Why would you do this when node/13167199104 exists?

> Actually, upon further review, it turns out Kam Ho Road also has share_taxi=no.

But that only means Kam Ho Road and Tung Wui Road should get the same classification, and does not imply anything about what the classification is, right? After all, the whole point of this discussion initially was to decide whether Tung Wui Road is `=secondary` or `=tertiary`.

Imho just the fact that Kam Ho Road and Tung Wui Road provides access to Kam Sheung Road Station should be enough to justify `=secondary`. KSR station (alongside with the bus terminus and park & ride) basically gives indirect railway access to the entire Kam Tin/Pat Heung plain, and perhaps the villages along CPR-Tam Mi too. It's similar to how Pat Heung Road gets `=secondary`, presumably due to the connection with Tai Lam Tunnel.

See changeset/173042199

Hi there, the Kam Ho Road widening is largely complete, so you might be interested in revisiting this.

Note: I am aware that this changeset broke multiple bus relations. This will be fixed soon in the part 2 changeset, which I expect to upload no later than tomorrow noon. Other mappers can also fix it before I do should they want to.

Sorry if my initial comment is not clear enough. My concern is that the quoted relation only has a "via" node with no "to" and "from", so it's incomprehensible.

I suppose you mean that the RCP can be accessed by turning right from the entrance, and that's the only legally allowed turn from way/1410120494 ? In that case, how about mapping the "back door" with `access=private` way and `barrier=gate` node and map the way as the "to" of the turn restriction?

See changeset/172855842

Hi there, what is the purpose of relation/19294540 ?

Do you think it will be better to keep the old nodes, only changing them to entrances, both to "keep the history" and to explicitly state that there are two entrances?

Are the old paths really demolished? Afaik it's only the direction of oneway that has been changed. Would it be better to simply replace the geometry to "keep the history"?

Would also suggest cleaning up https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2crR

Is this actually a name, instead of, say, description?

Is the peak really there? Out of copyright maps seem to say otherwise.

Afaik, `name` is the current commonly used name. Being commonly used has nothing to do with using standard romanisation. As long as "Dit Sei Kau" is the popular English name, even if it is caused by an error or a typo, it should still be used.

Languages (including vocabularies and proper nouns) can (and do) change, and in this case your edit in 2019 was influential enough to modify the actual name. If you wanted to revert it to "Tit", you should have done so before "Dit" became the popular name. But now it's too late, and the change should be respected.

"I believe many online reference simply copied the name from OSM without reasoning." Then it still doesn't explain why no one used "Tit Sei Kau".

Since all current uses are "Dit Sei Kau", one of four things is true:

1. This peak has no English name, and "Dit Sei Kau" is not widely accepted. In that case, `name:en` is not necessary.
2. This peak has an English name of "Tit Sei Kau". If this is the case, please give some evidence of its uses (from someone other than you), since I can't find any on the internet.
3. This peak has an English name of "Dit Sei Kau", both before and after your edit in 2019. Then, this changeset is wrong.
4. This peak has an English name of "Tit Sei Kau" before 2019, but your edit changed the general public's consensus and made people use "Dit Sei Kau" instead. Then, use the new name, as `name` is meant for the commonly used name, not the "correct" or "original" name. Remember that words are an artificial construction, and all names were made up.

Yes, I know that the government romanisation uses "Tit" for 跌. The question is whether the commonly used English name is the same as the government romanisation. Based on internet searches, almost all instances use "Dit" and not "Tit". The only use of "Tit Sei Kau" I can find is https://www.flickr.com/photos/minghong/albums/72157622473602534/. (and that post was made by "minghong"... is that you?)

Are you sure? Names don't necessarily follow the government romanisation, and based on online information, Dit Sei Kau seems more common than Tit Sei Kau.

Please be careful when panning; there are multiple dragged points. Also, why is way/296724850 deleted?

It appears that this changeset re-adds vandalism?

Pretty sure it's "TKO tunnel portal" as in "the tunnel portal on the TKO side"? Hence "tunnel portal" is not capitalised.