1. When the estate is simply number on street, it should be `noname=yes` , as there's no difference with the addressing. Only styled ones eg `=328 Clear Water Bay` should be accepted.
2. Blocks in estate use `addr:street` + `addr:housenumber=` + `addr:unit=`

HK BBQ should be eg `=picnic_site` + ` bbq=yes` + `fee=yes` ( `amenity=bbq` has been defined for individual grills) , surely not `=restaurant`

1. If they are same factory, a `landuse=industrial` + `=works` polygon should be drawn around them, not duplicated as 2 `=works`
2. If it's small scale only, it should use `craft=` , not `=works`

Sewage pumping stations should use `=pumping_station` , not `=wastewater_plant`

What is Pik Uk Garden? If it's an estate, it should be `landuse=residential` , not `=hamlet`

Please don't add such `name=` , which is for proper names only. `temporary=yes` should be used.

First of all, you can't claim it's a typo. As you have cited it, it must be assumed to be used. This defense won't work regardless of whether it's somehow an honest mistake.
Here, you deleted rectangular shapes, and redrew them as non-rectangular. That's already wrong.
Therefore you have caused no net benefit there. You should have only added `addr:*=` to the existing `building=` , not all these changes. You simply raise more suspicion by redrawing them.

Please use `*:yue-Latn=` for romanization without commonly recognized and used status, not `*:en=`

Please don't undisussed bulk change from `old_name=` to other `*name=` , and accuse others of vandalisms. You are only accusing yourself together. Use OpenHistoricalMap.

There's no `=peak` if it has become flattened with the surroundings entirely. Only `place=locality` , and it should be on OpenHistoricalMap instead.

Did you check whether others have politely commented on you already? You will see how well your report do for yourself.

changeset/179199146 Please read your own changesets if you know how to comment changeset/179184501

Please read your own changesets if you know how to comment changeset/179184501

Rendering can abuse and add `=earth_bank` + `anthropogenic=yes`

`=embankment` doesn't mean any non-sharp slopes, but land raised to above. This is a cut slope. along the original mountains. There are some `man_made=cutting`

Is it not `trail_visibility=no` , `disused=yes` , `abandoned:highway=` , or scrambling?

Please don't upload personal test edits. This is considered vandalism.

Should use `=busway` (despite Carto not rendering)

However it's misleading, showing the `=marked` flaw. Those yellow stripes are not statutory, meaning they have no legal effects. They should not be confused with signalized, or white ones.

1. This is self-contradictory to use `tourism=attraction`
2. There's not one "the trail". There can be many routes, where others are free to climb or cut through.