2. The street naming isn't very useful, and it's quite unique to HK. `street:name=` should be enough for gazetted street, and `=motorway_link` can be named by interchanges.

This should not be followed, as it's inconsistent. Eg Rt 3 ends on an Exit in WHC. It may be taken to mean the km measuring only.

1. If there's not a signposted or official extent, it should not be added
2. I don't understand what your "x in/at/on/of y" is referring to

The slip roads are made `=motorway` for the existing status (cf TMCLK, TKOLTT)

Please don't delete `area:highway=`

1. Please discuss this first before changing all of them. They are 25kV_ac KCR sizes, built as mainline national rail, and functions as suburban trains. The existing compromise is to use `route=subway` on the `railway=rail`
2. The `route=` already has `colour=`

2. Would it be any different "Footways in East Anglia" had an article?

2. Again you are ignoring your problems here. "Something" in "Somewhere" is obviously in the same league as them.

1. "I am a bit surprised" you didn't get I'm asking about your reasoning, and lack of elaboration. Do you know what's a project "name"? It's a title, and is a descriptive label. The uppercase is used as title case. It's described as "the footbridge network in the western part of Tsuen Wan town centre". This can also be "footbridge system along Tai Chung Road and Hoi Shing Road", which is obviously not proper. It can be lowercase "Extension of footbridge network in Tsuen Wan". https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/english/fc/pwsc/papers/pi07-06e.pdf#page=12

1. I don't know how you understanding and reasoning works. `name=` is not a "label" itself. It's for proper names. This is not one. Applications can choose to combine it with other attributes to form labels, and even not use it, or no labels.

1. What's the logic of ""key:name" considers official usage as one of the usual sources of primary names. This gives "Footbridge Network in Tsuen Wan" legitimacy to be inserted as a name. " ? You didn't explain anything.
2. Can you please try harder? It's referring "List of" and "Category:" pages.

This one is debatable, as proper names for hangars would be "Hanger 12" etc. The "Former" on the sign also suggests it's a descriptive label, ie it can be "Old Royal Air Force Hangar" and "舊皇家空軍飛機庫" hypothetically.

Please don't directly delete them . They are already `disused:*=` correctly. They contain addresses, and still represent store spaces. This makes tracking and updating them more difficult, wasting previous effort, and increasing next workload.

It's possible all these existed before. Only now removed to promote recycling, and the botched waste pricing.

`=parking_aisle` should not be used if it's the only road. It doesn't mean any roads for parking. There's no aisle to speak of.

Both `addr:village=` and `addr:place=` should be added. Some villages use streets. Some are unnumbered by both, using DD lots.

It is confusing, as signs use the no-vehicle white-only sign (ground truth), but traffic orders refers to motorized vehicles, and bikes might use some such roadways in reality. The worst is when "Bus lane" is painted, which means bikes are allowed.

`oneway:bus=` is the more common one than `bus:backward=`
`oneway=` is somewhat more powerful than `*:*ward=` (`=reversible` , `=alternating` )

1. It's not "a" project, but many
2. The project, individual projects would include the improvements only, not the pre-existing and unchanged sections
3. OSM doesn't track construction project management either. That belongs to OHM.

Did you try to understand it? How is this a "route"? Footpaths being interconnected in an area doesn't make they are a "route". At least this is not one, but many. In any case, this `name=` is unacceptable, suggesting problem in this structuring.