1. This obviously doesn't reflect the depot area. Please see the other changeset.
2. Please don't delete then recreate the same points. You can detach the area.

1. This is not `tunnel=yes` . `covered=` is already used. At most, we can debate whether it should be `=building_passage` , but there's no "building" left or right at ground level. Please don't edit for validators.
2. You removed the `service=yard` ...

Please don't delete directly, as they represent a shop space, and may contain an address. Change it to a plain "point" to eliminate it.

Please notice these info should be added on the site way/124697425 , not the `building=`

Please don't blindly correct, or make uninformed assumptions. There is a noticeable sidewalk here. The existence of `footway=sidewalk` doesn't affect that.

Please don't delete shops with addresses. Change them to a plain "point".

Please use `branch=` and not add that to the `name=` (unless that's really part of the original naming as in hotels)

6. `=site` is not neccessary in the simple 2D case of all objects inside a polygon. It's only needed for complicated 3D situations.

5. Don't use uppercase

4. Please stop adding "號" in `addr:housenumber=`

1. Please stop adding lot info on `landuse=` directly. This is not the standard practice locally.
2. Please don't duplicate the same info on every `building=`
3. Please don't delete other objects you have no concern in. They have other uses.

On the contrary, there are footbridges between buildings that aren't enclosed, eg Central Elevated Walkway between Hang Seng and 100 QRC (considering Exchange Square section to be a separate section). Or they may connect between "outdoors" part at the top of the podium (Can't think of an example yet, but Yeung Uk Rd Market has an outdoor hub at NIna Square). Then these may not be `building=bridge` .

For clarity, what I had in mind:
One-sided enclosed footbridges: Kwun Tong Apm, Quarry Bay Station Taikoo Place, Standard Chartered Bank Battery Path
Long `=viaduct` type examples: Tsuen Wan Station Discovery Park

Of course, many other `bridge=covered` are mistakes...

If something is considered a `building=bridge`, thus `indoor=yes` , logically the `bridge=yes` might be redundant. This is especially the case in more significant `building=bridge` (depending on interpretation` ) eg IFC across Man Cheung St as actual "buildings" with shops inside.

For `aeroway=terminal` + `building:part=` which I can't quickly find yet, what I thought is it's common for 1 `building=` to be divided into domestic and international terminals....

Ok maybe they aren't, but as I said, this definition of `=terminal` is overly dependent on `building=` vs `building:part=`

Still, why should connector parts that don't check-in or access to aircraft be `=terminal` ? I don't see any reason in that. As you may have asked above, this causes questions on other connectors, people mover stations, train station, parking, etc.

I don't understand your take on `aeroway=terminal` + `building:part=` cases. They are proper terminals, not `=concourse` . By such definition, only `aeroway=terminal` + `building=` is valid. Are they wrong?

It's unclear how others deal with them, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covered_bridge#Roofed_bridges
The 2 Vietnam examples seem to be "covered bridges" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covered_bridge#Roofed

If these are defined as `bridge=yes` + `indoor=yes` (what's the use of `covered=yes` then?) , it creates the question of why aren't fully enclosed `bridge=covered` the same? The presence of openings that aren't covered by windows?

Originally, it wasn't defined for timber only osm.wiki/w/index.php?oldid=1550838#Bridge_key:_ways_and_relations

Admittedly, `=covered` is used for "covered" wooden bridge. But that could be `covered=yes` + `bridge:material=wood` . `indoor=yes` don't fit for these, unless you consider these to be `building=bridge` , which is inapplicable.
As a side note, a "skyway" is connecting the higher levels of buildings. That's difficult to define here, as the bus terminal side is not very indoors.