Re

{1}
The government doesn't understand what is a permalink, but see this FB post: https://www.facebook.com/gakeicom/posts/2936533403285783/?locale=zh_HK
The new layout (while lacking details) can be seen as significantly different from any of the old/interim layouts. This warrants a cleanup since those old paths are no longer there irl. It seems likely the new terminus will be a sawtooth one (as per planning preference), but whatever, by the time it needs to happen, someone will draw them.

{2}
I can add back the 485-487 number, but I really don't think the new building(s) will have exactly 485-487 (think: the old bus terminus is probably 483, right?)

{3}
While OSM aims to capture "the essence", at least I think OSM should also capture "the form", especially when it comes to multi-phase constructions. You notice I actually drew 2 construction yards; presumably, you can move them around to suit the updated irl situation, such that one of them will be for the High Block, another for the Low Block. People will be confused when the map says they have to enter a construction yard when in fact the yard is separated by a road. Again, it do be like that irl, and all maps should at minimum capture the irl factor to be called a proper map.

Not sure why you would make this changeset, but data is data; routing problems should be fixed on routing program side, but not by editing OSM data "just because".

One thing I do notice is how the iD editor cannot easily allow us to change the order of bus route contents, which according to the wiki is important.

I do have JOSM, but then I was not aware that iD editor could break bus relations.

This seems like something that should be bug-reported.

You know what, given the complexity of this irl road change, I might as well redo the changeset. I think I can redo the changeset in another style.

I can fix this up a few days later by reviewing the other nearby features. I was kinda worried about this changeset that I am avoiding non-flat calibration. (EG avoiding Chi Fu Fa Yuen.) And then if I go for a throughout review, the changeset size could be huge; you may see how I have made several 100-item changesets already just for calibration.

It is especially annoying when the buildings are also misaligned because sometimes there are a lot of other "dependent" features drawn on top of the misaligned buildings. To limit the changeset size I sometimes just pretend the other parts are correct, and then smoothen the curves near the start and the end, to make it less obvious.

But still I am noticing and learning to center on the road median, that you can be assured.

But wait, it seems iD editor has a measurement tool? I swear iD editor has too many features that are not obvious.

It kinda feel like Phase 2 was an afterthought when planning the buildings, so I am really not sure how to approach this. Kinda like "oh we need something extra, then here are some proper shopping malls", and name those Phase 2.

My guess to mapping these, is to create a relation of areas and give that relation shop=mall, but not sure how it would appear on the map.

Let's not get started on eg why Island Line HKU station, the tracks and the station area is not consistent.

Tbh, at some point I was also thinking maybe I should avoid calibrating elevated portions of roads, due to the inherent "transformation" that may or may not exist for satellite imageries.

But then the unexplained space between HKU Main Building and Pok Fu Lam Road is too obvious. And the old shape seems inconsistent with the sidewalk shapes.

As long as it is still mostly accurate, then it should be ok. No point in pursuing 100% accuracy: even satellite coordinates might shift slightly every once in a while, and then we will all be building houses on sands. When it looks nice (ie shape form, relative positioning, etc), and is mostly accurate, then it is a good map.

The problem is, Phase 1 is just 2 small buildings, and Phase 2 is 2 large buildings. It seems you mean that we should have exactly 1 shop=mall for the entire Yan On Shopping Centre? The problem is, with that approach, we may lose information about which part is "phase 1".

To whom it may concern:

This changeset was later rolled back after discussion with international OSM mappers on the forum.

Thanks!

Notice how everyone responded until a month later, with me mistakenly believing another changeset was to blame.

Not sure about the osmcha tool, but I am someone who uses OSM/osmcarto more often than the average user.

And then one day I saw a sus path shape near Chung On Estate.

Note: found the correct changeset to blame here: osm.org/changeset/144435963

Hi there, this changeset has caused a path mapping blunder near Chung On Estate; please double check that your changes do not have unintended side effects next time.

Fixed via osm.org/changeset/145503514

Update: I eventually found the correct problematic changeset: osm.org/changeset/144435963

My knowledge is that moving a node will mark the way as changed, so I was looking at this changeset. It turns out the offending node is actually in the above linked changeset instead.

Apologies for the wrong accusation!

tbf now I am also secondguessing what really happened

I should really look again who did it, seeing that your changeset really did not contain the affected segments

ref osm.org/changeset/145539177

hmmm... either I was wrong, or the physical signs there were wrong.

will double check later.

(specifically, Sai Sha Road)