This is obviously wrong. Move them to the correct place.

This is obviously wrong. It's a `tunnel=building_passage`. You should have split the way too.

This is obviously wrong. It's above, not below the podium.

Yes, GraphHopper cannot snap to bridges and tunnels. What does re-doing turn restrictions do?

I doubt the original turn restriction is correct. Can't see any double solid lines on aerial imagery.

What "routing impossibility" is happening? Also, I don't think relation/20302617 exists.

`foot=discouraged` + `foot:signed=none` + `foot:reason=crossing` is still more forgivable, as one is expected to use the crossings. This is just a road with no sidewalk though. Who discouraged against walking on a road with no sidewalk? How is this verifiable? Is `foot=discouraged` just a synonym of `sidewalk=no` then?

This situation is simply a wide sidewalk. There is nothing unique about this. One can also walk in a triangular way on any sidewalk, just less noticeable when the sidewalk is narrow. The usual way to map this is just to connect the footbridge to the centreline in the shortest way possible.

As with vehicles (roads not representing swept paths), footways represent the physical existence of a footway itself, abstracted through its centreline, not the path people walk on. Normal desire paths (e.g. walking diagonally through grass) are mapped because they are a stand-alone physical feature. This is not.

I fail to see what GPS snapping problem would be caused. And, again, as I and many others said previously, GPS is not the only use case for OSM. Don't tag for the router.

Why is it discouraged? Discouraged by whom?

`area:highway=` are non-routable because they must contain a `highway=`. There is a very clear consensus on using `area:highway=` for this kind of paths: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/clarification-of-footway-area-mapping/130974/44

1. Please remove `placement=left_of:1` when moving a way to its centreline way/1178516528
2. Usually, `area:highway=` is preferred over `area=yes` + `highway=` when the area is largely linear way/1486486342

Please don't do curved turning paths. changeset/178483495

If you disagree, I think it would be better to discuss somewhere else (e.g. on Discord) first, instead of ignoring previous comments and doing things your way anyway.

1. Feels like a descriptive name, are you sure?
2. Do you have an osm-compatible source for the geometry?

Ok, from newer bus videos I can see the signs. Really didn't expect the signs to be erected a few months after the hospital opens.

Apologies for the wrong accusation.

Do you happen to have any photos of the signs? Because I really can't spot them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGv6o1GnR9g&t=145s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHiwyppz7GQ&t=350s

Are you sure about the two left-turn-only relations? I can't see anything in the pics I took during my surveys. Can't see any restrictions in recent bus videos either.

You entered "map.gov.hk" as a source.

Please note the following:

1. Do not use government maps (or any other copyrighted maps) for editing osm. This is a copyright infringement.
2. Do not delete then recreate an identical object. This makes it difficult for future mappers to check the history. Simply edit the geometry and tags. osm.wiki/Keep_the_history
3. If a building is in fact rectangular in real life, please press Q after drawing the building to make it rectangular.

I doubt way/1167317707 is on an embankment.

Ok the Symphony of Lights will be discontinued soon so we can observe the situation and delete it.

If it's fine to be that close to the Developments surely it's not too tight to e.g. Hsin Kuang Centre. But I'll wait for more details on Discord first.