Please stop fiddling with the data for debugging. Besides both `oneway=yes` being wrong, and you swapped `lanes:forward=` + `lanes:backward=` , routing graphs don't get rebuilt very frequently.

I don't see what you are doing, and you removed `name:en=`

Please don't blindly follow map labels and sign titles directly. They can be made in different formats for presentation and viewing.
Top-right mentions them separately. It's very clear it means different sections. Furthermore, the plural "trails" suggests it is a system, not a single `route=` .
Please read osm.wiki/Names#Multiple_names and osm.wiki/Walking_Routes

Please don't add descriptive labels to `name=` , which is for proper names only. `description=` has already been used.

Please don't add multiple names to `name=` . `alt_name=` should be followed. Furthermore, they should have a `route=` created, not be added as `name=` .

You broke it by merely disconnecting the `=steps`

What was wrong here? You simply replaced a `=sidewalk` with `=pedestrian` ?

Please use descriptive upload comments, not something unrelated to the main topic as "roads"

Please read carefully. `oneway=yes` is used with `oneway:bus:conditional=no @ *` and `oneway:bicycle=no` here.
osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
osm.wiki/Key:oneway:bus

Please completely transfer tags when you delete and redraw. That's not preferred for this reason. Adjust the shape.

Please don't directly delete them, as they represent a shop space, and this does have addresses or other info. It causes more work to add back new tenants later, and waste previous user's effort. Please change it to a plain "point" to eliminate it.

Please don't directly delete them, as they represent a shop space, and may have addresses or other info. It causes more work to add back new tenants later, and waste previous user's effort. Please change it to a plain "point" to eliminate it.

Please don't remove `building=` from actual buildings. `=substation` should only be separated when there is an entire fenced site for it.

1. You should change it to `sidewalk:both=separate` , not remove the `sidewalk=` only. Furthermore, the network of `=footway` should be ensured to be correctly drawn and fully connected.
2. We discussed this recently. `=use_sidepath` is technically not accurate. It isn't illegal to walk on the carriageway.

Please don't change `=mini_roundabout` points to a `junction=roundabout` line. They exist in this form for a reason. The center is traversable. Larger vehicles can travel through it as a standard intersection.

Please don't change `=footway` to `=path` . `=footway` has a specific meaning. `=path` alone is generic and unclear.

Please don't directly delete them, as they can have addresses or floor info, and still represent a store space. It makes tracking and updating new tenant later difficult. Simply changing them to a plain "Point" to eliminate them.

We can sort out our differences and clarify the opposing views first, before presenting to the global audience to decide osm.wiki/User_talk:Kovposch#Double_"parking"

If you mean the regional post, sorry I don't read German, so I didn't notice it https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/parken-in-gekennzeichneten-flachen-erlaubt/113946/
From translation, I don't see how `parking:*:restriction:conditional=`can co-exist with `parking:*:restriction` nicely for this. `parking:*:restriction=` already refers to the `restriction=` in that `parking:*=` . Adding other things there over-complicates that.
Furthermore, this is a travel lane. `=street_side` is deprecated. This will be treated as `parking=no` if there's no bay. `* @(parking=no)` is awkward.
`parking=` is a physical location, that's not the same as conditions. This is akin to suggesting `foot:conditional=* (sidewalk:*)` over `sidewalk:*:foot=` .
Using `*:lanes=` to refer to lanes seems logical and acceptable.
It's a common layout around here. You can see here the double solid yellow line continues along the dashed-lined bay on the right https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HK_中環_Central_金鐘_Admiralty_龍和道_Lung_Wo_Road_Tim_Wa_Avenue_night_November_2021_SS2_03.jpg

So it's not based on a legal default that shouldn't be added. We clearly distinguish whether stopping is allowed outside parking bays here.