1. Is there going to be a temporary bridge? What's the other one for? Widening doesn't need that.
2. If the contract hasn't been awarded and no works have begun, it isn't needed to be added so soon.

`=playground` is defined to be a children's playground, completely different from HK's "playground" term.

Please don't remove the `ref=` here. They are the actual labels.

Hi, please don't remove the standalone `=traffic_signals` before adding the `ref=` to an appropriate object first. This was a result of unfamiliar editing early on.

There have be similar arguments and tentative solutions elsewhere before.

Oh dang, in a past occasion, I was given the impression `junction:ref=` has support, when I turned out to be "wrongly" using it for other purposes.

You changed a scrubland to a building.

This is a good question. I'm following the convention that physical separation is needed for them to be split. `change:lanes=` is pretty much the standard solution, although not yet marked as "de facto". What I wonder is if `*:ref=12C` on the `=motorway_link` is well-supported, so that `=motorway_junction` on the point of exit is unnecessary.
I know Apple Maps support these more complicated turning restriction, which is a big supporting reason for me to continue refining as such.

1. By your logic following that, `leisure=nature_reserve` doesn't qualify either, with the lack of "Some habitats are protected by local- or district-law".
2. `boundary=protected_area` doesn't require a IUCN `protect_class=` category to exist.

If you would notice there's at least a `highway=construction` for its mistake, you don't have to follow a wrong example.

That's not the only problem either, for you are so responsible to ask why I had not fixed it when I comment. Above all, please don't make changesets spanning large areas in the future.

Why don't you wait to see if I'm editing before you make a judgement then? That's an info for you only.

You broke osm.org/relation/12460059 by not adding `building=*` to osm.org/way/925188472

You shouldn't add `building=yes` to the `type=building`.

While this one doesn't look widespread among the relevant users, sometimes names are indeed like that, reflecting "common" use there. https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-ca@openstreetmap.org/msg08032.html

You also didn't remove `boundary=national_park`

What's wrong with `boundary=protected_area`?

Please don't add unopened features directly

Please don't add unopened features directly

Please add a new point, instead of changing the entire building.