As I have said before, please don't change the `name=` to compose housing estate + building name. This is an application issue.

We touched upon this issue now osm.org/changeset/142112318

Please don't remove the `addr:street=` . They are done for a specific purpose for HK. Street naming usually applies until the gore, so the section is actually Lion Rock Tunnel Rd. But logically and routing-wise, it should be considered Shatin Rd. However, using `official_name=` is unclear.

Eg Ma Chai Hang Rd rounabout's street naming is Ma Chai Hang Rd.

Street naming is inconsistent. See Fung Mo Street.
It can also be incomplete. Many road sections don't have a street name gazetted or signposted.
The incompleteness and inconsistency can play together when addressing doesn't follow the absence of street naming.
Another clear example is how `=roundabout` is described to not have names internationally unless it is the junction name itself. But HK applies the road name to all roundabouts.

No, don't say you are copying from Google. This is not allowed. It's a copyright infringement.
I don't agree. Street names don't decide anything. In fact, `*_link=` is described to not have names internationally, which is not applicable. In Hong Kong, the street naming have a very specific organization that defies routing expectation. For example, on slip roads, the name of the main line applies until the gore. Then routing will be confused unless it evaluates the name afterwards.

It's not about the physical design, or whether it is an "exit" or "entrance" . Contrary to Google Maps, which has many other arguably bad designs.

It is not without controversy. You can read the aftermath of some strong words. osm.wiki/Talk:Highway_link#Y_Junctions_should_NOT_be_classified_as_links
Fung Mo St has a u-turn. Then `=*_link` shows it diverges into 2. But Ching Tak St doesn't.
Would you do the same if it connects to Lung Cheung Rd at 90 degrees? What is the reason for the difference? Determining purely based on whether it curves is not consistent and useful.
Another comparison can be made at roundabouts. You won't change the eastern end of Fung Tak Rd to `=secondary_link` simply because it splits at the end, would you?
This can be compared with divided roads. Hypothetically if Shatin Pass Rd is only channelized by an island near the Fung Tak Rd junction, suddenly it has to be considered as a `=secondary_link` , despite having no other significant difference with reality.

2. `=drain` is for useless water. Piped and reservoir transfer water are clearly not that.

Please check that `=canal` includes water conveyance. It is not the usual meaning of canals for ships only.

Please don't change a `=mini_roundabout` point to ` =roundabout` line.

I don't agree with this style. Is it merely because of the shape? For a simple straight central island, you would keep it the same. Think about a two-way road intersecting a one-way road. This isn't done for roundabouts either.
Or why not make the `*_link` all the way through the next junction?

Please don't remove the lines. Both points and lines are valid. There's no good solution yet.

Please stop doing meaningless changes. The info is already available in some form.

Again, please don't draw pencil tip intersections. This is already easier because of the one-way single carriageway. Simply connect the straight direction directly, and connect the opposite direction separately to the road to make a box like everywhere else.

Please don't upload test edits to a live public database. This is considered vandalism. If you want to "test", add valid new data.

Can you please explain what you are trying to do?

Please don't delete something that still exists.

It can be changed to `tactile_paving=yes` . This is acceptable detailing. Only the `=footway` is wrong. And this is `=pedestrian` (+ `sidewalk=no`) , not `=service`. (`service=emergency_access` should only be used for roads entirely dedicated to contingency use without dominant pedestrians use, while this is more for walking along the building)

Please don't change towers on podiums from `building=` to `building:part=` . This is not the common practice locally, and is debatable as to their definition.