection", there won't be such a long debate from "must always be correct" and "very intuitive and trivial". I can only realize what's happening here from myself. Ok you explained your view on the software, but we are talking past each other. | |
| 24 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | (late resume) You (all) may or may not notice that I often subconsciously choose the wrong words to represent ideas that I am very sure to be correct. This is one of them. To strengthen/clarify my point, I can agree e.g. if cars turn into Yan Ching Street and then use Tak Chung Court to u-turn, or just directly u-turn at the Tak Chung Court junction, then it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable; but I was trying to describe the u-turn right at the Y-junction at Yan Ching Street. As @Kovoschiz can appropriately describe better than myself, that Y-shape "belongs" to the junction, so that's not the usual kind of place where we require valid irl sources to tag features. Still, from this note and long discussion, I can detect 2 issues that are very good candidates for Discord deeper discussion/clarification. Which means this note should be kept open for longer until we sort this out. | |
| 25 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Ok, I think I am understanding the situation now. I mistakenly thought that there is a traffic island on Yan Ching Street (east side). If there were, then the Y-shape would be outside the junction, and u-turning along the Y would be equivalent to turning right, going forward a bit, u-turning, then waiting for the traffic signal again and turning left again, which is of course allowed. My intention was to somehow let routers know that they can u-turn along dashed lines. My observation is that, perhaps due to the way routers work, arbitrary u-turn cannot be calculated. The traffic island Y shape convenient allows it. But indeed, here there are no traffic island, so the Y-shape is in the junction, so u-turning along this Y actually remains in the junction, so it should be disallowed. However, as Kovoschiz pointed out, if there is no u-turn ban of Yan Ching Street eastbound, it might be inappropriate to disallow using the Y for such a u-turn. I vaguely remember a forum discussion about routers evading a nearside turn ban by making a 270 degrees turn. I forgot about the outcome of that discussion, but seeing it is quite similar to this situation here, maybe we can take some inspiration from there. But still, ultimately, for this specific junction, I still suspect https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7239851 doesn't exist irl. Survey still recommended (or Kovoschiz do you happen to know, given you have visited here recently?). If it truly does not exist, then the no-u-turn relation along the Y also should not exist. | |
| 26 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | By survey, there are actually no u-turn restrictions for all directions of this junction. | |
| 27 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183725357 ; closing. | |
| 5286430 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736802187 "Eco" is not a known fuel company; outdated info? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I think, "eco" is referring to the dedicated LPG filling station? https://www.emsd.gov.hk/en/gas_safety/lpg_vehicle_scheme/auto_lpg_prices/index.html | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @vectorial8192 It's you don't know. They existed before. Exited the market. It's Towngas. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @kingkingHK It's not an adjective "eco" for eco-friendly. It's a noun. `brand:en=Eco` | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Whatever happens, if this "Eco" company exited the market, then this "Eco" info is outdated and the fuel station should be updated with the info of the current operator/brand. This can be done by checking the (online) shop lists of the existing 5 fuel companies. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | I remember this gas station changed owners to some red and white brand a year or two ago. Last time I was down here was january and it was still red | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Red/white is SINOPEC or Esso, and the website https://www.sinopechongkong.com/retail_hk/driver_oil_network agrees. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182974426 ; closing. | |
| 5274944 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | todo: slip lane opened? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's for the footbridge. Should be opened around the same time. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | (Should be to open) | |
| 5282853 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147463823 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182421667 | |
| 3149177 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | Whcohi ♦239 | The ele is way off, don't think it a good idea to keep misinformation. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | closed | PoHK | refer CEDD (Civil Engineering and Development Department), Lo Han Tower top level is +819.8 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 years ago | reopened | Whcohi ♦239 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 years ago | commented | Whcohi ♦239 | i know, but is it okay to said it out right the ele data is refer to the CEDD? | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Re Discord discussions, it seems that in general in OSM, we may not copy data from a database. The CEDD data is quite complete (every hill should have a height record there) and would count as a database, so we may not copy from it. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | From Discord discussion, the safest way would be to use out-of-copyright maps. Unfortunately, it seems like the maps from 1975 left this area as an uncontoured blank space simply labelled "Rock Outcrop". | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | The government didn't care about Lantau Island until there was political need to build a new airport, which would mean that consideration and associated surveying happened in the 1980s. Worst case, by the 50-year rule, we would need to wait until 2035 or later to really find usable maps for this. I am unsubscribing from this note. | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Unfortunately, 819.8 m only started appearing in government maps from 1994, meaning we would need to wait until 2044. This note is virtually unactionable unless we somehow triangulate the elevation. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Wait. This note isn't asking us to copy from government maps. The only thing we have to do to close this note is to look at government maps, compare it to osm, and check that the two are the same. This cannot possibly be a copyright infringement because nothing is copied. @vectorial8192 what do you think? (Or have you unsubscribed already?) | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I was unsubscribed. (As we can see, pinging people here has no effect.) I haven't investigated this note/case in any effective detail, but I would think cross-checking maps may count as "using external maps to edit OSM". I will remain subscribed for a bit. | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Yeah but, surely closing a note without making changesets doesn't count as "editing osm"? (Ok, now that I think of it, notes are part is the osm database...) Maybe I will ask more people elsewhere. | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Started a discussion in OSM World Discord https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/413070502580453387/1499408018129944697 | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | You could have waited a while first. The best would be to pursuit the Crown Copyright, as especially the terrain is presumably produced by the colonial agency alone for itself. | |
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Not too sure what you mean, I thought we already knew that Crown Copyright can't be used? | |
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I recall closing an unrelated note at Kai Tak 1331. I closed it because we can't survey it (access=private), and we can't armchair it (YouTube is not a usable source). No pathway exists. Here, we may potentially survey this by triangulation (may be difficult), or armchair this by using appropriate maps. It's unclear whether we really have no pathways here, so we should in principle keep this open. For the Crown Copyright, this may require legal research, but preliminarily from the outer layer of my non-lawyer mind, it seems to me Crown Copyright is simply unrevokable / untransferable, and no other contracts or agreements may cancel /sidestep the Crown Copyright, but the CC itself may still expire at some point. From this, older British documents may still be used for OSM editing, but as mentioned several messages ago, it's currently unlikely to find CC-expired maps for this, so this basically becomes a waiting game. | |
| 16 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | What I said should be it needs to be clarified by LWG. Contours should be fine, and especially survey spots . | |
| 17 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Strangely colonies may be better. Only OS is not OGL, only Crown Copyright, thus 50 years. | |
| 18 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | (I'm referring to the previous status, and historical works. The problem is printed maps contain other org's data.) | |
| 19 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Then, how may we get the LWG to clarify? Do we just email legal-questions@osmfoundation.org (email from wiki) and explain the situation? I really don't know anything about this. | |
| 20 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I don't know all the steps, but basically "after some time" the LWG will meet up and discuss questions, and then the results will be posted to somewhere at the Wiki or sth. | |
| 5267129 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | todo/issue: this section of Kwok Shui Road drives on the right, but the turning circle is clockwise? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | May be editing mistake (HK-wide) | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1704049753/history/5 | |
