1. `=isolated_dwelling` is only for a independent settlement (as in village) with 1 or 2 households. This meets neither criteria.
2. Again, the standard for housing estates in HK is to use `landuse=` . Please don't use `place=`.

38e. "The alignment of Nin Fung Road extension through the knoll would impact these
fung shui sites and the villagers’ customs and traditions" https://www.tpb.gov.hk/en/meetings/TPB/Minutes/m1249tpb_e1.pdf#page=54

36a. "Nin Fung Road would be
extended to connect the proposed new access road which would be the
access for Sites A and B1." https://www.tpb.gov.hk/en/meetings/TPB/Minutes/m1249tpb_e2.pdf#page=40

1.4.2. "Resumption of some private lands within Village Environ Boundary (VEB) might be
required to extend the Nin Fung Road for traffic connection to Site 1. " p.2 https://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/ava_register/ProjInfo/AVRG159_ExpReport.pdf#page=6

note/new

Please don't create a new point with nothing other than `fixme=` . Add the `fixme=` to other features, or use osm.org/notes visibly.

Stop accusing others of things like "obsession and imagination". I already explained to you why the project description didn't say extension. By your logic, no other roads should be named until gazetted and opened. This obviously runs counter to how `=construction` is used.

1. Are you aware I'm not the one who has used `highway=construction` ?
2. Then you should be the one who change it `proposed:highway=` . That's irrelevant to you wrongly removing `name=` , `lanes=`, and `sidewalk=` .

2. Please don't use `=dismount` . Aside from the fact there is no difference with `=no` on roads, `=yes` on routes mean they are allowed to be brought on them. `motor_vehicle=yes` certainly doesn't you can drive on a car ferry.

Why are you deleting all of them??? That's what the lines should be enhanced to.

Please don't add `=traffic_signals` to the point of intersection when it is already added to the stopping line. This is duplicated.

Please don't remove other valid names. Move them to `*_name=` as seen here.

How did you tell whether some of them are single? Regardless of that, and whether it is is preferred, you didn't replace them with `natural=tree` , and is thus removing data.
You broke a large `=multipolygon` here, and also deleted a `=bare_rock` later .

Please stop changing `=uncontrolled` to `=unmarked` when there is already `crossing:markings=no`

This is not what `company=` is used have. It duplicates info with the `=substation` .

Surely everyone refers to them as "Star Ferry" .

And you are notorious for accusing others without responding to them.

osm.wiki/Why_can't_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Hi, please read osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property and osm.wiki/Why_can't_I_delete_this_trail? for issues. This is not preferred. The exact conditions should be recorded, not deleting because you want to do something based on good intentions.

You also removed other attributes.

Tags on a `=construction` or `proposed:highway=` reflects what it will be. Not what it is now.

You broke several tree areas here. Please don't touch them if you are not interested in editing them.