This seems wrong. You can see a 50 km/h road marking.

Did you mean to move node/6239072574 , or is it a dragged node?

Would no name be fine? This can be moved to `description`, only adding name after it's finalised (although by then the constrution will probably be finished).

How so?

Tbh feels like a descriptive name; are you sure?

> I have heard enough rumors about iD messing up relations to not do it.

Imo routing a bus relation along a non-existent road (or worse, a way that is not even a road) is not any better than breaking it. I would consider what you did here to also be "messing up relations", but maybe it's just me.

> I usually make was:highway when I find out there are bus routes that use the old paths.

Now you are making me concerned about any other non-existent `was:highway` you added for this purpose...

> With several years of OSM experience myself, it's time I should advance myself and investigate what/how JOSM really is.

I have much less OSM experience than you do, and I have found using JOSM to editing bus relations surprisingly straightforward, albeit rather boring and time-consuming. Editing bus relations also do not require many operations, so the learning curve is flatter than general editing. I welcome you to try using JOSM more; I see that you have already used JOSM in changeset/177142376 which is a good start.

I don't think you should use `was:highway=` this way. It is for describing changes irl, not osm mapping. Simply delete it, or use `centreline=virtual`. Also, supposedly you should have migrated the bus route relation, but I don't blame you as you are using iD.

Please note that `=motorway` is currently used for expressways, tunnel areas, and roads not accessible without them.

changeset/177280792

Please don't upload personal data to a public database.

Please don't upload personal data to a public database.

Does it really have physical separation though?

The standards can be discussed in detail later indeed, but for now the status quo is to give `=motorway` to roads not accessible without expressways. Imo if you disagree you should have raised it in a different place, (or did you do that already and I missed it?), and not enforce directly without consensus.

Continuing from note/4908929

> Re MOS road, I would think there is nothing to continue since both the "main" road and the "slip" road have their motorway status end right at the junction linking them together.

The "continuity rule" is "road not accessible without an expressway are also `=motorway`". Obviously this section of MOS Road is not accessible without either Tate's Cairn Highway (expressway) or the expressway section of MOS Road, so it should also be `=motorway`. Main and slip road having their motorway status ending together is not relevant.

I also vaguely remember reading somewhere that bus-only roads should not be taken into account when evaluating highway classifications, which could justify extending `=motorway` to the Hang Tai Road entrance. But I can't find where now.

Afaik there are more than two clinics in this building; can you confirm? Or if this changeset is an unfinished draft with more to be added later then never mind.

Is there really a viewpoint here?

Still, I don't think you should upload meaningless (to others) changesets for your own convenience like changeset/170574528 .

It is not that difficult to draw three straight lines in JOSM.

That changeset was created on 2018-06-17. Looking at the latest imagery available at the time (https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#mapCenter=114.22278%2C22.30561%2C19&mode=explore&active=8255), there is indeed a yellowish stain here.
Given that the user who created it (PicaPico) has a history of mechanically drawing features (see e.g. changeset/158480422 changeset/158568447 changeset/158520199 ), it is likely that they/their machine thought the stain was a wetland.

I don't know if you noticed, but their objects are inevitably deleted and redone every time you calibrate/beautify path shapes. changeset/160714875 changeset/173934317https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173933922

What is the purpose of this changeset?

To add to this situation, the user who created the wetland has a history of low-quality edits, sometimes with AI which does a poor job of identifying features, e.g. mistaking cars for buildings.

`open:conditional=` looks like it should be `opening_hours=` instead.