Re node/10213715620 , I see no other alternatives. If we make that a free node then it's ambiguous whether it is accessible via way/1116751169 or way/1122598161 .

This very nicely leads to the second part of the question. Actually, way/1122598161 is slightly vertically sloped, so below the footpath is the government office node/10213715620 , and the entire bus terminus walkway.

OK, there's probably some misunderstanding.

Procedurally, there was a complaint about "60kmh". I went and checked that there was a "50kmh" sign nearby, which was then used to fix this issue. Thus, the issue was resolved.

Conceptually, OSM is a data crowdsourcing project, so it is unreasonable to expect all edits to be of high quality and perfect. What usually happens is that I (or countless others) made an OK-ish edit, and then someone else (esp e.g. Kovoschiz) improved upon it. The tendency of this kind of system is volume/scale, not quality.

Philosophically, due to the crowdsourcing nature, I adopt the mindset of continuous improvement. OSM data can almost always be improved, depending on how far you want to go. Replacing the "60kmh" fake news with a "50kmh all the way" style issue is already an improvement. Further improvement may be sought if the community has such capacity and will.

We can always review the entire stuff later. I think I may have accidentally championed something new against my wishes. This time it's highway exits.

That aside, OSM is decentralized in nature. I appreciate the guidance throughout the years, but the wiki is not a "strict rulebook", but more like "we usually do it like this". Either the wiki is incomplete, or I do not participate OSM enough to know that a certain topic actually has a wiki page for it, or there are new situations that requires wiki updates.

OSM wiki explains for "disused"/"abandoned" is whether the thing is "significant". Their example includes, e.g., disused/abandoned comms tower. As long as these are not demolished, these should get separate "disused"/"abandoned" tag.

Then, one may infer/feel a relevant factor is "whether I can look at it and locate it". A disused tower can still be located as a generic tower from a distance. Here is urban area, I can look at it through the glass at Exit C and locate it, and also the unassuming late-add plantations at Exit D1 and locate it. This abandoned tunnel is still gonna be here for hopefully 50 years or more.

Why didn't I do that for the rural paths? Trees grow fast, I don't think I can see those paths anymore.

Not troll-tagging. It do be like that. See:

https://www.td.gov.hk/en/traffic_notices/index_id_77015.html

It's not demolished, and it's not repurposed. Just abandoned, but not "abandon by damage". Not your usual kind of abandoned stuff in the usual OSM lifecycle.

My private guess is "too many hobos".

Notes must be closed.

Improved with changeset/177677993 by adopting change=no

But it originates/continues from an island, which should be different than say a "free-hanging painted median".

And there are no junctions along the way. I can perceive/feel that the "paint is not median" rule is there for cases where vehicles may turn to an exit on the opposite side of the road (your quoted wiki page has this exact example). Depending on local (read: each individual city) legislation, this may be allowed, but afaik Hong Kong disallows this.

I see no problems with this changeset.

It either doesn't exist, or it blended into the slope too nicely and I couldn't see it.

If it's a slope maintenance path, then functionally it doesn't matter too much if it's not in the map. Normally we can't use slope maintenance paths for passing through anyway.

Not saying "it doesn't matter" (OSM always seeks completeness), but it's an ultra-low priority issue, unless they are wrongly mapped as public paths, which would be a big issue (e.g. see Chung Shan Terrace).

Yeah. After some more edits I feel like this kind of shape may need discussion / clarification at Discord.

A dilemma. With yellow dashes marking, the speed limit is neither "before" (80 kmh) nor "after" (50 kmh), but if we omit speed limit, then parsers will still assume default of 50 kmh, which would be too early.

Math mind says "it's undefined".

I partially apologise for my mapping blunder. By pure coincidence the iD rendering perfectly covered the speed limit oval.

Fixed with changeset/177654919

You are right. Fun times when the iD road way perfectly covers the speed limit oval.

imo diagonal dash areas count as "physical separation", especially when it initiates/continues from an actual traffic island.

I actually dispute this mapping method. This naming strategy/guideline for "new projects" better be documented somehow because I can see this reoccurring a lot in the future.

My logic is that the name comes from e.g. the bidding document, it would read exactly something like "railway station located at East of Tung Chung".

Either the docs really said "Tung Chung East Station" which I might just miss or don't know how to check, or this changeset is disputed. Or we somehow irl-check this to confirm the name, which is not possible, and obviously it has to have a name, which leads to the descriptive name being the only acceptable name.

Your concern is valid, but what name can you possibly suggest other than this kind of descriptive name? Re other notes, the real name is currently unknown.

Correct; I usually make was:highway when I find out there are bus routes that use the old paths. iD refuses deletion when items belong in a relation, and I have heard enough rumors about iD messing up relations to not do it.

Ideally everyone (nowadays) are introduced to OSM by the webpage and the iD editor. The older guys were probably introduced via JOSM, which is an entirely different pipeline with different worldview and attitudes. With several years of OSM experience myself, it's time I should advance myself and investigate what/how JOSM really is.

I will always ask when I perceive controversy.

Might be me, but I feel like I can't fully understand/accept the current standards on junctions. Can discuss in detail later.

Improved with node/3180387171

I was recently reminded of this changeset.

I say there is no possible alternate mapping because both entrances to this segment all clearly declare to be "not an expressway" with clear signage. With what justification can one use to support `highway=motorway` except "OSM Wiki says so (hold until split)"? There is no expressway to continue.