Sorry I missed that somehow. Good spot and good fix :)

Good job and good responsiveness - well done.

If you look at this and the similar streets in satellite imagery you can see faintly what looks like bollards, which I'll add now.

In this changeset I also reverted the motorway extent back to merge/diverge with tagging and signage to reflect true motorway status change

Hi,

Here you've changed a street which is accessible only to pedestrians as a service road. Why?

It's more accurate to map roads where they are physically divided, especially if there are features such as advanced stop lines, which you appear to have deleted.

Hi,

highway=trunk is used to represent a primary or trunk route (with green road signs). I don't believe this section of the A174 is signed in green, unlike the route to the east - can you provide any evidence?

If you want to discourage pedestrian routing, you could tag sidewalk=no, or foot=no if there's a signed and lawful pedestrian restriction.

Hi. Can you explain the choice to change the bus stop name=* tags from their real life signed names to the names in naptan's database?

Hi.

The floor is paved in the same way as a bus stop. There may not be a flag but I don't see any visible reason why this wouldn't be used as a bus stop. What made you delete it?

I've noticed you've added Post Office as a brand to many post boxes. Just to let you know, in the UK post boxes are actually operated by Royal Mail, not the Post Office. I believe they were made separate companies as part of Margaret Thatcher's privatisation.

I just checked and OS OpenMap disagrees and colours it in red rather than green. However if I recall correctly it is suggested that OSM prefers on-the-ground reality over external sources.

Awesome, I can tell you're making a serious effort, and I hope you know it's appreciated!

Hey, just so you're aware, buildings require a building=* tag of some sort. I saw this and remembered that I've previously added building tags to some of the buildings you added. Conversely, non-building areas should not have a building tag. Unfortunately iD editor doesn't make this as clear as it should be.

Cheers :)

You seem to have added building=* to areas that should be tagged with building:part=*, with an enclosing building=* area. See building:part=*

Why have you removed the tag when according to the wiki it was tagged correctly? (See highway=services?uselang=en-GB)

I don't understand why either if I'm honest. At least it's sorted now.

Why have the turning lanes in this junction been changed from "links" to "roads"?

Is this only accessible privately, or is it just privately owned? If it's just privately owned operator:type=private may be more appropriate, as access tags represent whether access is allowed.

+ added speed camera relation

I find it hard to see how you might have come to that conclusion. If you perform an internet search for "Kirby Muxloe Interchange" there are numerous results pointing to J21A, and using the name word-for-word.

Whether a name is used in an official capacity or not, that doesn't detract from its existence in common usage. As I'm sure you're aware the name=* key is intended for the name most commonly used. If not for the junction number being quicker to spell out, this would be the obvious way to refer to the junction.

Hi, what did you delete in this changeset?

I also must note that nothing about the existing tagging excluded bicycles - cycleway tagging is just used to identify explicitly designated cycle routes. bicycle=yes on highway=footway/path/track is more appropriate where there are no blue signs or council-published cycle route maps.