This is not the same. They are 2 different bridges. Please understand how the reality and tagging is before your mass changes.

And why don't you discuss with me as the local community first before making mass edits? Half a dozen from osm.org/changeset/131193864 to osm.org/changeset/131203765 with no mention here.

Please don't draw separate lines when there is no physically raised separation. This is dysfunctional, and misleading.

Anyone else can reopen the proposal if wanted. You don't have to use an alternative because of that.
In past record, you can see `type=cluster` has higher growth in years with data. `type=group` plateaued a decade ago at that time. https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#relation/type/cluster&relation/type/group

That's not what it means. The proposal itself is abandoned by author, but it can still be used actively. I would see `type=group` being less complete and ready.

Why is `=group` preferred over `=cluster`? They are similarly numerous. I use `=cluster` as the standard locally. On a minor note, The proposal page of the latter is better written, and has more examples.

Please don't delete it directly, as it contains an address. Change it to a plain "Point".

Please check that a short section of Wang Chiu Rd represents the taper lane gain.

Of course I will support changing Tunnel Area from `=motorway` to `=trunk`. But here I have already not added any restrictions.

Please read the `note=`. This section is Tunnel Area. On the left is the bay for management vehicles.

1. Please don't change `website=` to `contact:website=`, or `phone=` to `contact:phone=`. I use both for compatibility and fairness.
2. I use `contact:website=` for the contact form on a website directly. Unlike other cases where it is a synonym of `website=`, and may not be possible to make "contact" for active communications.
3. `contact:url=` is a list of contact info, similar to `opening_hours:url=`.
4. Both hyphen and space separated phone numbers are valid.

Why would you directly delete this named PoI which is clearly more informative, and in fact correct?

First of all, the direction is wrong. Separate lines are not used when there is no physical separation. This doesn't represent the reality where vehicles can change lanes on the entire length. Turn restrictions supported by `change:lanes=` are used.

This is a POC related to `footway=crossing_access` drafted in a proposal. It tries to imitate `footway=access_aisle`, `service=emergency_access=`, and the wild `service=parking_access`. It attempts to improve the meaning of `footway=link`, and sidewalk vs crosswalk issue as currently unresolved in OpenSidewalks. osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Crosswalk_clean-up#Crosswalk_as_lines

It is not a frontage roadway.

Please don't remove it without at least adding `is_sidepath=yes` (which I do not prefer)

It is converted to be part of a crosswalk, but still preserve physical accessibility.

This not a legal access. it is a couterpart to `footway=alley`. It is not a `=service`. I don't agree with using `=service` for the sake of `service=alley`. Especially as this is a public street.

Please check that this is a pedestrianized street physically usable by four-wheeled vehicles.

Please check that this sailing is suspended indefinitely.