`=garages` (which I don't like) is different from `=depot` (which I also disagree with), an alternative option to `landuse=industrial` + `industrial=depot` or `*=vehicle_depot`

1. Offtake stations are `pipeline=substation` + `substation=valve_group`. Definitely not `man_made=storage_tank`.
2. You don't need to remove `landuse=industrial`

This breaks the hierarchy as a whole.

When compared to `addr:*=` together.

Also you clearly don't understand when `is_in:*=` needs to be used.

Can you explain what's "invalid"?

Aside from a wrong changeset comment, why isn't this a `bridge=`?

I can agree with your consistency, since this is the status before I change the southern section to `=secondary` to reflect Hennessy Rd's route to Gloucester Rd via Arsenal St.
Since that editor-person didn't respond, I plan on making some changes when I'm done with my backlog.

Then how I can add `temporary=yes` here? It would indicate the roadway is "temporary". A "condition"-style tag still needs a condition, right?
There are ~200 `cycleway:*:temporary=yes`.

I'm referring to `temporary=yes` in osm.wiki/Key:temporary. `temporary:*=` without a date range is syntactically wrong according to the latest proposal. osm.wiki/Proposed_features/temporary is obsolete. You would also see that this is `oneway=no`, so `temporary:oneway=yes` is semantically wrong. They don't work for indefinite time periods.

Meant the bridge's wall.

Please be careful in the future. You changed the PRC to `admin_level=4` as well. osm.org/changeset/100720824

There's actually a stalled discussion concerning the section of Arsenal St north of Lockhart Rd, where one editor-person changed it to `=secondary`, among other up-ranks across the territory. I personally only consider the section on the south connecting onwards to Arsenal St Flyover as `=secondary`, as it serve as a crucial N-S exit.

1. Can you check with your application or router? I don't see anything wrong here
2. Non-phyiscally separating turning lanes are not represented as different lines.

Actually, I must admit I don't like it either. You can look at the status quo of Linimo. At present, it's `=light_rail`. Hypothetically, if it is not HSST, then this would be a better choice. Mixing technology and the kind of service can be confusing. It's only because `=monorail` is "approved" and substantially different, that I'm fine with it. Indeed, the system of Linimo fits `=monorail` more.

You should use `addr:place=` for village-style address numbering, not `addr:street=`
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/100583000

It's not exactly "maglev should be tagged as monorail", but rather monorail that is maglev should be `monorail=maglev`, which this isn't. As you may notice, this is a proposal that I have been contemplating.

(`crossing=unmarked` is even more ambiguous)

There's no problem with `landuse=residential` + `building=` in HK. The former is really more important, until it can be detailed. `building=` with a `name=` is meaningless here.

Please don't downgrade `crossing=traffic_signals` to an ambiguous `crossing=marked`. For good measures I have added `road_marking=*`/