Yes, there's something, but not lanes. The left half is shared-use, where bikes need to keep right (center), and pedestrians keep left. There's only a pair of small pictograms towards the sides as a reminder, which doesn't take up the entire "lane". No different surfacing. The right half is a part of the sidewalk.

It's not possible to add them properly on most if not all such end-user map apps. They are not designed for editing. An `entrance=` needs to be attached to the `building=` directly.

Tried to divide it into `footway:*=` and `cycleway:*=` , but it doesn't work quite nice. `cycleway*:bicycle:*=` is still needed.

This is how the default style here shows different `entrance=` , as a small square dot. Other applications would use other icons.

It's `segregated=no` . There's no `lanes=` for it, nor any visible physical characteristics that would divide it into `*:lanes=` on the left half.

Please reply to previous changesets from your different accounts. `bus=private` is needed in HK to distinguish franchised bus.

Already corrected. The `addr:street=` is wrong because you added `addr:housenumber=25` with it, making it 25 Tsuen Wan Market St.

Please don't upload duplicates to the public database. This functionality is not for private use. The address is wrong as well.

Please don't delete them directly, as they can contain addresses, and still represent a store space. This makes tracking and updating more difficult. Change it to a plain "point", or "vacant".

And there's no naming, numbering. or identification for them to qualify as a `=route`

It's enough to add `*cn=yes`

It's better to avoid creating these. They aren't really routes, but are groups inside a district. There's no linear routing between a start and end.

Please don't delete a properly tagged object, especially not replace it with your wrong version. Edit it if you want to change it.

As mentioned before, please don't add the location to the `name=` , which should be the proper name only without hyphenated or bracketed descriptor labels. `branch=` should be used.

But also for that matter in OHM, again `natural=peak` is different from the `place=` named after it. You should only add such a `place=` if that's how the residents or government refer to the community. When the mountain is unpopulated, this shouldn't be added.

You still didn't reply on the original changeset for this…

You are confusing the terrain with the community. These `place=` are used to refer to settlements, and they need to be how the public are commonly referring to it currently, not to mentioned for addressing purposes.
And again, please don't add historic names especially no-longer-existing features as `name=` + `natural=` / `place=` in OSM. They belong to OpenHistoricalMap. OSM describes the reality now, not what you think it should be.

@mranderson2025 Can you please actually reply to the original changeset comments as mentioned first, including to list out what "various sources" they are? You are the one making accusations and judgements. I made no judgement by restoring the `old_name=` as corrected by 2 other users before.

@Taya_S
I mostly refrain from making judgements on mountain-side toponyms. This was corrected by osm.org/user/minghong , and osm.org/user/HKHikerhang the latter of whom has even made it to the news by holding a press conference about many users adding historical or personal names causing hiker confusion, even potentially risking their lives when they call rescue. Ref DWG tickets #2022033110000028 , #2022120210000048 , #2024022610000063 for previous incidents, where sock puppets have appeared repeatedly. osm.org/user/Supaplex/diary/399062
This has been noticed by the community (not me) at least 5 more years earlier in 2016 osm.wiki/Talk:Zh-hant:Hong_Kong_tagging#Place_Names
In this case, the involved users are difficult to track down, as they have deleted their account, similar to many of those offending users, and sock puppets. For now, I could only see they are "charmaine_pui_ting" (uid=17048038) and "hkpeakname"(uid=15436648) from Better OSM. OSMCha purged their database, so finding older changesets are more difficult. I can't say these two absolutely bad, but they definitely have mixed records at least. Need to do more digital forensics/archaeology to be sure.

For reference, that was added and re-added by a few dubious users who often add historical or personal names. This was corrected twice by reputable users already.