| 5165553 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | junction has fixme: propose to split; separation continues from traffic island |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I see this fixme was adopted and implemented in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178627723 . Therefore, closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Maybe I misunderstood something, but isn't the current situation still wrong because of the "pencil-tip" mapping? I thought this note was meant to address that. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's fine to follow the `lane_markings=yes` | |
| 4434946 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Prepare to reactivate the old platforms (irl construction nearing completion) |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Worst case this will wait for YOHO WEST Phase 2 to complete, which is expected to be in 2026. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Online info says YOHO WEST Phase 2 will be complete by March 2026, but by survey the old platforms are still not open yet. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Online info says platform 1, 3, and 4 has reopened today whereas platform 2 and 5 will reopen in July. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | While we are here, given that the rails were destroyed and then remade, I think we should have e.g. `start_date=2026` and `was:start_date=19XX`? | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Sure, something like `railway=light_rail` + `start_date=2026-04-24` + `demolished:railway light_rail` + `demolished:start_date=1995-03-26` + `demolished:end_date=2017` + `was:railway=construction` + `was:construction=light_rail` + `was:construction:railway=light_rail` + `was:start_date=2017` + `was:end_date=2026-04-24`? | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | (imo too verbose, but OK) Main issue is that we can't possibly have railway=X and then at the same time demolished:railway=X when X is same both sides. (troll-tagging?) imo at some point we simply do not need to keep "was:*=*"; the "was" prefix is to prevent unintended remapping when e.g. aerial imagery doesn't match irl. Here with the lack of aerial imagery (fully covered) I think we can omit "was:*=*". --------- Broader vibes, if as per @Kovoschiz OSM is not a real estate software, then we can consider these rails "brand new", since those really were indeed fully destroyed at some point. My ancient original plan was to place the note, then later hand-draw the new rails. It just turns out Kovoschiz decided to undelete the relevant segments, and here we are, | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Yeah, I also find it too verbose, I only wrote that because you mentioned it. Imo all the `demolished:*=` `was:*=` can go to OHM. And then, Theseus's Ship, if the platforms and rails were completely demolished and rebuilt, it might not be totally appropriate to keep using the same element. I haven't checked if the geometry changed meanwhile. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | The station is "Theseus' Ship"; "Theseus' Ship" is more about the entire thing rather than the individual parts. At first glance it's not possible to have a different geometry/size, but we can always irl check this. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Ok maybe I fumbled my words, but yeah that's basically what I was trying to say. If the geometry has really changed, it would be a very strong case to delete and redraw. | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | If it's only slightly changed and not moved significantly, no need to redraw. Simply adjust it. | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Given how the west side has space for a multi-level driveway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1351494329 I strongly armchair-believe the rails cannot be located at any other place. It's several days now, so the least we could do is to enable the new rails, and then give it to later irl survey to confirm the rails really have the correct dimensions. | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | By survey, seems like the station dimension is kinda wrong, which tbh is expected. I will probably summarise my findings in Discord first (Soon™). | |
| 5267845 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | 旺角中心 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14707425/history/1 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 | |
| 5257118 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo/issue: Wo Yi Hop Road: physical separation |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | One issue is that the admin bounds is defined to be along the road, which means iD can't deal with this, and JOSM must be used. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I would out point out that it is highly discouraged to glue boundaries to other features. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Then, in this case, after we detach the features, should we somehow move the boundaries to the east side or the west side? My near-future action is to split the ways somehow but keep the boundaries attached, for lack of good/obvious solution. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Imo keep it at the centreline. OSM's ways are an abstraction anyway. For the single carriageway section, I would put the boundary very close to but not attached to the highway. (If I am wrong @Kovoschiz can correct me) | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | If the border is really defined by the road throughout time, attaching along the latter is passable. But HK isn't. If the road has been widened (it has in some sections), it won't follow. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | (for the non-widened section, it's still toleratable) | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | We notice that we naturally arrive at the same question again: how/where do we check for 18-District boundaries? When we know how those are defined, we will know whether we need to disconnect the ways. | |
| 5254629 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Hayden wong | 這條公路是收費公路 #CoMaps android 2026.04.07-8-Google |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | No it is not. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Yes it is. If you are referring to the Bypass, it *is* a tolled road. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | We can double check whether it is currently tolled or free. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | It is currently free though afaik. It is already tagged with `proposed:toll=yes`. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Come on, it "is" not now. We don't need to check. | |
| 5208863 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Mateusz Konieczny ♦38,530 | 唐人茶居 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1566866228/history is it really amenity=restaurant and shop=kiosk at the same time? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I mean, this is not completely unbelievable... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦38,530 | oh definitely - turns out that sometimes really unexpected matches are real but it looks really suspect if such things are known to exist here, please close the note | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Deja vu I may have replied to a note that looks like this before. Basically, in rural places like here, there could be places that double as both a restaurant and a kiosk. The "outside" is the kiosk, and then the "inside" is a restaurant. I would guess the guy decided it was more convenient to describe both of them as a single feature. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | You are probably thinking of https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4745192 ? Anyway, the current mapping seems correct. However, as there are some open notes nearby that cannot be resolved without a survey, it may be fine to leave this open and wait for someone to survey this alongside. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | By survey, it seems like there is a store inside the restaurant. I'm not sure how to map this. (Also, I am not sure if `shop=kiosk` is correctly for mapping 士多, feels like `shop=convenience` more? | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's `=general` | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | From what I can remember/imagine, "士多" can sell anything from food (e.g. wheat), newspaper, to magazines and other misc stuff. It does seem to be a general shop. If no big disagreements, then we can proceed with that. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦38,530 | And for shop in shop - I would map both as separate objects. Maybe outer one as an area? | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | That sounds like a swamp. We (or at least just myself) do not know how large the "outside shop" is, esp the back part. I rather keep them both as a single node. | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦38,530 | well, note can remain open until someone can survey this location | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | pinging with no notification @kingkingHK | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I went there a while ago, and the situation is that, the entrance to the 士多 is inside the restaurant. Or, from another perspective, part of the restaurant has been repurposed to be a 士多. And I think mapping both as nodes just fails to represent this. | |
| 5238504 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Mateusz Konieczny ♦38,530 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1245463436/history has bus = private|yes|yes Was it supposed to be bus:lanes ? And be per-lane tagging? (though lanes=1 would make no sense then - is marking it as a separate carriageway, physically separate from main road correct?) |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Seems editing mistake from upstream section. Fixed. | |
