Also "ja_rm 日本語のローマ字表記（BCP 47 標準に従えば、 ja-Latn とするべきです）
ja_kana 日本語のかな表記（BCP 47 標準に従えば、ひらがな表記は ja-Hira、カタカナ表記は ja-Kana とするべきです）"
osm.wiki/JA:名称

osm.wiki/JA:Key:name:ja_kana makes it a osm.wiki/Category:JA:状態が「非推奨」のキー. Maybe there are some confusion on iragana and Katakana.

I changed to `*:ja-Hrkt=`

This is surprising. I have been using current OSM as well as IETF BCP 47 and Unicode standard `*:ja-Hira=` and `*:ja-Latn=`.

`*:ja-Kana=` is same as `*:ja-Hira=` and `*:ja-Latn=` (also `*:ja-Hrkt=`)

To me it's preferred to use `crossing=traffic_signals` consistently.

So I'm not convinced the right needs to be connected to the left.

The issue here is the tip of the lane add taper from the right extend to the lane drop taper to the left

You forgot to add a turning restriction.

`*_link=` having street names is not uncommon either.

Also it may possibly seen as a split interchange

There are some toll facilities with toll machines only, that has no "booth" buildings.

The toll booths still exists so it needs to be related to "disused".

osm.wiki/Hong_Kong/Transport/Road is supposed to be made by individuals before `motorroad=yes`. `motorroad=yes` was also misused.

It's `motorway=no`. As a local historic legacy, current `motorroad=yes` is classified as `highway=motorway` previousy, for their "motorway"-like legal restrictions. There are also some misapplied `motorroad=yes` on `=trunk` and `=primary`. The former I personally don't intend to propose a change in the short term; for the the latter I'm gathering affected sections and doing small-scale preparatory edits before I suggest a removal.
This one is done for consistency, similar to osm.org/way/485404214

1. I don't disagree, but it is the least worse. The alternative would be `=motorway` worldwide
2. The "requirement" is `=motorway_link` for `=motorway` connections.
2. As I said, `=trunk` and `=trunk_link` is another matter. `=motorway` and `=motorway_link` has special meaning

1. You haven't responded on the rest of the balance of factors above.
2. As I mentioned, `=*_link` itself is flawed, but we have to work with it. Same with `=motorway` and `=motorway_link` to me,

1, Hung Tin Rd can be reasonably treated as a entrance/exit at the end.
2. Long Tin Rd doesn't connect to Yuen Long Hwy only.
3. Po Shun Rd connects to non-Tunnel Cross-Bay Link as well.

Please don't mention non-Expressway connections like Tsing Tin Rd. `=trunk_link` is another matter, complicated by `=*_link` itself.

Please don't bring official-only "distributor" terminology with no bearing here. They have no influence on functional consideration.
Your choice is:
1. Extend as `=motorway`, which is misleading on Expressway area
2. Extend as `=primary`, which is misleading on the connection to Expressway.
Thus `=motorway_link` is chosen. It fits the definition of `=motorway_link` on 2, and offer a compromise on 1.