I swear I was aware of this, but then there was a duplicate bus terminus area.

Understandable. I was trying to see if I myself made a mistake somewhere. Have a nice day!

Chiming in.

We may tentatively follow KCR East Rail and make name hold "Northern Link" and then alt-name hold "Spur".

If no updates then make note at Kwu Tung for tracking. Low priority because not done until some years later.

Hi there, may you provide source of locations of e.g. node/13971781917 ?

Desync. note/5360199

> We will start by marking the affected roads as "unusable" since these are still observable on the ground.

I am unsure between access=no or was:highway=tertiary . How should these usually be done?

Name improved with changeset/184685490

Indeed, you reminded me that I also agree/prefer using the plot number for names. I somehow missed the plot number concept while reviewing this.

Re 1, I thought this is unwritten rule that we can use project names as the temporary name? similar to e.g. railway projects and other public housing projects?

Re 2, you can add them back. Aerial imagery does not look like it exists.

Re 2, it's definitely gone, aerial imagery says they dug a hole at the entire site. Access probably uses the "3C" ref road at north side, which has some makeshift bridges to connect back to the hole.

Re 1, a consideration is that the name seems too generic (might be my lack of knowledge), so HKHS name is added to the name field to make it less generic and more like a proper name.

Rural "informal path" may have poor path visibility. The key is whether this path really exists, which I doubt, and is tracked and discussed at the note.

Feels like youth. Can't keep up with that.

Discord then. I am less interested in PT mapping, but the very least a new topic should be started.

Still, improved with changeset/184474687

Thanks for the help.

It seems this is not on the wiki, so, yet another Discord discussion.

Spawned note/5357832

The issue is that, with this "no extra info" path, routing software are gonna believe people can easily walk from the lower side to the upper side, which doesn't seem right. Also, this has no easy irl recovery in case the path actually should not exist in its current form, because the next available path that definitely works is at 1km+ away to the west (Nam Cheong Street), which is very unobvious.

Given the inactivity, seems best to make a new note for this.

It's probably only me, but given that all three tags are "grass but different", it is difficult to immediately distinguish between them, especially in relation to Hong Kong roadside plantations.

imo this is beyond the usual "informal stops" concept. From the quoted docs, the TD never allowed the route to pass through Tung Chau Street. Unless you are suggesting that "informal stops" covers everything, and then I will have to start a new topic at Discord.

Alternatively, if quoted TD docs are not usable, then how can we even know what data to provide for the green minibus routes (aka where is the source of data/truth)? Does this mean there will now exist another new Discord discussion?

There's a difference between "wrong" and "not good enough".

You can do that. I'm here for the simple stuff.