| 5180357 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | todo: station is too small |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | for the observers, iirc a question was asked at Discord about "station area" vs "(many) station building parts" for underground MTR stations. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Indeed, I was trying to clarify on mapping underground `building=train_station`, but somehow that conversation ended midway. My plan for now is to buy some better indoor surveying equipment, indoor map a few shopping centres to gain some indoor mapping experiences, then deal with the various poorly drawn MTR stations. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I can't stop you, but face value looking at "better indoor surveying equipment" that does not sound like a good idea. Indoor surveying is either beacon-based (if exists, MTR likely won't expose the beacon implementation details) or rangefinder-based (potentially expensive equipment; LIDAR, laser, or what technology?) There's also a concern that the crowd may interfere with measurement. Also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2087499 But yes if you can somehow find a way to do this cheaply and conveniently then you can deduce exact range, and use dead-reckoning to add towards the real location, etc. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Malls can be guessed from the exterior, and interior layout. Stations can be guessed from platforms, exits, and shafts or buildings. Doesn't need equipment to get a sketch. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | There are motion-based measuring devices that creates drawings by walking https://www.moasure.com/ iPhone "Lidar" ToF camera might be the most common consumer device. Don't know how's the apps on Android. But they aren't cost-effective vs an actual lidar. Off-topic: Kwun Tong Line cut-and-cover stations may be exposed from aerial imagery (out-of-copyright now) | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | If no effective conclusion, then at least we can fix the station building size. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | "station building size" depends on "what is a station" building, which I still don't know. My plan for now is probably to indoor survey the station, make some drawings and send to Discord for someone else (might eventually be me) to deal with it. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Well imo the size of the platform is the minimum possible size of the station building; ideally this is true no matter what definition you may be using. What may seem like "unused" underground space could then be used as MTR internal-use office. It still checks out. | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Tsuen Wan Line uses the standard 8-car MTR train, which has total length of approx 180m. Station expanded to 180m length with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183151725 . Seems nothing more to do; potentially closeable. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | My original plan is to use this note to track my indoor mapping, which I haven't done yet. But your changeset is fine too. I have got a little bit of experience in indoor mapping after surveying Tin Wing LRT; I can try doing the same here soon. | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | OK, leaving open, but imo doesn't seem too interesting here; e.g., road crossing need not enter the MTR station. Unsubscribing. | |
| 5224402 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | popmolly49 | s |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5220074 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1049686177 ancient todo |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | City blocks don't have well-defined boundaries. Not sure what can be done here. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Yes, they have, if according to numbered planning areas inside a scheme (as I have used) | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | The polygon seems to (aim to) describe some sort of neighbourhood rather than a specific development plot (e.g. Area XX). | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | For reference, e.g. "Tin Shui Wai South" is currently an OSM quarter. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | By using the Nominatim Reverse Search ( https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/reverse.html ) I can see the addresses of this area is currently shown as "Tin Shui Wai North". I have no better addressing name for this neighbourhood. I propose just deleting the ancient todo polygon and finish. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | No response; I'm doing it. If anything, individual plot numbers (e.g. TSW Area XX) can be added separately when good data sources are found. Seeing no real progress on the plot number mapping over the years, safe to say we do not need a todo polygon for tracking / reminder. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182210763 ; closing. | |
| 5220075 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1049993024 ancient todo |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | City blocks don't have well-defined boundaries. Not sure what can be done here. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5220074 | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182210820 ; closing. | |
| 5215002 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦32 | "Tachinomi" OSM snapshot date: 2026-03-10T00:09:11Z POI has no name POI types: amenity-bbq #organicmaps ios 2026.03.11-12-ios |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5215003# | |
| 1385516 | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | opened | --- | King Nga Court Playground |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | closed | Cypp0847 ♦189 | Location should be at 22.44032,114.16609 and marked already, resolved | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | The aforementioned coordinates point to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/545203291 , which is "Tak Nga Court Playground", not "King Nga Court Playground" as mentioned in this note. There is probably really an unmapped playground/park here. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Seeing it isn't open to the public (King Nga Court is probably walled with access=private ), I am leaning towards closing this note without survey. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I doubt it is walled with `access=private`; "gated communities" are rare in Hong Kong other than a few posh low-density estates. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Newer HOS estates (e.g. this) are not posh but are walled off and access=private . Try it yourself. | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I didn't know about that. But this is built in the 1990s, no? I wouldn't call this a "newer estate". Anyway, survey recommended, especially as this place is not "extra rural". | |
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | This is already new in the grander scheme of things. Look at older designs e.g. Wang Fuk Court next door, that one is old because it has a semi-open access control, which allows surveying and therefore has public interest. | |
| 10 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Anyhow, this location is easy to get to. I see no reason to not survey this to make sure. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Someone seems to be implying King Nga Court has no gates: https://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=2268280&pid=5395094 | |
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | By survey, as it turns out, King Nga Court is actually semi-open. Still, newer HOS Estates are indeed walled. There is indeed an unnamed park at this location, but of course it would have access=private here. Given the remote location of the park, are there any public interest in mapping this? | |
| 13 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I don't understand. What is "semi-open"? If it is open, how is it `access=private`? And how is an urban estate "remote"? Also, osm doesn't have a notability requirement, why can't one map it if one has the data? | |
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I invented this term "semi-open" to describe a place that is physically open (as in you can find a way in without crossing barriers etc), but have obvious indications that the place is `access=private`. This is different from `access=permissive` because fundamentally a semi-open place is not for the general public. In this case the playground is signposted to be `access=private`. imo this is quite remote; remoteness is a subjective measure, and my remoteness scale is heavily urban-favored. I do not recall OSM having any notability requirements for mapping, but I for one won't be mapping this. A concern is the possible wrong signal to the general public that the park is open for general public. -------- To explain this in advance, my personal policy is to never map private stuff unless I can clearly see them from aerial imagery. | |
| 15 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | > A concern is the possible wrong signal to the general public that the park is open for general public. Then tag it as `access=private`? If data consumers can't comprehend such a basic tag then it's their fault. OSM runs on verifiability; if the feature can be viewed from a public space then I see no problem in mapping it, even if not visible from aerial imagery. Also, I might be misunderstanding, but I thought `access=permissive` is used for "private area without physical barriers"? | |
| 16 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | `access=permissive` requires "is open for general public use" (OSM Wiki) but this Estate is obviously not for general public use, and is "residents only", so it doesn't satisfy "for general public use". (I call this "semi-open".) My understanding of example of "permissive" are the many universities in HK where it's indeed for general public use, but the guards there can kick you out anytime at their discretion. Things may have changed after 2019, but afaik CUHK requires registration/logging at entry so is still "permissive", while PolyU requires pre-approval so becomes "private". Physical constraints can motivate OSM access tag, but imo it's dangerous to think about OSM access tag only using physical constraints. -------- To clarify "wrong signal", a concern is that the many renderers (e.g. OSM Carto) doesn't render non-path features differently when it is `access=private`. | |
| 17 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `access=` is only about whether you can use it legally, not physically. `=permissive` is publicly allowed/tolerated now, but no enshrined rights guaranteed. @vectorial8192 Carto renders at least some icons semi-transparently with different `access=` | |
| 18 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Without physical gates or guards, it is impossible to tell a visitor from a resident, so a visitor can't be kicked out unless a guard confronts him and finds out that he is a visitor, which satisfies `=permissive`. Don't tag (or not tag) for the renderer; make a PR if you want renderers to show `access=private` differently. | |
