1. I'm talking about northbound which is bypassed by `=primary` Hill Rd Flyover. Seems a close comparison.
2. You keep discussing CPBR only, but is it really comparable? For reference only, the bypassed CWBR is officially a District Distributor, and actually has an AADT of a similar magnitude with NCWBR between Lee On Rd and Shun Lee Tsuen Rd, higher than the latter and Sau Mau Ping Rd. https://atc.td.gov.hk/aadt/3019 https://atc.td.gov.hk/pdf/2018/S3019.pdf
3. I'm only saying they should be considered a set of related junctions, only split up into different intersections and traffic lights from the terrain constraint. So this shouldn't be penalized.
4. As I said, I'm mostly asking about light vehicles, and only downhill for heavy vehicles.
5. If it does "support cross-district traffic", why shouldn't it be `=secondary` ?
6. It's significant and important on a district level. I don't see how it's absolutely "inaccurate".

1. That's a relative perspective. This corridor is not flat, therefore the roads will not be flat. As I said, I was talking about mostly light vehicles, and heavy vehicles downhill.
2. The junction spacing between Fung Shing St and Jat's Incline is not bad for a more urban region. Good Hope School is only a mid-block crosswalk. Fei Ngo Shan Rd might be seen as constrained by terrain only, and actually related to Clear Water Bay Rd. Junction spacing itself isn't decisive, as they could be coordinated, so the intersecting roads need to be compared as well.
3. Still need to consider in context, and compare with the surroundings. It's quite different from eg Lee On Rd — Shun On Rd, and Choi Hing Rd — Choi Ha Rd. It's not very highly localized traffic only.
4. This only justifies NCWBR being `=primary` and more important than CWBR. It doesn't explain why the latter should be `=tertiary` rather than `=secondary` , demoting 1 more tier.
Cf Pok Fu Lam Rd?

Cf Kam Tin. Bypassed Rd only demoted 1 tier.

This is obviously not the same. Light vehicles still use it. Heavy vehicles can use it downhill.

Please don't directly delete them, as they still represent a store space, and may contain addresses. It makes tracking and updating them later more difficult, wasting effort to locate them. Change them to a plain "point", or "vacant".

Please don't delete `area:highway=`

0. Please don't use such comments. It should be descriptive and self-contained.
1. Please be careful when panning. There's a dragged point here. Junctions, bridges, roads, geodetic control stations shouldn't not be intersected and attached to each other as they are separate.
2. Please don't use such `name=` , which is for proper names only. At most add `fixme=` and `note=` only. You can right-click to "add a note here" to let others edit if you don't know what to use.

Please be careful when panning. There's a dragged point here.

`=motorway_junction` is for numbered exits. This should be eg `=milestone`

Revert /changeset/168108953 HK roads: Unsubstantiated, malformated

osm.org/changeset/168120340

1. Please don't mix `name=` into `ref=` . It should be `ref=G94` only. The `name=` is stored in the `route=road` separately.
2. HK doesn't signpost G94. It shouldn't be in `ref=` , only other `*_ref=` at most. But G94 is signposted to end at the border.
3. I can't verify your naming
Please don't upload your personal data if that's the case osm.org/relation/2218591

Again this is one of the controversial mismatched cases. `motorway=no` is still better for the exact limits, and the `highway=` for functional classification before merge with non-Expressway road.

Please don't edit the entire buildings. You don't occupy all of it.

2. Those `building=` should be connected with each other, not left alone close by

Please don't delete `landuse=highway`

Depends on how you look at it. This could be said as grouped in Kwai Tsing District. Splitting into too many changesets can still be annoying to look through. osm.org/user/HKMapper1/

There would be multiple branches here, not only one single continuous string. As I said, `=gate` includes remote stands, which has no established solution now. A jetbridge can further be "shared" between gates (depending on definition) while having one integral structure, making `ref=` unreliable (depends on how exactly they are numbered, even if the semicolon is parsed). osm.org/node/10659761856

That's fine as the simplest case, where there is only one single continuous line. But it fails with anything more, and needs to be explored further. Eg someone could draw in even more detail for different parts of it. The arrival and departure are on different floors, and there's an inclined section in between (the departure splits into 2 sides, so 3 parallel lines). If all of them have `=jet_bridge` (eg 12 `way` in total) , it would be very confusing and complicated.

For the use case, the "number" of jet bridges can't be counted by doing this, and `aeroway=gate` doesn't have tags for remote stands and lack of jet bridges yet. Applications would render multiple icons for them.

As adding multiple `aeroway=jet_bridge` didn't seem the best for different sections, if it means a single "bridge" as in `man_made=bridge` . It should be one unique feature.