The name "Tit Sei Kau" and "Dit Sei Kau" were coined by me at 2009 (see the Flickr description: both were used - Maybe I was too sleepy at that time). At that time I couldn't find the official English name or common English name from the web so I coined the name myself.

Then at 2019, Swire001 set the English name as tip sei kow (version #2). Initially I removed the English name (version #3) because I thought it was not correct. But after a second thought I think it is good to have an English name. But because there was no widely used English name as that time, I picked "Dit Sei Kau" (version #4). That's because I forgot I used "Tit" before in Flickr and the Cantonese spelling is "Dit" so I picked the latter.

Regarding the online search results, I couldn't find any reference to "Dit Sei Kau" before 2019. So those pages use the term "Dit Sei Kau" only because such name was used in OSM since 2019.

Yes, that's me. Sorry for propagating that error since 6 years ago. I believe many online reference simply copied the name from OSM without reasoning.

The word "Dit" was (wrongly) chosen by me 6 years ago (see version #4). In version #2, Swire001 added it as "Tip". But "Tit" should be more suitable according to online dictionary: https://shyyp.net/hant/w/%E8%B7%8C

確實是很短，但現場是有共享徑的路牌，可能將來可以進一步連接到跑道區的

1. Please go ahead to map the movable bridges.
2. The name "Fish Wave" is just one of the 8 themes. See page 5 of https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr20-21/chinese/panels/dev/papers/dev20210824cb1-1247-1-ec.pdf. Using the second theme "play wave" as example, not the whole section is the playground. For the third theme "fish wave", it is also the same. The western section of "fish wave" is just a narrow footpath and a wider shared path. There is clearly not enough space for fishing. See also page 6 of the PDF - it clearly shows that the fishing platform is within the eastern end (the oval shape area).

Thanks for fixing. I think your edit is correct. It was a typing mistake.

Thanks for spotting out. It is obviously a typing mistake. Next time feel free to correct the mistake based on your understanding.

I see that it is not applicable here:
1. The proposal is still in draft (under way) - no final conclusion yet.
2. The proposal is about route relations, not route ways.

The Transport Department names all the ferry routes in the Start - End fashion:
https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/public_transport/ferries/index.html

This naming is good as it is consistent and the routes don't need to be renamed due to a change of operator.

Sorry, I didn't intend to delete that relation. It should be a mistake when I split and merge the lines.

According to openrice, this McDonald's was at G20, it is now another (not so well known) Chinese restaurant. It is undeleted. You are "lucky" that I passes by this area every day.

Those were drawn based on wrong satellite images, which were actually a big wave. If you switch satellite images, there were just water, not even submerged rocks. These were confirmed with government high res map.

It is not just not found in "top 5". It is no results. For informal place names that are used by other (especially hikers), I do keep them. If the name did appear in historical documents but not used now, I do keep them as well (but renamed to was:name or old_name).

Those were suggested edits by iD. Please update them if necessary.

I'm not opposing "one feature, one element". The two features are village and locality/suburb/quarter respectively. The village is gone already, this is OSM, not OHM (open historical map). So disappeared feature does not need to be mapped.

The disappear features that needs to be mapped are like ruins or ghost towns. For the case of Yung Long, nothing is left already. So the village doesn't need to be mapped.

I don't argue with you one by one anymore. You should get my meaning already.

The deletion of the original point (of 8 years old, which happens to be created by me) was my mistake. Sorry about that.

Yung Long is the officially recognized populated area (whether by government or other Geoinfo site). Black Point as a suburb is purely based on the name of the power station, which is a weak argument.

Anyway, I will not touch your "Black Point" further if you insist.

I was referring to Tai Wan at Hung Hum (Hutchison Park), not the recently added one in Tsim Bei Tsui

Yung Long, Tsang Tsui, Nim Wan, Tai Shui Hang, etc were all standalone villages. They do not cover a bigger area (as a comparison, Lung Kwu Tan covers many villages). It is unnecessary to separate locality with the village. Separating them is over-mapping.

These villages are disappeared also. The names are now solely used by locality/suburb. So one point is good enough to represent them.

I didn't map for renderer. The locality (if any) should be called Yung Long. Yung Long Village (or Yung Long Tsuen) should be a hamlet.

Place name is not copyrightable. At least the name Yung Long is still 100% present as close as 1987, unlike the old places in Kowloon which got absorbed by the nearby "big place" like Hung Hom and To Kwa Wan after 1960.

Again you are contradicting yourself. I see many "gone places" like Hok Yuen (鶴園), Tai Wan (大環) were created or edited by you. Many not so well known places like Ma Tau Kok (馬頭角), Ma Tau Wai (馬頭圍) were also created or edited by you.

Those names disappeared from HK maps since around 1960s. The name Yung Long still appear now in the official map (although only in the base layer, not the search results). How can you say it is historical?

https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/map/search/keyword/Yung%20Long