| 19 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | If no further comments I will map the playground and tag it as `access=permissive`. | |
| 20 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I am leaning towards access=private ("semi-open") but other than this point, I have no more effective comment. | |
| 21 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I have gave my points for making it `access=permissive`, if you have no more comments to justify `access=private` then I will keep it as `access=permissive.` | |
| 22 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Lack of enforcement doesn't mean absence of rules. Your point of access=permissive is ultimately not convincing and possibly unfounded. I once again reiterate with the Wiki page for access=private , that the park is *not* for general public use. Features need not be physically barricaded to be access=private , such as in this case. The guards being lazy has no link to the legal (access) status of the park; legally, the park privately belongs to the estate, and the estate has legally signposted that only the residents may use the park. If this is not access=private then you are probably suggesting only military bases can ever possibly be access=private when actually military bases are generally considered by OSM as access=no ; or that only full-closed estates are access=private (e.g. Yu Nga Court, Tung Chung), which the Wiki explicitly disclaims and disagrees as per "no relations to barricades" principle. With risk of personal injury and defamation, @kingkingHK the way you approach this by "they aren't actively blocking me from getting in anyway" is highly alarming and concerning. These days I have kinda come up with a handy thinking system in deciding the access tag of features, which may be discussed and elaborated on Discord later. | |
| 23 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Well consider this: private roads with no guards and gates is `access=permissive` (e.g. Cityone Shatin); how is this different? | |
| 24 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | As I have found out by I think it was @Kovoschiz , examples like Cityone Shatin with "signposted private road" are actually ownership=private , and has nothing to do with access rights. Then, afaik Cityone Shatin doesn't really signpost about who may use those roads, which therefore finally gives it access=permissive . The "private road" sign itself does not directly result in access=permissive ; extra reasoning is required. Ultimately the example is inaccurate but I can feel a point is being made. This example can be taken into consideration when I prepare the Discord discussion. | |
| 25 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Discord may or may not elaborate deeply what means by "signposted private road" but the quick takeaway is that, this is simply an act of "delegation" by Transport Department to delegate maintenance responsibilities to a private entity rather than the next-door Highways Department. | |
| 26 | ~ 22 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | After rethinking, I now agree that this should be `access=private`. Resolved viahttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184260921 ; closing. | |
| 5173374 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13349030768 ; ????? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 99.9% just a copy-and-paste error; don't know how that happened | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Left a comment at OP; hopefully they will reply later and review this. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | That guy has history of ignoring changeset comments. I won't hope for anything. As you have been to Ma On Shan recently, do you have any data yourself about this? | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I mean, multiple reasons why they would "ignore" OSM emails (e.g. they don't check every day, they somehow gave the notifications to spam, etc), so not too much of a problem. Besides, I can't realistically do high intensity OSM every day. I will just try to give it back to them. Maybe eventually it's me who will do it later, but that's a future problem. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | hkbus-fandom says this bus stop doesn't have a pole, so I doubt it qualifies for `highway=bus_stop` in osm. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ... then how do you indicate in OSM that "buses can pick up/drop off passengers here"? The OSM Wiki for highway=bus_stop says "[...] may be marked [...]". The definition/wording allows unmarked stops. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | There's `pole=no` , `flag=no` | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | The problem is that the exact location is unverifiable without a pole/marking. Not even the Schedule of Service gives the location: https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_4796/MOS/nr84.pdf | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | One solution I can think of is to tag `hail_and_ride` along the section intended as a stop. | |
| 5210563 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Alisonlui | 2 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | |
| 5206976 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo: lanes vs junction sliproad vs physical separation |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Must have forgotten about it somehow https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180008435 | |
| 5199155 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1486486342 Should this be a pedestrian area (`highway=footway` with `area=yes`) or should this be a footway area (`area:highway=footway`) ? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Why are you starting a new discussion again https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179531317 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | new note -> more awareness -> more opinion/perspectives. I see this is working very well. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | I'm aware of that post. Was watching the discussion. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179951258 ; closing. | |
| 2046829 | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | opened | Wright One ♦173 | 此入口已封 |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | closed | Sylvester77 | ||
| 3 | ~ 5 years ago | reopened | Sylvester77 | ||
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Another path nearby was marked as inaccessible https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/154333345 ; related? | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ||
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,631 | This note was part of a mass-closure without any comment. It was subsequently reopened, as it's unclear if the problem mentioned still persists. | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | While reading feature history, another note was mentioned https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2046828 which has highly similar ID; both notes are likely created almost at the same time, and yet only one of them was resolved. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | By survey, both of them are `access=discouraged` with barriers, but one may still (easily) hop over the barrier, and many still do, as evidenced by the significant vegetation loss along the trail. I will make a changeset soon. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `=discouraged` , or `=no` ? | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | There is a sign by the AFCD: "Protect the Vegeation; Please Stay on Trail; Do not Take Shortcut", which should not carry legal effects. Afaik there's no law prohibiting the creation or use of desire paths. | |
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's not prohibited explicitly. But technically it seems damaging plants is illegal. | |
| 5197298 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | awhchk ♦5 | Should "roads" inside the Road Safety Town be mapped? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | You can always do that. Similar to driving course. | |
| 5178297 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | awhchk ♦5 | 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 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I think it's a mapping mistake. Lo Wu "Classification" exists as a firing range https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187627328 . | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @vectorial8192 You are misunderstanding the mistake, it's the terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Then, the existing name is a descriptive name, and is still somehow a mapping mistake. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180551326 ; closing. | |
| 4577980 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 ♦2,246 | 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 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `railway=abandoned` has a different meaning from `building=` + `abandoned=yes` | |
| 8 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | @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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @seurish Well, re Sha Tau Kok Railway, I would just like to point out that the addition was not without disagreements: see Kovoschiz's comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145944753 | |
| 12 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Roads, paths, and embankments qualify. So both can be examined. | |
| 13 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | so its just gonna stay like this then? | |
| 14 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 1. You can actually see an embankment right east of Cheung Tai Road. 2. Government copyrighted maps say the cuttings west of the bridge still follow the curve of the railway (which is different from Yau King Lane); we can easily do a survey to verify this. 3. If you toggle on older imagery from before the CUHK stuff were built (which is not too long ago, perhaps ~6 years), you can see the entire embankment of the east fully intact. It's far more than just a "single abandoned railway bridge". I see no problem in keeping it. Also, re Sha Tau Kok Railway, afaik the embankments for the sections deviating from the road still exists. | |
| 15 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | If no counter-argument in a few weeks I will be closing this note as "nothing to do here". I am also planning to delete Wo Hop Shek Branch as no traces remain, and change Sha Tau Kok Railway to `=abandoned` (but probably need to redraw it as it is glued to many still-existing features, which afaik is wrong). | |
