2. Please stop making what would be `old_name=` in that `place=` as `loc_name=`

Please don't mix up villages with estates. They are irrelevant.

There has been a update on the guidelines osm.wiki/Hong_Kong/Transport/Road#Classifications

This section also only connects `=motorway`

(ie it would be `=motorway` if there's raised separations, causing a pair of lines to be drawn)

This section is because it only connects `=motorway`

Why can't I use it to demonstrate it? How is all the mess of random hundreds `destination:symbol=` values better? Do you opposite `destination:access:*=` and `indication:*=` ?

Please don't remove them, as I documented my ideas osm.wiki/Proposal:Generalized_directions

The inability to see a border directly doesn't determine whether you are not on something. If there is a pair of `embankment` along a line, it doesn't mean the latter is `cutting` because the visible surround is higher.

This is the architecture concept. It can't be concluded as the site's naming.

One factor for non-Expressway is not meeting TPDM requirement for `lanes=3` + `oneway=yes`

It uses `=motorway` + `motorway=no` + `destination:motorway=yes` (can be fine-tuned)

It doesn't help your argument with "I feel like we are discussing the kind of question which is so obvious and trivial, it need not be mentioned in the first place."
`embankment=` isn't about "embanked from the riverside". It's the surrounding ground.

@kingkingHK Those could be `=depot` depending on definition. I invented having only`depot:service=storage` to distinguish.
`industrial=storage` has been used for open-air. `storage=` exists.
It can further have `=parking` inside `=industrial` as micro detail, if it doesn't cover the entire polygon, or double-tagged for same area. Possible to find another attribute for the "carpark" use.

The spec is `crossing:markings=no`

Why is `embankment=` not "intrinsic"?
"Software solution" is more impossible with lines. `man_made=bridge` area has an easy spatial relationship. You would have to find the other side of a `man_made=embankment` at an arbitrary distance (expensive), and generate an area between them in pre-processing or on-the-fly. This doesn't work with one-sided ones either.

"When the embankment is large enough, the features contained in the embankment need not declare that it's on an embankment." Why?

Why are you still removing `embankment=` ?

They don't. I asked with a UK or Singapore photo. Author is lucky enough to use an HK one. crossing:markings=*#Look_left/look_right_markings

Why are you removing `embankment=` ?