Isn't it at least a local name or a nickname? It's in common use afaik.

Is it really a general store?

Are you sure it's still under construction, when a note (note/2327347) says it started almost 5 years ago? Aerial imagery doesn't seem to show construction, though it's not very clear.

Thank you for your reply. Apologies if my intention to write a comment was not clear - I didn't mean to say I somehow know better and could confidently improve this changeset, nor did I mean to discredit your intention and effort in attempting to improve geometries, both for this changeset and other calibration works you have done - I simply wanted to point out a few things that I assume you overlooked while working on this. Sorry if that was not clear in my initial comment.

Regarding aerial imagery, I am aware that ESRI imagery is preferred. When I used the iD editor to inspect this area, only the ESRI imagery seems to supports the new geometries, while Bing, "ESRI Clarity Beta", and Mapbox all show a much straighter tunnel approach. This led me to think that the new geometries were due to ESRI's or the altitudes's distortion, hence points 1 and 2.

Regarding barriers for editing, I honestly did not have a clear "other tools" in mind when I said "I would suggest using other tools to verify the alignment". I just thought "mappers more experienced than me might have better ideas of which mapping techniques to use in a specific situation, so maybe they can try alternative tools here to clear things up!", which is why I wrote that point.

Regarding absolute accuracy and balancing, while I understand that it's impossible to have pixel-perfect alignment with the real world and that compromises have to be made, the problems I pointed out in point 4 are just too obvious imo; it goes beyond what I personally consider to be "reasonable" curves. It seems like the west-bound tube is bent south suddenly at the end of it, just so that it fits the aerial imagery without needing to modify the other parts of the tunnel? No insult intended, but it feels like a very lazy and minimal workaround to avoid dealing with the bigger question of the accuracy of the geometries of the tubes and the eastern portal. At the very least, the transition from the existing data that was not modified to the new data should be somewhat believable, unlike that current mapping, which is blatant enough that an unexperienced user like me noticed something's wrong just by taking a glance.

Now again, I'm not saying that I can do better or improve on this; I just want to point out things you probably didn't consider while working on this so that you can make a better judgement on what to do with this changeset.

Are you sure the tunnel geometry changes are correct?

1. Is aerial imagery the only source? This is on a hillside, so the accuracy wouldn't be great.
2. Other aerial imageries seem to disagree with the new geometry.
3. From my east-bound bus-taking experiences for TKO tunnel, exiting the bus interchange and into the tunnel is almost straight, while other vehicles have to bend slightly left to align with the tunnel approach, before turning slightly right again immediately after entering the tunnel, which seems to correlate with the old geometry better.
4. Under the new geometry, the west-bound tunnel turns slight left before exiting, then turns right again. I find this road design rather unbelievable, and while the former western tunnel approach has seen a lot of works after the demolition of the toll plaza, it can't possibly change the tunnel alignment, right? (Is it even possible to move a tunnel? If not, then the tunnel geometry should be the exact same as the original plan in the 1980s, and I don't think a sensible planner would make such curves.)

As such, I highly doubt the accuracy of the "calibration" and "beautification" of the path shapes here, and I would suggest using other tools to verify the alignment. See also another reverted dubious hilly calibration: changeset/168519808

Are you sure the sources you cited can be used in terms of copyright?

Is `contact:name=` supposed to be `contract:name=`? Typo?