| 16 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | I had planned to do Sha Tau Kok branch. Need to check what side of the road it's on. | |
| 17 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I had thought about sketching it from old maps/aerial imagery. But they are not clear enough to show which side of the road it is on. I also found this pic: https://i0.wp.com/www.wetoasthk.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/sha-tau-kok-railway-spur-line-branch-station-at-Fanling.jpg which seems to show it is on the south-east of the road. (Also knowing what side of the road it is on is arguably not super important as the road might have been moved or widened, so the present geometry can't really be used as a reference.) | |
| 19 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Yes, but it also shows the railway being parallel to the road beyond Shek Chung Au, which is not true according to 1924 aerials and still-existing embankments, leading me to question its trust-worthiness. | |
| 21 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | 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 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Wo Hop Shek Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179336974 | |
| 23 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Sha Tau Kok Branch see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179482107 | |
| 24 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | No disagreements for over a month, then nothing to do here; closing. | |
| 5164334 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | name seems unsubstantiated |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | https://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/thread-2229220-1-1.html ? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ; https://www.hb.gov.hk/tc/publications/housing/public/phpf/Attachment1tc.pdf : no results. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @vectorial8192 please see if you are satisfied with the quoted page. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 1. Facts are not copyrighted, only creative expressions and arrangements. You should look at the ToS only. The list of properties might be trivially assembled in their working, not protected by database rights either. 2. I don't see how the past record of Wayback Machine has to do with this | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Then, I quote the Help Page https://help.archive.org/help/rights/ , esp: > The Internet Archive does not make guarantees as to the copyright status of items [...] When the PDF is no longer current, my opinion is that the government has basically retracted the copyright, and the document is now some sort of "government internal document leak". We really should not use it, and we should revert the change. Again, this is different from say "past government publication" because here the docs never went past the publication stage. It does not deserve even "was:proposed:name" (can you prove that it was renamed, when it has never gotten any names to begin with?). I am open to calling the DWG on this. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | > here the docs never went past the publication stage ...it did? That's exactly what the Wayback Machine shows? > never gotten any names to begin with ?????? | |
| 5176553 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | okainov ♦243 | everything mapped here as lvl3 should be lvl6! |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | No, above-ground counting is used for `level=` , and the actual numbering in `level:ref=` | |
| 5176554 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | okainov ♦243 | and everything mapped as lvl1 should be 4 accordingly |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | No, above-ground counting is used for `level=` , and the actual numbering in `level:ref=` | |
| 5173115 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | todo: new footbridge? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178809016 | |
| 5165906 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | Daviddylan1 | WONG CHUK HANG RD |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | hong kong disneyland |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Duplicate funicular station "Garden Road". What is the standard for mapping funicular stations? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I think the station was moved recently? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Then, sounds like this stop has simply expanded, and the platform moved. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | But the midway stations really are request stops though. I don't see the problem, or how it relates to this note. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Having 2 `=station` is obviously wrong. `railway=stop` should be used on the `railway=` track. The polygon should be enlarged as `area:railway=station` , and a `railway=station` point recreated. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Please see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183154394 works. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Late resume; several days have passed. Right now I see 2x Garden Road railway stations on the default renderer. The stopping position mapping seems right (I don't know how that works). The changeset almost got it right. I forgot where I read this, but basically, if we have an area for the feature, then we don't need a node for it. e.g. if we have a polygon for the bus terminus, we don't need to keep a single node alongside the (new) polygon. And most of the time we prefer the polygon because it shows the scope/extent of the feature, so what usually happens is e.g. I draw the bus terminus polygon and then transfer all the data from the bus terminus node to the polygon and then delete the node. | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | I vaguely remember a similar discussion about MTR stations, and I think the conclusion is that railway stations can stay as | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Sorry misclick. ...and I think the conclusion is that railway stations can stay as a node. | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Anyway, adopted Kovoschiz's suggestion of `area:railway=station`. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183397689 | |
| 14 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Now it works. There is now explicitly a single railway station node alongside a single station area. (I am essentially using the default renderer for validation, but eyyy.) But it does seem like tradition to keep railway stations as single nodes. Thanks for the help. Me being generally uninvolved in public transport mapping has made progress slow. Closing. | |
| 5025035 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Sing Mun River has fixme, presumably about boat access. However, afaik, there are no legal restrictions about boat access. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Well, if boats are not allowed, then https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493816164 would not exist. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Wait, fixme was raised by Kovoschiz; discussion needed. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Well, at least for Shing Mun River, `boat=no` should be wrong. We can remove it, alongside with the `fixme=`. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | I will remove `boat=no` and `fixme=` from Shing Mun River if no further comments. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | No comments from me. I will only add that at extremely low tides it does become physically boat=no because this just transforms into a ditch (this is technically / structurally an extra wide ditch), but this doesn't happen every year and so the info does not sound like good candidate to be put into OSM as if regular occurrence. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183345102 ; closing. | |
| 5150715 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | todo: clean up bus relations after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164259073 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | um, lgtm? | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Broken: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607035 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6607037 | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Then, how did you check whether the relations are broken? | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | ...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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178260481 ; closing. | |
| 5151410 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | needs discussion: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177963900 |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178577044 ; closing. | |
| 5150565 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | 散掉的冰块 ♦3 | This place does not exist: "旁边有一个同名的建筑物，那么这个作为工业用地存在的同名区域应当被删除" A CoMaps user reported that the POI was visible on the map (see snapshot date below), but was not found on the ground. OSM snapshot date: 2025-12-27T02:09:53Z POI name: 機場空運中心 Airport Freight Forwarding Centre POI types: landuse-industrial #CoMaps android 2026.01.08-11-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Probably should change the `building=` `name=` to `addr:housename=`, as per changeset discussion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172051373 | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Already is. This is correct for single main building facility/site. | |
| 5149136 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170061955/history/4 | |
| 5149137 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5149136 | |
| 5038052 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | individual buildings and streets, where name:en? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Skylark_H_C ♦217 | I believe these names are real. Refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5L_oSHKvck (vlog of the experience in this hostel) | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Skylark_H_C ♦217 | but yes, some of these streets have no English name. (4:50 in the video) | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 1. copyright 2. If it cannot be verified without entering an `access=private` premise I believe it would cause problems verifiability. | |
