1. It's not a `=park` or `=playground` on its own, and have different facilities inside
2. Why did you delete the bike area?

Corrected (as seen from others)

No, this was intentional before as proposed and adopted by others, for the `=motorway` extent problem way/835665898/history/1

Please don't attach areas to roads. This does not reflect reality, and makes editing difficult.

Perhaps as mentioned before, `bus` would include at least non-franchised bus in HK. That's why `oneway:bus:conditional=` is used, which could still be `=no @ (private) in more standard terms.

Corrected (maybe `sidewalk=` autosuggest fail)

2. And should not change the `=service`

This `access=no` has no effect if you override it with `foot=` , except for `bicycle=` perhaps. However, `=permit` is defined as ordinarily granted (cf cross-border travel), which should be `=private` if it's restricted.

There's no need to add `access=` anymore, as Carto renders `motor_vehicle=` now. `foot=no` etc is already assumed for `=motorway` , which shouldn't be added unnecessarily.

Using uppercase simply amplify your mistake. To repeat what's mentioned, you have misunderstood what they mean. `highway=` is traditional British English meaning "public road", and is simply used for any road for legacy reasons. `=construction` means to be constructed, not roads for construction activities, nor necessarily existing already.

OSM doesn't serve short-term data either. Drawing and tracking such temporary roads should be avoided in the first place. It's not a construction site mangement software. The timeframe is they should exist on the order of months.

Please don't casually claim others are "blabbing" when you start by deleting many data without having understood how things works here. You have very surprisingly misunderstood what `=construction` means. It doesn't mean roads for construction, but roads to be constructed. As mentioned before, if it's not yet constructed, it should only be changed to `proposed:highway=` , not deleted.

Can you stop deleting things you don't understand? Is this only temporary or phased? If it will be dualed in the future, it should be kept.

You have obviously misunderstood this. They have been `=construction` from start. It's extending the road to 3rd Runway area.

Why are they deleted? If they are still reserved, they should be changed to `proposed:highway=` , not deleted.

Please don't change entire buildings. It doesn't occupy all of it.

Please don't upload personal test data to a live public prod database. This is vandalism.

2. Not disallowed, only the functionality
3. Signage would be an additional criteria, but not required/necessary. You have to consider the simplicity of signage, and encouraging you to use NCWBR, but that only means NCWBR should be `=primary` , not bypassed CWBR can't be `=secondary` . Eg airport is signposted via Tsing Sha Hwy in Shatin, but majority or at least significant minority would use Shing Mun Tunnels, and I would argue this should be considered in classifying Tsing Yi N Coastal Rd — Tsing Tsuen Rd (besides how it connects with Route 5).

Please don't do mass undiscussed changes of `old_name*=` to `name=` and other `*_name=`

Please don't add historical names with no relevance in existing public use as `name=` in OSM. Add them to OpenHistoricalMap.