Sure, which is why I said I prefer `board:title` or `inscription`, and only didn't do it due to taginfo statistics.

(Also, I didn't know about this QLever tool so I just didn't know about the statistics.)

1. I do like `board:title=` or `inscription=` more, but seeing taginfo says 59% of `information=board` is tagged with `name=` and only 4.4% with `board:title=` and 1.5% with `inscription`, I decided to do `name=`. "Shatin sign" feels like a description; `name:en=Sha Tin` would be descriptive name imo.

2. "歡迎蒞臨奧運馬術之城沙田 Welcome to City of the Olympic Equestrian Events Sha Tin" is only 69 characters. I wouldn't consider that to be too long. E.g. some bus relations have hundreds of characters due to PTv2 descriptive names.

@vectorial8192 2. board_type=welcome_sign

> Use the traffic sign scheme (`traffic_sign=city_limit` or the equivalent local code) when the "welcome" sign is part of the local traffic sign standard or resembles other traffic signs. Besides any greeting, the sign has a more important function of informing the public about the location of the boundary, which may imply changes in traffic laws.

FYI I have changed node/13707950616 to `tourism=information` + `information=board` + `board_type=welcome_sign` and the text to `name=`.

P.S. the new border your drew in this changeset seems wrong, but the law is copyrighted so I don't know what I can do about this.

2. Well, asphalt colours are obviously not a physical barrier.

------

I do sometimes notice myself commenting on minor stuff too often. To clarify, my workflow is check recent changesets/look around the map -> notice something wrong -> checks who made it -> fix if likely to be mistake (e.g. made by new mapper, or obviously wrong) or comment if potentially controversial (e.g. made by you or Kovoschiz, or only borderline wrong). I am aware that the inevitable consequence of this workflow is that you will get lots of comments, simply because you make so many changesets (over 15% of all changesets in HK!), have a trust-worthy history (so I am more cautious in simply reverting/fixing, just in case you did it for a reason), and you do not really "specialise" on anything (compared to other mappers) so naturally there is a higher variety of mistakes to comment on. I have also noticed that my language is becoming more direct/blunt, which may be perceived as rude and thus exacerbate the issue. (Not to shift the blame, but I think this is partially influenced by you and Kovoschiz.)

I also admit that I comment more than I map simply because commenting is easier than mapping.

I have only continued to comment as such because you keep replying promptly and at length, which I took as a sign that you tolerate my comments. I sincerely apologise if this misunderstanding annoyed or disturbed you. I will certainly keep this discussion in mind in the future and refrain from excessive questioning. Tbh I have also noticed that my time spent on discussing stuff (whether in changeset comments or on Discord) is inversely proportional to my motivation to map. Maybe shutting myself up would be better for both of us.

Ultimately, we are just here to improve the map. As you said somewhere else, it would be dumb if we kill participation in our quest for purity.

You glued the road to the bridge.

1. Does way/110853514 and way/110853513really have physical channelisation? (Yes I am aware you didn't add them, but seeing you modified them I think you kind of have a responsibility in making sure they are correct)
2. Does way/1495851539 really have physical channelisation?
2.

You sure it's just called "Public Transport Interchange"?

Dupe relation/12917849 ?

Dupe way/249316008 ?

Dupe way/291481809 ?

Dupe way/304380903 ? (Or is this about the surface playground, which probably don't carry this name?)

Dupe way/197739476 ?

Dupe way/106034065 ?

Dupe way/184798477 ?

Dupe way/40959234 ?

Dupe way/185087341 ?

That's obviously not its name.

Why did you remove `surface:colour=`?

Re way/1358629504 :

1. Does the physical separation really extend so far upstream?
2. Is there really curved physical separation?

(I am aware this is an old changeset, but we can still review it regardless.)