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | > 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | well then | |
| 5027512 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | klorydryk ♦21 | "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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Does this mean, there is no perimeter foot path? | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | klorydryk ♦21 | Yes if is what I mean | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177555528 ; closing. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | This is unclear. It may be `trail_visibility=no` / `obstacle=vegetation` / `disused=yes` / `abandoned:highway=` | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | As in the connection https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1002239786/ | |
| 5123548 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | awhchk ♦5 | * The playground is mostly over the rooftop of KTSPS, but a section closest to Wai Yip Street is outside of the building and close to ground level. It seems the outline of the eastern part of the building is wrong. * The playground is part of Cha Kwo Ling Promenade, but confusingly some information boards also has the name "茶果嶺海濱公園（園景平台） Cha Kwo Ling Promenade (Landscaped Deck)". This seems to refer to the whole playground area. (The side road is marked on the map in grey which leads me to believe it is excluded.) * Dogs are prohibited in the playground area, but the part of the park closer to the sea is designated as "Inclusive Park for Pets" and the side road leading to it does not prohibit dogs. * The signs state the opening hours to be 7:00 am to 11:00 pm. Not sure if this only applies to the playground area or all of it. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | This https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16555245 already has the name Cha Kwo Leng Promenade. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `name=茶果嶺海濱公園（園景平台） Cha Kwo Ling Promenade (Landscaped Deck)` should be wrong. That's a label for the part inside. Brackets should be presumed not proper names, only descriptive. Cf Scheduled https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap132?xpid=ID_1438402664274_001 | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Josephfunny202603131237_ | ||
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5099138 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39550532 , etc., ? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Updated (had already marked what they are supposed to be) | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 5132153 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | I vaguely remember https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341043773 does not exist anymore. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Old imagery (Bing Maps) and new imagery (ESRI World) both say "no crossings here". | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | "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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | At least that's my understanding. You must detour via the upstream intersection, or go C-shaped around the intersection. | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177673697 ; closing. | |
| 5128538 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | You can refer to the surroundings. Most if not all non-T2 `=construction` seems should be `proposed:highway=` actually. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | All three roads are changed to be "highway=proposed" with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177805982 ; close? | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Yeah, was gonna do it myself but you did it first, thanks. Closing. | |
| 5126001 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo: now that reclamation is (probably) mostly complete/stabilized, review/partition into greenfields |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | There's nothing to be partitioned. Already done inside. TCE can be discussed as a `boundary=administrative` depending on definition. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | TCE feels like some sort of "urban block", but afaik no such urban block specification for HK OSM. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Should be good now. Closing. | |
| 5123432 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo: this section of Route 2 probably should not have toll information. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | It should as it can only be accessed from EHC. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11180794 | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Hammer Hill Rd off-slip seems an editing omission. You shouldn't assume it must be perfect. | |
| 12 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I will early-hint that my "exact area" is different from "continue until junction". | |
| 16 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Josephfunny202603131237_ | ||
| 17 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 18 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 19 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @vectorial8192 reminder that this note exists and is awaiting your elaboration; it would be nice if you would find/recover/take a look at your drafts and give your point when you are ready. (No need to rush, but seeing you are recovering your Sau Mau Ping Road drafts I thought I should probably remind you to deal with this too) | |
| 20 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Indeed. I often lose focus. My plan was to discuss this first, but it seems we can discuss SMP side first instead. | |
| 5057844 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | What's the difference of 2 points with existing? | |
| 5115498 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 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 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Please turn off "map notes" on the right from "Layers" | |
| 5104381 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | 1F616EMO ♦3 | Entrance to Kwai Lam Court and the mall here at surface level |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | We don't usually do entrances into individual (residential) buildings, but we can do entrances to the mall. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | While we are at it, some indoor paths in this area are mapped as "indoor corridors" so OSMCarto doesn't render them. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's not "don't usually do", but "usually not done yet" | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo: use motorway_link for multi-exit end-of-line junctions (e.g. see Western Harbour Crossing). |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | (There's even Rt 3 end on both directions) | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | If we are willing to break the "one road physical cross-section -> one OSM way" rule, then the solution becomes trivial. | |
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 1. That's unacceptable 2. I don't see what's the relevance here. There's no Rt 3 and 6 concurrency. | |
| 10 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 11 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 12 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 13 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | So, ultimately, is this a "todo" note or is this a "it do be like this" note? | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Todo. My plan is to change all `building:part=` towers in Hong Kong to `building=`, then close this note. | |
| 5098623 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | Has this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/780190087 been reopened? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176191677 | |
| 5093604 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Various "dots" exist in this area with nothing but "name=Yau Ma Tei Interchange"; what for? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | What I mean is, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2861669105 this is just a named "dot". The meaning is unclear. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177674914 ; closing. | |
| 4958371 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Quarry Bay station, Exits B1, B2, and B3 are original research. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | *also exit B4 | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Detected faulty changeset as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/16819169 . | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | From Discord discussion, it seems like this note is a false positive? If so, perhaps we can close it. | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | The next step is to check/confirm the railway protection details, and I haven't done that yet. | |
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Also, `old_ref` can be considered if you really want to keep the B1-B4. | |
| 10 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I don't know the details, but it seems there can only be 1x `ref=B` as specified by the OSM schema. | |
| 12 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It should be acceptable to have multiple `ref=B` | |
| 13 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 14 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ||
| 15 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,631 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Yau Tong Station: Review the layering; should probably be `layer=0` or `layer=1`. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `layer=` absolute number has no meaning, and can be anything. Only the relative order matters, and preferably be consistent with the surroundings. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Alright, it seems I only had a wrong interpretation of what layering really means. Closing. | |
| 5078637 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Anyone know what this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1455730544 is named? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | Lung Cheung Road Sitting Out Area | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | zh 龍翔道休憩處 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1503005523 | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright? | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Indeed, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#Can_I_trace_data_from_Google_Maps/Nokia_Maps/...? If you are unsure whether a map can be copied, it would be the safest to assume that it can't. For this specific case, the easiest solution would be just visiting the site, as park names are usually signposted, and this location is not inconvenient to get to. | |
