Please don't delete the roads, as they are still used, or existing. Change them to `highway=construction`, or `access=private`, `construction=yes`, etc.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/80508544

Aside from the possible case of an integral bridge underbridge previously mentioned, these can be bridge-sized culverts.

The geometry of lane drop can't be handled in this manner anyway.

This is evidently false. Aside from the fact that you should use `change:lanes=`, this chopped off the remaining white dashed lines section.

Can you explain why you removed `tunnel=culvert`?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89073810

Can you explain why you moved it upstream?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89049800

Please don't map turning circles or mini-roundabouts being without physical separation as lines. Areas are acceptable.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88986270

Please preserve the `building=*` value, even if you aren't using JOSM's Replace Geoemtry feature
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88984978

Please change your changeset comments when doing other edits, with the hashtags removed
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88979918

Please add the convenience store or other buildings separately. Leave the roof as `building=roof`.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88972008

Does https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/834162128 not exist? If it's gated, you could add a `barrier=gate`, and make it `access=private`.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88971559

@mari-n `branch=` could be used

This, or the lack of code on Tuen Mun Rd above, has nothing to do whether it can be considered a "bridge". Moreover, this is how they organize their structures. If anything, NU4 and NU37 may be considered separately. The "deck" without soil over a jacked box "tunnel"/underbridge does look like an integrated "bridge" to the above level.
You haven't done anything else in replacement either.

While I could sympathize with removing `motorroad=yes`, you need to use other tags to replace it
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88859224

If you disagree on the structural form, you should be mapping an `embankment=` or similar. The `man_made=bridge` area should be converted to something else.

Don't delete `man_made=bridge` objects. That's clearly a `bridge=yes` too
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88879225

Please don't map mini-roundabouts as lines. Areas are acceptable
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/78482317

Please compare the meaning of `highway=service` and `highway=service`
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88817279

This brand's Chinese name isn't used here. Do you have any better suggestion on how to integrate `int_name=` than this?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88820310

Then you wouldn't have to tell me to use the undocumented and plural `po_boxes=`. Both `pobox=` and `po_box=` would be natural sub-tags of existing schemes. I'm merely following their lead. So thank you, I definitely look forward to writing a follow-up when one of them gets approved.