I passed by this area some time before. Notice how there is now only 4 poles, yet hkbusfandom describes 5 (old info). I did not pay too much attention to the refs, but if the poles are relocated, we have reason to believe the refs may be different.

I see we are only disagreeing on whether this counts as "mostly linear"; if this is indeed "mostly linear" then yes we should do `area:highway=*`. I will just make a new note to collect more opinion on this.

I was trying to see how GraphHopper performs when I ask about a path going through Route 7, but I later remembered GraphHopper by default no longer snaps to bridges so it seemingly cannot navigate to/through Pung Loi Road.

Re the quoted relation, see relation/1807461/history/2

This implies we can/may add `maxspeed:type` etc to all the roads in Hong Kong. That's gonna be too much work. At least I will just stay out of this kind of implicit `maxspeed=*` in the future.

The goal is to fix e.g. GraphHopper not able to enter these roads. A common reason for this is confusing turn restrictions that make some roads "impossible" to navigate to.

I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think this is a case of "almost linear". We can't reduce the geometry here to a straight line because there would be a triangular path in the area, and then the mapping would be inconcise.

Consider peds that enter from Kam Chun Court. They either go straight for the bus stop (I think you mean this when say "linear"), or they rotate and approach the footbridge. This creates some sort of "desire path" that diverges from the linear structure.

There is also a potential problem/concern that a hypothetical centerline footpath + `area:highway=yes` would be too far away from the bus stop nodes and would make routers and GPS confused (would snap to vehicular lanes instead). The depth of the area is 14 meters, which is way higher than existing GPS resolution of 5 meters.

Upon review, we do also have extra (outdated) tags on way/1178516528 that should be removed.

`area:highway=` implies "non-routable" but that's not the case here for way/1486486342 . While most routers treat pedestrian areas as a circular road using their outer edges (e.g. GraphHopper), it's very coincidentally convenient that the outer edge of such area is exactly how people would navigate through this pedestrian area.

Conversely, let's say hypothetically these roads never had any maxspeed info ever since OSM was founded. It still wouldn't make sense to suddenly add maxspeed to them.

"Adding 50km/h everywhere" should be used sparingly as band-aid fixes when in the past the various routers can't understand speed correctly, but now is not the past, we (nearly) have the tech and are improving it, we just don't need to do that anymore.

Chill.

These local-only roads do not have any irl maxspeed signs. The maxspeed aspect is better handled/described by country rules.

You may notice that I basically only add maxspeed to explicitly-signed roads and "roads that look like proper highways (eg Ma On Shan Bypass)". I also extend these maxspeed information towards the next junction down the road, which should be uncontroversial.

This is not the kind of "haha delet this" random action that is often done by newcomers.

I do have a defense for this, but seeing it is not an isolated case (I only recently noticed this dedicated turn road), we can indeed talk about this e.g. at Discord.

To clarify, the videos are in December, but I went there in February.

Too old.

To clarify, the signposts are planted not on the opposite side, but on the near side. Entirely possible you just missed them.

No judgement from me, but on Internet in general we cannot determine whether you really made a mistake or you are deliberate (Poe's Law).

Good catch. Improved / fixed with changeset/179170787

My understanding of emergency access points is that they only have to be "close enough" to the actual rails. For example, the Chinese HSR Kwai Chung EAP (not in OSM, currently transitional housing) is not on top of the rails, but actually beside them.

I vaguely remember there will be 3 tall residential buildings for the Developments, 1 on the west plot and 2 on the east plot (citation needed), but basically, surface level works (e.g. piping) can't go that deep, and only the tall buildings will interact with the railway tunnels. Imagine/Expect a few years later when satellite imagery finally shows how the new buildings are actually placed, and then we can further review the railway curves.

To reproduce/verify this changeset, on the surface level you can count the number of left/right turns. For a deeper look, you can measure the rail curvature by standing at the car links and then noting how your chord intersects the arc.

More details can be given at Discord to avoid cluttering this for too much, but also because there may be image explanations.

Several observations on past data:

- if segment at Chuk Yuen Estate is full straight, then why no extra station? therefore, not straight.
- railways do avoid e.g. Hsin Kuang Centre, but the fit is still too tight.
- by survey, the left/right turns in opposite directions do not match each other; therefore, obviously asymmetric.

made a new note note/5177281

Good question on Nullah Road -> Tung Choi Street; at first glance this is dangerous and likely not a popular/viable path.

Then, need to confirm whether lane markings allow this (half-think cannot).

Ultimately, driveways is a subset of service roads, for single-property access, compared to service roads that may form "technical" roads inside a single facility, or somehow linking several adjacent related facilities. I imagine the quoted way should be described as a driveway instead of a generic service road.

Or, let's put it this way:

This segment only leads to the police station, and only the police station needs this segment. No one uses this segment for through traffic (see Tung Choi Street some distances before).

Therefore, it definitely is a driveway, and not a frontage road. The "frontage road" rule doesn't apply.