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | > and this location is not inconvenient to get to Technically, you are correct, but it just doesn't feel right. | |
| 10 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | checked today, it is one to one with the name i provided | |
| 11 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | @HenryEK If you know the name, then you may add them into the system. | |
| 12 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | HenryEK ♦35 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | name:zh of park? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/576655997 |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | 赫蘭道／淺水灣道花園 https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/s/S/1810025496 | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @HenryEK are you sure it can be used in terms of copyright? | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | No https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183161334 ; closing. | |
| 5080918 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's enough if it stands on its own, cf Sham Wan, Shouson Hill. You thinking it should be in Wong Chuk Hang? | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | It seems we can close this. | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Then, this note is simply due to my misunderstanding on how renderers work. Closing. | |
| 5074863 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦35 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hong_Kong/Transport/Road#%E8%A1%97%E9%81%93%E5%88%86%E9%A1%9E_Classifications_of_streets Currently, tunnel areas are considered `highway=motorway`. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 7 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | 1F616EMO ♦3 | See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5068721 | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | I multi-edited them all for convenience. You can always correct it. | |
| 5 | ~ 7 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @1F616EMO OSM is not Wikipedia. Immediate action is often done for disasters, and it works based on iterative refinement. | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Ie there's no ban on breaking news https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper | |
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Things should have settled down. I am hopeful Wang Chi House is entirely unaffected, but someone go look under the scaffolding? | |
| 10 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Latest news hint towards the building remains healthy because residents are allowed to retrieve some of their stuff. | |
| 11 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175434791 ; closing. | |
| 5068721 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Unlikely to become `landuse=residential` directly, changed to `ruined` | |
| 5058584 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Should Tai Hang Sai Estate still retain landuse=residential? afaik judicial processes are withholding reconstruction, which means this estate is technically still inhabitable. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Have they not lost all the cases? | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Hi there, we are long into December, I guess that means we can close this note with no actions to take? | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Any updates on this note? | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | No updates, but I am very afraid to close this. Last time (December) I thought all cases were closed already, and then a few days later I read about a few of them freshly closed. Best bet would be to wait for the Company to do work. I think the news was that the Company would start partial work on this site as it waits for the several remaining cases to close, instead of doing work on the entire site at once. This should be a good indicator of what's up. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | the sidewalk along wai chi street now has beams along it in preparation for demolition | |
| 10 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Apparently, legal process is still going. See below May 2026. Again, "I am very afraid to close this". https://thewitnesshk.com/%E5%B9%B3%E5%B1%8B%E6%8E%A7%E5%A4%A7%E5%9D%91%E8%A5%BF%E9%82%A8%E6%8B%92%E9%81%B7%E5%B1%85%E6%B0%91%E5%8B%9D%E8%A8%B4-%E5%B1%85%E6%B0%91%E9%9D%A2%E8%87%A8%E5%9F%B7%E9%81%94%E5%90%8F%E6%94%B6%E6%A8%93/ | |
| 11 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Yes, but if you are "discovering this situation this late to the story, it would just be a technicality issue, and can't justify an OSM edit", what is this note for? | |
| 12 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | This is an extremely shitty residential area. The reason why no changes are possible is because OSM is for long term usage, but we know this residential area will become a construction area soon, just that we don't know when, so it doesn't justify an OSM edit. This does not stop this area from being an extremely shitty residential area, which is different from OSM data, so this note is also not closeable. | |
| 13 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | The purpose of notes is to "assist others in mapping/editing". If no action can be taken, how is it not closable? Cf. e.g. we have previously closed notes from maps.me placed at the centre of large polygons, making the location inaccurate, on the basis that it is impossible to know where the action is needed, even though the text of the note is perfectly fine. | |
| 14 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | well man tai house is currently being demolished | |
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | On top of tracking demolition progress, I rather keep this note open than to have someone update the Estate to be a residential area, which is technically correct but contextually very inappropriate. We can keep this note open until we are sure the last of the JR processes are complete; the Company will likely make press releases when that happens, and then we will know. | |
| 16 | ~ 22 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | New JR: https://hkcourtnews.com/%E5%A4%A7%E5%9D%91%E8%A5%BF%E9%82%A8%E6%B8%85%E6%8B%86%E7%88%AD%E8%AD%B0%EF%BD%9C%E5%B1%85%E6%B0%91%E7%94%B3%E5%8F%B8%E6%B3%95%E8%A6%86%E6%A0%B8%E3%80%80%E7%A8%B1%E3%80%8C%E6%94%9E%E5%9B%9E%E5%90%88/ Apparently the estate is still mail-able. Like, we are frustrated, the residents (plaintiff) are frustrated, the residents (unsued) are frustrated, the Company is frustrated, and the Judges are also frustrated. The spiciness is justified, need not feel bad. | |
| 17 | ~ 2 days ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | man lee, man shun and man hong house have been demolished | |
| 5052151 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | Our hotel |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | I suspect that it is legal to cycle from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116287569 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/835665902 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | * 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I don't know the details yet, but bold claim to be allowed to walk/cycle in numbered highways. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ok, so you mentioned https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/227648518 , but this already has `bicycle=no`. | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | @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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | My suspicion is correct. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175445268 ; closing. | |
| 5029552 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Any reason why Tuen Mun River changes from `waterway=river` to simply `waterway=drain`? |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Editing mistake (not changing all) | |
| 5017619 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | Does https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1443879805 really exist? There's already things there, and online searches do not return any helpful results. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `=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 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | u-turn slip road has been reopened already |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86041189 | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | juniusli | ||
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | juniusli | ||
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | juniusli | ||
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | juniusli | ||
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ||
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | You can't use that. It doesn't have controller numbering data either. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Turns out, NT417 is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10025317359 | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173447973 ; closing. | |
| 4989681 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 9 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | This is known. It can still be added eventually. | |
| 4977665 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Shatin station; should outer platforms (aka 1 and 4) be `=siding`? |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | This seems simply an editing mistake https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/208232752/history/16 | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Good find. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172570414 ; closing. | |
| 4980973 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | You know you can simply correct these obvious omissions | |
