Hi, why are you using the Government's map tiles? To the best of my knowledge all of the government's maps since at least 1968 are still copyrighted, so OSM contributors should not be using them due to the data being incompatible with the Open Database License.

Previously (about two years ago) there were station nodes tagged with public_transport=station + railway=tram_stop, but another editor deleted those.

I assumed it wasn't necessary because the stops were already tagged with railway=tram_stop. Typically tram stops do not need to be additionally attached to a railway=station or railway=halt, right?

Unless the validator does not like railway=station/public_transport=station on ways; in that case I would move the tags from the station building to a new public_transport=station node (and so on).

* "remove any railway=station without labels": this is incorrect; for Siu Hong station specifically I would re-add railway=station and public_transport=station to the station building, and remove the node without any name tags from the commuter rail station's relation.

Presumably the validator will still be fine with this, since it should only check the public_transport=* tags?

Okay. In that case, I would remove railway=station from the Light Rail public_transport=station nodes, re-add railway=station to the MTR West Rail Line stations, and remove any railway=station without labels. I would probably do the same for tram networks in other cities.

(As noted, if the software really wants a public_transport=station, it probably shouldn't be rendered since the stop positions already have labels.)

I haven't really edited for a while, but I would have one node/way for the commuter rail station (Siu Hong station) and follow whatever the tagging convention is supposed to be for the light rail station (Siu Hong stop). I think it would probably be four nodes with both railway=tram_stop and public_transport=stop_position if the station is classified as a tram stop (for platforms 1–2 and 5–6, since the other two are not in service). This is my guess, though, and I'm not totally sure if this would be correct. What would the validator software say if you did this?

I don't think it's supposed to be used at the same time as railway=halt or railway=station, though.

I am still not sure why you removed the railway=station tag from the Siu Hong station building and added a railway=station node with no name tags, though. It was presumably fine before; or is that usage incorrect?

What did you have to "assign as such"?

I'm not sure if this is a translation issue, but outside Europe a "light rail" is usually a medium-capacity tram system. This is partly why I chose to use railway=tram_stop (there is no such thing as a railway=light_rail_stop, to my knowledge); it seems to be used in a very similar manner in e.g. Paris. If changing it to tram=yes would be more accurate (I think this would be technically appropriate, since light_rail=yes refers to S-Bahns in Europe) then I would be fine with that, although a wider discussion than on this changeset would be necessary.

If public_transport=station is necessary for the validator to stop complaining, I am not opposed to adding it to the stop area relations; however, I think railway=station would be inaccurate, and on the osm.org map it's visually confusing because the tram_stops are already rendered.

Hi, note that you seem to have introduced a lot of rendering issues with these changesets (for example, there are now a lot of superfluous railway=station nodes, and this changeset removed the station label for the mainline Siu Hong station). Tram stops should not need railway=station or railway=halt, to my knowledge, although I might be wrong.

I have to revert this changeset; the tagging convention in Hong Kong is to list both the Chinese and English names in name=*.

I think this is still problematic; it looks like changeset/52847968 unnecessarily duplicated some (but not all) of the ways without correcting the layer values. The user seems to have thought that each direction of a road needs to be mapped separately. Even though some of them are correctly physically separated, others seem to be problematic or aren't drawn correctly (e.g. the road at podium level near The Waterfront/The Arch definitely doesn't have a barrier down the middle).

Some of the new nodes also connect layer=1 and layer=0 ways. I'm not sure what layer they should be in.

(my previous changeset: changeset/54979609)

On an aesthetic level, the nine extra decorative characters on Times Square–42nd Street don't look as bad as I thought they would (and the font support helps), although they do take up quite a bit of extra space.

A few months ago I standardized most of the station names to uniformly remove the (A,C,E) brackets per tagging conventions (as well as fixing other misc. things like en dashes). Before it was quite inconsistent, so I made the sort-of-mechanical edits and I don't think anyone complained about it.

I think adding the line names as decorative Unicode characters could work but I'm not sure if that would be breaking the tagging convention. I'm also not a New Yorker so I'll probably leave any sort of decision on this to others.

See also changeset/68363489.

See also changeset/68361812.