滑行道不要相互重合

原来的信号灯方向才是正确的
forward表示影响道路路径前进方向（编辑器里显示的箭头方向）的车流，backward则相反

Functional areas with independent administration (e.g. Pingtan) -> still as a part of the original upper administrative region, and the only exception gives to Xiong'an because it's the "most important";
functional areas whose administration has been transferred to another administrative region (.e.g r/9223823 ) -> map it as a part of the upper administrative region to which they have been transferred.

If my understanding of this content is correct, what is the basis for creating such an exception? What defined balance or threshold allows the functional area to be an exception?

Back to the original issue of admin_level, how can one be tagged as admin_level=7 when its administrative status that is higher than admin_level=6? How can admin_level=6 be a subarea of admin_level=7?

Add on to my previous comment, relation/19021056 do have administrative power, which fits boundary=administrative

The two relations, relation/3263974 (last edit by my alt account), and relation/19021056 are not the same.
relation/19021056 does not meet the requirements of boundary=special_economic_zone , and boundary=administrative has been applied to all of the these "functional district" in Mainland China.
The main issue is that the OSMChina community does not want the area of Pingtan to be excluded from Fuzhou, which it should be. Perhaps you should ask the past editor of v2 changeset/165465644 to respond to my comment (related to why it should be excluded from Fuzhou).

Pingtan is de facto not administrated by Fuzhou (despite being de jure a part of Fuzhou). According to the rules of OpenStreetMap, Pingtan should be excluded from Fuzhou.
However, the rest of the OSMChina community has determined that Pingtan should not be removed from the boundaries of Fuzhou without a valid reason.

[挖坟]西河游泳场是被架空电缆包围住的？下去游泳时会被电到吗？

此变更集中关于沈海高速改道的修改有无来源依据？

Leaving "[tunnel name]（[highway name]）" as the name attribute of a linear segment of highway is incorrect. Value of the "name" tag should contain one name. The original tagging is suitable.

This is proposed to be an urban road anyways
source: https://www.fzlj.gov.cn/xjwz/zwgk/zfxxgkzl/xrmzfgzbm_11124/ljxgtzyj/gkml/ghjh_13309/202209/P020220921643529436290.pdf

道路关系的名称不要加城市名

w/1454750955 is not a swimming pool
source: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/icrC5QEfdKtjqGSubelU8Q

编辑中值得提醒的一些问题：
路口前若无物理障碍，无需将道路分为两条路径。
得以使用方向表示禁止通行时，尽量不使用关系。52个转向限制关系对于一个四向环岛属实过于复杂。
这些问题在以下变更集中被修改：
changeset/174356518
changeset/174359640

请勿使用layer=-1规避相互交叉建筑路径的错误提示

感谢科普

你好。在changeset/173419593#c1499622 评论的基础上进行补充，与道路粘连的公交站应使用"public_transport=stop_position"而非"https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport=platform"。鉴于此编辑是https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173419593 的进一步行动，这些变更将会被回退。

引用自osm.wiki/Role:admin_centre 中文译文
“代表行政中心（首府、县城等）的节点，通常是镇、市或村（取决于边界级别，参见place=*）。这一作用是针对首都（如首都城市），而不是国会大厦（如立法大楼）。”

References:
admin%20level=*
osm.wiki/Role:admin_centre

应用于复合多边形关系而非路径的"natural=coastline"似乎并不得以渲染

"highway=trunk"对应“国道”及“快速路”；"https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=primary"对应“省道”及“主干路”。将"https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=trunk"对应白马北路这一绘制操作无法反映事实和现状。根据《福州市区“十三·五”市政公用基础设施建设规划（成果稿）》“2.1.1 道路建设现状分析”部分，白马路道路属“主干道”而非“快速路”。