| 4954527 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo: new buildings |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | im unsure of what to do so can you clarify what features i should delete for the edit (e.g. the construction plot) | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Well, from aerial imagery, there are indeed some new buildings here, so I guess we should add the building elements and update its latest state? | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | so, delete the inland plot feature and add everything else? | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | No, the `landuse=construction` is the `landuse=residential` | |
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172531268 ; closing. | |
| 4706786 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 1 year 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 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @Kovoschiz Why is this note closed without a comment? Is there really a bakery here? | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | User tried to delete it already https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164848701 | |
| 4706787 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 1 year 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 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | @Kovoschiz Why is this note closed without a comment? Is there really a 7-11 here? | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | User tried to delete it already https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164848701 | |
| 4922555 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | todo: review roundabout mapping |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Could you please elaborate on what the issue this here/what is to be reviewed? I do notice that the mapping around here is a bit odd and most certainly wrong | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | The central island is traversable, so I think it should be `highway=turning_circle`. | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | There's a `=give_way` , so not entirely the most common `=turning_circle` , similar to `=mini_roundabout` | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Is the presence of a give way a factor in determining whether something is a turning circle though? I feel like its main purpose is to let buses from the bus terminus do a u-turn and leave, fitting the definition of "a widened area of road that allows vehicles to turn more easily". | |
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Not sure what you mean "visible", but there is indeed a painted circle in the middle: https://imgur.com/a/5uJE9Qi | |
| 9 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦35 | this looks more like a mini roundabout than a turning circle | |
| 10 | ~ 6 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Correct | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3841741635 , but it seems we don't have a tag for "arts school"...? | |
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | roylo5112 | ||
| 7 | ~ 10 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦493 | ||
| 8 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Perhaps `education=art_school`? | |
| 9 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I am half split between "yes let's do it" and "but it also targets school kids". | |
| 10 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | Then, perhaps `amenity=prep_school` + `school=art`? | |
| 12 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `=prep_school` is preparing for exams. This is `=training` | |
| 13 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's both `amenity=` + `education` | |
| 15 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | So, `amenity=training` + `education=training` + `training=art`? | |
| 16 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Good precedent; we can type this in later. | |
| 19 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177956622 ; closing. | |
| 4957458 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Kwun Tong Line, the directions are sus. "Westbound" but approaches Tiu Keng Leng; and vice versa? |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | (Problem observed at Mong Kok) | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Must have switched the `railway=` , while correct `route=` | |
| 4949223 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | Why is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1205283541 a link? |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | User mistake, but should all be `=secondary_link` | |
| 4939458 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | "U"nderpass? |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | OK, then the current situation is good enough as-is. Therefore, closing. | |
| 4927540 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I don't think this is a tomb. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `=tomb` + `tomb=columbarium` is simply what's used for this. It's only needs to change from `historic=` to `man_made=` | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | --- | marina cove E side |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9184291180 | |
| 4911234 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | Name of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6315211233 is dubious. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | `name=` is debated against `board:title=` , which this is should not be `=guidepost` | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | It's actually just a banner on a railing. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174190901 ; closing. | |
| 4908929 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Also Tunnel Area is proposed to be changed to `motorroad=yes` only, and `=trunk` here, instead of all `=motorway` | |
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | On MOS Rd, this was avoided by justifying a `highway=` change at the bus on-slip (although it was edited by someone now) | |
| 5 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦493 | Changed via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170453952 ; closing. | |
| 6 | ~ 10 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | ||
| 7 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦493 | Very dubious speed limit (why suddenly speed limit 30 at the middle of a roundabout?). |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Wrong `maxspeed=` and `maxheight=` | |
| 4904578 Category: --- | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I just don't see its irl relevance when a same-name irl location exists elsewhere quite obviously. | |
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's possible for currently relevant locations to share names. That can't be a criteria for deciding. | |
| 5 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Also this is `=locality` | |
| 6 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | The actual situation is no one remembered to create it (did now) | |
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11353455226 is suspicious |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | It's simply another historical location | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | That's the `=suburb` , and there can be other `place=` under it. `=locality` is already the lowest level. | |
| 5 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Then, this note is due to my lack of local (rural) knowledge. Therefore, closing. | |
| 4896453 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | (northbound) Which of the 3 toll gantries is the real toll gantry? |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | The one on the slip road is wrongly positioned. Should be upstream. | |
| 5 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | And southbound is completely wrong (and duplicating one of the correct one by me) | |
| 4894772 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | no name road, why access=private? |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Drainage reserve access road (was even `access=no` ) | |
| 4894603 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | There exists both https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315897141 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12846837 , which may indicate inconsistent data. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | No you should check how `type=waterway` works first | |
| 4894594 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12996644577 is suspicious |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | if protecthknames, then is potentially bannable; we will need some help. | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Apologies, I have forgotten about the "comment on the changeset" again. | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | I see this specific case is mostly resolved. Therefore, closing this. | |
| 4886544 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 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 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1266836324 ? | |
| 4886547 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 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 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419355192/ | |
| 4861256 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Improbably narrow cliff/ridge? On the public map? |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Should be changed to `=ridge` | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ( Should draw `=ridge` , but this is possible) | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | They can be different land formations, only coincidentally represented by the same object partially. This doesn't matter. | |
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 7 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦493 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,431 | Thanks all for the information. The terrain is improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169542238 ; we can close this. | |
| 12 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 13 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | Edited (to show what I meant) | |
| 4865203 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | --- | 陳家小宅 |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | 小宅陳家 | ||
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | 小宅陳家 | ||
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | --- | j6rj |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | Mike Tsang | YLRN 25031117 |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | ||
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | --- | 6u6 |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,246 | 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 |