The paths near Chung On Estate looks like a mapping blunder. Please double check that your changeset do not have side effects next time.

My bad. Reverting.

In theory, indeed, this is how we should do things, to preserve the shop point for the next tenant, etc.

In practice, due to the extreme incompleteness of data (eg all the shop points in the building), I think there really is no effective difference if I deleted the point instead of converting to a "blank" point.

The wiki currently suggests simply "building=yes" with "telecom=data_center". (I would prefer to have something like "building=telecom", but that would be for another time.)

I personally believe OSM items should be self-explanatory, so that, eg, it is reasonably easy to locate "data center buildings" via Overpass Turbo. If we go for "avoid duplicated tags" then it would be difficult to locate buildings inside data center land uses (search "telecom=data_center" -> for each area find buildings within polygon -> for each building reject if is non-generic building).

imo at least there should be an easy distinction between "civilian private" and "military private"/"off limits"

there is no mention of "private=military" on the other side either; another possible followup vector

ref osm.wiki/Key:private

well tbf at least the wiki mentioned the existence of access=military; if you want a proper followup, might as well check there

ref osm.wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values

Ah ok, tbf I was also not paying close attention to the extension. EG I did not know about the commencement ceremony.

Well, if the ceremony is done, then yes, the tags and the timing are both correct. And then there is no problem.

It seems there are no visible construction sites yet?

Agree with the construction tag, just that perhaps it is not this early.

Apologies. I must have missed the tag when reading the docs.

However I think I used this format elsewhere when the note should stay around longer; will change to use osm notes for those

tbf the points are intended to be temporary, stemming from the fact that the actual delta is too large to be completed in 1 seating; will remove when the delta is complete.

Apologies for the inaccuracy. I must have checked the wrong sources.

However, for this specific case, the contradiction between "road closed" and "new bus path" prompted a recheck, and the road was marked open as a result.

Following previous discussions that I did not have the opportunity to answer, my previous edit again highlights another inconsistency inside the map of Hong Kong:

- How does eg Sha Tau Kok have access=permit but this Lok Ma Chau has access=no (now access=private)?
- Both Sha Tau Kok and Lok Ma Chau also has "Road Closed" signs, as seen from various local sources
- The lack of residents in Lok Ma Chau does not explicitly disallow anyone from applying an access permit: according to relevant guidelines, businesses (e.g. bus company KMB) may apply for access permit into Lok Ma Chau

I really did not expect to uncover this many topics from this seemingly small edit. It seems there are way more inconsistencies than I expected at the first place.

I'll just hold this for a few days and then revert the tertiary->link change.

Hmmm, upon review from Google Street View, by looking at the street name plates/markings, it seems the curved section is actually not part of Ching Tak Street, and therefore can be marked as trunk links belonging to Lung Cheung Road, bypassing the entire Y-junction fiasco.

As long as we can agree "the curved section is not Ching Tak Street", then it follows that the specific segments should be marked as trunk links. I'm not gonna decide anything on the general case.

If everything is OK, then I'm gonna make another edit a few days later to adjust the relevant street names.

But still, regardless of whether it should be "trunk", I think at least it should be a link of some sort. I hope I did not get anything wrong.

This is mainly an inconsistency that I found when I look at somewhere nearby, at Fung Mo Street: osm.org/#map=19/22.34199/114.18973

Using eg Google Maps to look at the street markings, one can see that Fung Mo Street has the yellow "slow down" markings and marked as "trunk_link", but right at this changeset, it also has the "slow down" markings but was marked as "tertiary". This seemed strange.

Would suggest drawing the paths ,uch better; eg, if adding entrance paths, then where are the entrances? Why is the foot path crossing the same building twice? etc

The validity of the footpath of this change set seems cannot be ascertained

It took me a while to discover this discussion feature, but to add to your point, I sometimes see "sidewalk=left" and then a separate "footway=sidewalk". Shouldn't it be "sidewalk:left=separate" instead?