To me, it seems obvious that it is door. But whatever.

Hi there, is there a particular reason you typed the address in `note=` and not `addr:*=`?

> Aerial imagery does not clearly show whether these are conjoined houses (therefore terraces) or apartment buildings

I am aware that "common sense is not common", but one can very clearly see separation on the roofs. That's a very obvious indication that they are terraced buildings. Also, ding houses have a 700 sqft footprint limit. It doesn't make sense to have such a large non-terraced house. But if you use e.g. iD's measurement tool to measure the area of each of the houses as indicated by the roof separation, we get numbers very close to 700 sqft.

But ok, I will just fix the data at my own pacing.

You are dodging my question. I am not talking about having multiple levels with different families (that's simply `building:use=apartments`), I am talking about drawing multiple 村屋 touching each other as a single osm way. Which is `building=terrace`. The tag `building=house` is for a singular house. Please show me examples of terraces drawn as a single way and tagged as `building=house`, and I will be happy to fix them. Terrace houses are not a HK-specific thing.

Those are obviously `building=terrace`, not `=house`.

@vectorial8192

> we should start typing stuff to the Wiki.

Osm-revert is already well-documented on the wiki: osm.wiki/Osm-revert

Which is linked to by the "revert" page: osm.wiki/Change_rollback#osm-revert

It is already typed to as much detail as is needed. It is entirely your fault for not knowing. To mitigate the bus factor, spend like 20 seconds going to the wiki, and type "revert" into the search box. If you hadthe time to make a an OSM action, you are definitely available. There is such relationship.

I provisionally disagree with this changeset. It would be nice if you would stop updating the bus relations in this area for now until we have reached a consensus for this changeset, to prevent wasting your work.

@vectorial8192 Reverting a changeset doesn't take that much time. If you had the time to create a note, write a note comment, and write a changeset comment, you had the time to revert it.

The damaging changeset lasted nearly 14 hours before being reverted. That's not short. The longer it lasts the more likely it is to be included in a data consumer's download, polluting their data.

Normally I would have noticed and reverted it quickly, but as you may or may not have noticed these few weeks my irl is getting intense and I have to stop osming, and I don't know when I can return. It is unideal and frankly dangerous that a single person's temporary withdrawal from the project would cause noticeable data quality decline; see also bus factor.

Hi there, is `disused:highway=*` an editing mistake?

This changeset lgtm. Firstly `=no` is clearly wrong as e.g. construction workers can obviously still use it. From what I gathered online, pedestrians are still allowed, so `motor_vehicle=private` looks good. But might need to check bicycle restrictions. That's not mutually exclusive with `was:highway=tertiary`.

Reverted due to incompatible source

changeset/184695500

Why?

changeset/184692859

Reverted due to incompatible source

changeset/184692074

Reverted due to incompatible source

changeset/184684579

1. Why did you change `building=` to `building:parts=`? way/428763450
2. Do you have a source for "Stone House Family Park"?
3. Please do not delete and then redraw any objects. This makes tracking history difficult, and wastes previous mappers' effort. Simply edit the geometry or tags.
4. Why did you remove the address and `building=` from way/687742644 ?

Descriptive name?

1. Have you considered the possibility that there is just no name?

2. It's definitely not gone because I saw it with my own eyes a few days ago.

MOS Road <-> Tai Po Road (and hence Shing Mun and Tsing Sha) deserves `=tertiary` at least imo. This is the only way without any traffic lights, at least until T4 opens, so it should be somewhat competitive.

Why? Shouldn't the higher one be used?

At least, it's what Kovoschiz told me: changeset/180237869