1. `=commercial` means "commercial" services in the sense of offices. It doesn't mean "commercial" organizations, eg `=industrial` are obviously mostly "commercial".

Please don't attach other features to roads. They are different things. This is not realistic or accurate, and makes editing difficult.

1. You can certainly have privatized provision of such services though, which is handled by `ownership=private` to be accurate. It doesn't seem very `=commercial`
2. I exactly see it as an umbrella category to handle all these before each is decided. Tracestrack render `=institutional` along the other alternatives,

There's `=institutional`

Why delete the `=museum` area? Only need to remove `building=`

On the other hand, there's actually the problem of whether `landuse=cemetery` should be used when they are not cemeteries, no one being buried here at all. Have used `*amenity=columbarium` to follow `=crematorium`

1. Please use at most `old_name=` , and add these to OpenHistoricalMap instead
2. This doesn't seem to have a confirmed location

Ok, can you use another editing software to make mass additions, and only use the website for matching?

Can you please group your edits, not making 268 single-edit changesets in 12hr?

Please don't change `=footway` + `indoor=yes` to `=corridor` . Many applications don't support the latter, and it doesn't solve `=steps` . Most `=corridor` are already double-tagged with `indoor=yes` , meaning it's quite meaningless. highway=corridor#Comparison

The software's label is misleading, and they are unnecessary. But this is unnecessary. The buildings are simply numbered blocks. We are mostly using `addr:housename=` for the estate/facility name, to handle separately from the buildings.

Please don't directly delete. They may contain addresses and other info. This makes tracking and updating them more difficult. Change them to a plain "Point", or "Vacant".

Please don't remove non-"standard" names. Change them to other `*_name=` to show that.

Please discuss with others before adding back these names changeset/170649572

Newest imagery can be used for updating. But it should fit in with the surrounding. Never use only it to justify mass realignment.

This is wrong. Esri Clarity is usually is the most accurate, confirming it. You can refer to out-of-copyright maps to see how the road would be built.

Please don't abuse these to show suggestions. Use uMap etc.

And it's a further special case of being on `man_made=bridge` (besides `building=` etc)

`layer=1` was correct. Carto doesn't render them in correct order from technical limitation. `layer=2` brings it up to the footbridge.

If transfer-only `=bus_station` should have `=customers` , why should the `highway=` inside not have it? On the contrary, the isolation can also be said as a consequence. They should have an `access=` regardless of the layout, because that's the inherent rule of the interchange itself. Tuen Mun Bypass would add a connection with Lung Mung Rd, then there may be a `=service` road connecting the northbound side.