Next time do this in four changes, as the nodes are totally unrelated with, and far away from, each other

Next time do this in two changes, as the two nodes are totally unrelated with, and far away from, each other

Next time do not use one edit over such a large area. Thanks.

Next time do not use one edit over such a large area. Thanks.

Next time do not use one edit over such a large area. Thanks.

Next time do not use one edit over such a large area. Thanks.

You can't change a change set. I just said (precisely) what you should do if you meet a similar situation next time.

At least 10316133811 should be in a separate change.

You are right. I have realized it's recommendation from the editor. I have raised a discussion on Discord and Kovoschiz and others are finding out how this can be resolved.

Rest assured that I am not to reverse these changes.

One more thing, I recommend doing map object changes and relation changes in separate change sets unless the former inevitably leads to member change of the latter.

I have preset a tag set when I put in bus route relations or bus related objects, including network=九巴 KMB with network:en=KMB and network:zh=九巴. If you think I am wrong please go to Discord and publicly denounce me before arbitrarily changing the tags like this. Thanks.

This change seems to have made all bus route relations using way/1118631038 to mess up. To be specific, an ordering error occured as that way was put after way/709674368, which is south of it.

I do think that you should at least split into four changes, one in the Americas, one in Europe, one in Asia and one in Africa. Or, one change per language involved.

jOSM gave warning for various stuff tagging level=0 so I omitted them for the new objects I added in.

One more thing, though, two of the stops are not on a sawtooth.

Specifically:
1. The one immediately to the east of entrance E1, and
2. The 2nd on eastbound line west of entrance E1

Okay, rendering issue, I retract my question.

What? You undid all my paths?

It's inevitable that mapping needs to balance between factual description and what renders better. Here, rendering is a reason but not my primary reason. Accusing me for "mapping for the renderer" is not factual here -- I mean, I would not have done a survey if I do just that. I wanted to make sure what I did was factual (or to be precise, more factual) too.

On a side note, is there anywhere for me to complain Open Carto for overemphasizing roads and bus platforms?

Let me rephrase.

I removed that platform because it caused certain problems (e.g. people adding relations to them arbitrarily) *and* had become an eyesore after new buildings are built over it. That doesn't mean other platforms of similar kind necessarily need to go, and other multipolygons whose creators had bothered to create are, of course, very good. I simply don't have that leisure, and besides areas still need pathing, I believe?

I did take extra care to actually survey. Admittedly it's because I found out that you were the creator, although you would probably still complain even if not. I never satisfy you.

(Re: 'highway=platform' is not the same as for 'highway=bus_stop')

That's exactly why drawing a single platform in the middle caused problems.

As I said before, when the platform was around, other mappers (or is it just you?) put relations to *the* platform, making it look like anyone can board any bus anywhere, when it's simply not true.

I also noticed that some mapper(s) used "platform edge" to denote specific places for designated routes. IMHO that's more applicable to railway platforms, but for buses (where people board at a single door on the bus) it's not accurate either.

Other bus terminals (e.g. Nina Tower next door) simply put boarding spots as stops, and bus companies do put up poles at designated spots, so it's an accurate depiction.

Even "open space" terminals like Tsing Yi AR Station specifically spot the boarding places instead of drawing a horrific platform area and using platform edges. I fail to see why I cannot do the same here.