It's both (so I avoided adding `addr:street=` after others)

Your examples are roads connecting villages. This is the road connecting those roads.
1. Yau Shin St: Compare the `=service` connecting the Ma On Kong 400s development (consider it as an estate) is connected to a `=residential` road, then an `=unclassified` , finally Kam Ho Rd
2. Shek Tin St: Kam Po Rd is what's should be compared
3. Hang Tau Rd: Compare Kam Hang Rd
4. Wun Yiu Rd: Kam Ho Rd doesn't pass directly through the village, only intersecting with roads connecting to those roads
5. Tung Lo Wan HIll Rd: Sure it can be reviewed. I wasn't very sure about `=tertiary` at Mei Tin Rd. But Chung Ling Rd needs to be promoted first.
2.

"lightness of construction" is vague. It's "not having a solid foundation along its whole length", and "minimal thickness and often open". barrier=fence#Fence_or_wall

Please don't directly delete it, as it still represents a store space. It may also contain addresses and other info. This makes tracking and updating it later more difficult, wasting previous effort, and increasing next user's work. You can change it to a `disused:amenity=` , a plaint "Point", or "Vacant".

1. So I didn't want to make it `=primary_link`

That's actually for the `=trunk_link`
And there's no `=service` or other roads connecting to it in between here. It's a pure connector, to connect 2 roads.

`=unclassified` is passable. I'm only explaining the reason I made it `=tertiary`

Rural area is different from urban area. There's naturally longer distance, but less population. It's for the significance of connecting `place=` and `highway=unclassified`
Cf: Deep Bay Rd, Bridge's Pool Rd, Luk Keng Rd

1. `zh` is a macrolanguage for all sinitic languages including `yue` , so no need to use the latter when the writing is the same. `yue` adds maintenance burden , and reduces compatibility.
2. There's no need to add `horse` which has no relevance in HK
3. `foot=yes` may not be the best on `=pedestrian` which defaults to `=designated`
4. `bicycle=` on `=pedestrian` is unclear, and better not added unless signposted or a good reason

It's a lost cause for a few users. One or some of them have been reported before, but is replied to be not actionable.

Also it's gazetted as Pat Heung Rd, meaning it's considered a `=*_link`

If the main road connecting the 2 villages is `=unclassified` , this could be acceptable as `=tertiary`

This should be considered an interchange or compact grade-separation, therefore `=*link`

1. Using `lanes=1` to determine `=*_link` doesn't make sense
2. Why is it "ridiculous"? It's reflecting the reality on where you will end up on Expressway. This is following `=motorway_link` , and `motorway=no` is used for the extent.
3. See 3

1. `highway=` is functional, not physical. `maxspeed=80` + `lanes=3` already shows its quality. `access_control=` etc can be further added.

And please don't repeat your `=*_link` editing without discussing. Even Apple disagreed with it.

Why is this `=trunk` ?

2. It's simply to minimize any misunderstanding and escalation that would cause more "strongly-worded letter is being prepared to be sent"

@mueschel This `note=` is simply a template I have been using on every case before. I haven't thought of how to explaining all of them convincingly in brief. I would also need to update all of them.
The `highway:reason=` is meant to explain all classifications concisely and machine-readabilbly, especially to list all weird cases. They aren't mutually exclusive.

@kingkingHK It doesn't help to add such an emoji to a serious discussion to me⋯