Hi there, would you please discuss on e.g. Discord first? NSI is only a collection of the most commonly used tags and has no guarantee on correctness. Specifically, I disagree with using zh+en in `network=`, as see network as a normal tag (i.e. en only) and not a text. (Also, there's an obvious typo in `network:short=`, and missing `network:zh`.)

Afaik there's no consensus whether to use `=scrub` or `=shrubbery` when it comes to managed scrubs. Remember the wiki can be edited by anyone.

> note=managed forest? scrub?

Iirc should be tree should on shrubbery, cf. the rest of Route 3 Country Park Section. I would change the area to `natural=scrub` or `natural=shrubbery` and draw a `natural=tree_row` line.

P.S. Castle Peak Road is 50+ km long. It would be very nice if you would specify at least which section you are editing, so that e.g. changesets at Lai Chi Kok wouldn't get the same comment as one at Yuen Long. (And you didn't do anything to CPR in this changeset?)

Imo highway classification should be considered between junctions, not between "roads", whatever that means. Road names are not indicative of "roads" either; road names practically no one effect in the real world.

"Junction with Mount Sterling Mall" is basically not an argument, as Mount Sterling Mall does not allow motorised traffic. The westbound one is even worse. Three is nothing fundamentally different between this and e.g. Wong Tai Sin Ching Tak Street or Lung Yuet Road - Cornwall Street. If you want to do this, you should have extended link to the traffic signal, not that it makes it correct, just less wrong.

FYI this changeset is partially reverted by changeset/181400662

FYI partially reverted by changeset/181400518

This is not a complaint, more of a commentary: the currently accepted form of tagging a "zebra crossing" is `crossing_ref=zebra`. Crossing tagging is a mess; I get the impression that no one knows what `crossing=` values mean and everyone just make their own guesses.

Don't worry, I'm not blaming you. I didn't know that page before this discussion either; only observed it should be `lang:*` by looking at other objects.

If you ask me, I would say trees are one of the fastest-changing things...

Btw I redid the trees in changeset/181213545 ; it seems like you were looking at outdated imagery before some trees were cut.

While Esri Clarity Beta is the most accurate when it comes to geometry, it is 10 years old. I would not recommend using it for features which may have changed, or features where absolute accuracy is not important.

Destination languages should be `destination:lang:*=`, not `destination:*=`, see osm.wiki/Proposal:Destination_details#destination:lang:%3Clanguage_code%3E

Fixed with changeset/181213496

Thanks for restoring the maxspeed.

Speed limit and actual speed might not align; imo any major data consumer should ideally understand this. E.g. Chun Yeung Street and Lung Fu Road are both `maxspeed=50`. The UK has these things called "country lanes" which are single-lane unpaved curvy roads (Nim Wan Road vibes) with 60 mph (96 km/h) speed limit which is obviously unattainable. And, using highway class to deduce speed limit is a poor practice anyway, as shown by Lin Cheung Road etc.

Also, it seems like you are still missing my point. I am less of complaining about speed limit implementation, and more of complaining about reverting other's correct work without consensus. As I said, you should have discussed this on e.g. Discord beforehand instead of removing it yourself for "I don't think it should be here". In fact, the points we are raising here is the same as our previous discussions there in December.

We can't reasonably expect all data consumers to implement country-specific rules e.g. note/5213189 . You are essentially outsourcing the computation to the country-rule library and to the developers of every osm-based application that involves speed limit in some way.

As I said, you can choose to not do it if you don't want to; no one is forcing you to do anything. But I want to do it so I will do it. Is removing all my work an efficient usage of efforts? If you want dispute my methods, then please discuss it with me elsewhere and reach a consensus, not removing my work "just because".

P.S. my changeset changeset/181045513 which added maxspeed to 363 roads only took around 4 minutes to make. It really isn't that much effort imo.

I am not super familiar with how data consumers handle destination tagging, but I quote destination=*?uselang=en-GB#Destinations_per_road

> At least the first section of a road leaving the intersection must be tagged, however the tagging can continue on further segments until some different destination is signposted. This allows navigation software to show continuously which destination a driver is following.

Hi there, why did you remove `maxspeed=` from way/65250016 ? I understand that you might disagree with adding them, in which case you may simply choose not to. But please don't remove correct info that others have added.

I vaguely remember there is a rule saying "not all road forks are `=*_link`s; don't do link for roads under overpasses" but I can't find it now. Maybe @Kovoschiz would have something to say?

Hi there, is there a reason you removed `destination=` from way/494473889 ? I will restore it if it is simply an editing mistake. Thanks!

West Kowloon Corridor is signposted I think https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/kaartcam?lat=32.72446&lng=-117.171646&z=16&pKey=297862111823514&focus=photo&x=0.5191253197103024&y=0.6602385103586426&zoom=1.5505617977528092

I have changed node/13716545120 to `highway=stop` based on aerial imagery

changeset/181075353

Hi there,

I suppose the purpose of this changeset is to identify sections of roads which are part of the Strategic Routes. Then, could you please take a look at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2nvm and see if the existing `ref=` data are wrong, or if there was a mistake in this changeset?