Your highly-justified and personally-agreeable complaint fails to explain why iD/NSI only notices issue on E41, but not e.g. E32/E36P.

Also, afaik NSI is not automated, and we may modify NSI presets manually.

I view the entries at NSI to be of some degree of correctness. If anything, I will let the public transport mappers review the NSI presets and then everyone can help update the existing relations to what is really the correct values. This can happen in parallel.

A quick look at the wiki suggests it's more "=scrub" than "=shrubbery".

It's thematically CPR.

I believe the changeset boundaries should give a good hint towards which area is affected. I do limit my changeset sizes. (Compare to e.g. China mega edits which has bounding box entering HK; imo just bad practice.)

It's basically "look at the road and see if anything can be improved, e.g. alignment, features, etc.". Way too generic, not even sure what to say.

But, for example, those roads have no names. We may consider them separate roads from e.g. Lai Chi Kok Road, especially when there is a junction with Mount Sterling Mall. Then, those may be classified differently from e.g. Lai Chi Kok Road themselves.

I was thinking maybe the trees would not change much, but I guess I was wrong.

Let's just say, I often don't check proposal pages, and in this case somehow the proposal became de facto without finishing the approval process, so I extra could not know.

Fixed with changeset/181199862

I believe I am (heavily) biased towards "let them have the library". My initial kneejerk reaction was "it doesn't seem like this should be here" so I removed it.

I will just take it as "this is part of the local standard" and add it back, though I would suspect adding speed limits to minor roads may cause parser confusion; should the road be slow (low highway class), or should the road be fast (explicit speed limit), but I will just leave it to the many implementations out there to figure it out.

Destination improved with changeset/181199461

The description technically allows my changeset, but I can see this is an implied rule to keep the destination value.

How to say it, I just don't think minor roads should have maxspeed. My previous comments were more on giving maxspeed to major roads (e.g. at least tertiary).

Again, the concern is scope creep and "we therefore need to modify every road", in which case using a country-rule library is much more efficient usage of efforts.

I am not sure whether OSM user-tagging actually works. Also send to Discord just to be sure.

You quoted a way; notice the previous way of the quoted way already has destination info. My understanding is that as long as we have "passed" a junction, we may omit destination info.

re node change, I will trust your changeset. Ultimately this kind of "welcome to district" signs seems ambiguous as to their nature; I struggle to classify them between artistic sculpture or a highway sign.

But interesting mention about the law, I was not aware there is a law for district borders and I just place the border at where the sign/sculpture is at. We can elaborate on this on eg Discord so we can figure out what's up.

OK, to be honest I was not aware my changesets are 15% of "all changesets". So many years I was under the impression that I only make "a few" changesets. Naturally this means I should proportionally be getting more comments, but this obviously does not fit my mental model.

[Other words seems best sent elsewhere]

-------

Going back to this, the "end of road" relaxation, honestly idk, and I am just using my own art style for this. Granted, I do not think OSM Global has specs that go into such detail as to describe how to actually map "end of the road" shapes. We may have some flexibility here.

Re "1"; obviously, both do not have physical separation/channelization. But then the current situation is very ancient to begin with, and may be improved as a separate changeset. I did have to check and confirm it was not me doing them.

Re "2", I imagine/believe the rules are relaxed for single-destination "end of road" channelizations, Also, the road usage markings (as in "the dark patches of asphalt that are not used by any traffic at all") indeed suggest a bit of implicit channelization.

-------

Side note:

For minor issues (e.g. "1"), just do it:

osm.wiki/Foundation/Core_Values

> Do-ocracy. [...]

If you find out an obvious minor issue, just do it. You can keep reviewing and commentating changesets, but when you seemingly often ask about the small things, it makes your intent unclear. Also, nowadays I often can't immediately answer, and then we are just wasting time waiting for exchanges and responses.

Specifically for this case, I can use the "while we are here, might as well also do it" argument to convince myself to also handle the questionable bus lanes, but that's never a hard obligation. Over the years I find this argument very harmful to sanity since there's always something more to improve, but obviously we aren't supposed to put literally "all" of our time on OSM.

Sounds like a good rule to e.g. add to iD editor.

No, I am not sure it is just called "Public Transport Interchange".

At least we can't have a roof that holds the name of the PTI. That's already an improvement. Actual name will be left as a future todo.

passing by

way/853595683 looks like should be `oneway=yes`