Agreed, done.

That's the wiki for you. However, I was right about no unit being an increase in ambiguity for the casual mapper. With time, someone will inevitably come along and add the ' km/h' back in by bot. Essentially, was just questioning the necessity of data removal that was already correct, which you have yet to respond to. It’s something to do, I guess.

Removing explicit unit from maxspeed tagging only introduces ambiguity and little benefit other than a few bytes per text record in a database.

Default power unit is kW for that tag. You can add it explicitly if you like with a single white space separator.

Think about the 'dual' bit. They come in pairs. Individual way tagging can be done of course, but then which is the paired carriageway? Fetch all dual_carriageway ways then correlate by name/ref/geography? What if those aren’t consistent/cross boundaries? Did you know that carriageways in the UK typically have ref A and B? For Away from London, Back to London, usually. Can be seen from the emergency layby phone refs. Just because something is more frequently used, doesn't mean it is best. Plus mappers are free to tag as they see fit. My point about inferring from maxspeed=GB:nsl_dual remains. Are you thinking about urban dual carrigeways too with limit under national?

The southern bypass is already part of a dual_carriageway type relation, with GB:nsl_dual maxspeed, so is it really necessary to explicitly add way tags too?

If you remember/have photo, could add post_box:type and royal_cypher tags perhaps?

Have the 40 mph average speed cams gone then?

Have noticed you mapped a number of telegraph poles as power poles in this (and other changesets). Is usually easy to tell from the step rungs of telecom, DP nn/nnn reference and BT wood engraved markings vs the yellow/black power line stickers with 6 digit serials and 2 or three space-separated overhead lines connecting.

Can map the telegraph poles with man_made=utility_pole and utility=telecom. Plus telecom=line for ways. Often inscription=Caution Overhead Fibre too.

Thing is delivery_point=* seems to be about whether a postal address is a deliverable unit. Not the actual co-ord of mail drop/collect. Adding an amenity=letter_box might help, but then it's separate from the address.

Is a choice, but suspect post and parcel couriers might prefer the address to resolve to a building than the boundary.

You appear to have drawn explicit footpath when the road already had sidewalk=left tag (e.g. Wendene south of roundabout). I've amended the sidewalk tag to value separate. The north-bound grass trod path could also be represented with verge=left tag on the road itself, as nothing physically separating it from road edge. Or a path=desire type.

It seems there was a public notice about the removal of the 3T limit:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240221181609/https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/-/media/norfolk/downloads/roads-and-transport/public-information-notices/bridgham-bridge-bridge-existing-3t-weight-limit-to-be-removed-updated-pin.pdf

Expecting usual use as before, but could add Map Note to request survey I suppose.

The Mapnik icon does look more Britishly appropriate, now that I've seen it.

They do sound very similar, even Wikipedia defines: “A beer garden (German: Biergarten) is an outdoor area in which beer and food are served, typically at shared tables shaded by trees.” Do the bar staff have to wear Austrian dresswear? Do the tables have to be a certain length? Must the trees be of a certain species?

These roads were mapped in 2020 as service driveway kind. Why did you change them to residential, for what is a cemetery surfaced access route?

The raised crossing and cyclists is something I have no problem with, as that is part of the roadway. It’s the narrow riser footpaths either side of Old Watton Road that shouldn’t be used, as they aren’t listed as cycle links. The city cycle streets map isn’t zoomed in enough to show such detail, but it would be sensible to route cyclists through the main road junction for increased visibility and reduced pedestrian contention.

Also this particular one is narrow, pedestrian width and inappropriate for shared use, opening out at 90 degree directly on to 20 mph traffic crossing unseen from the left having descended an incline.

Paved footpaths are by default not for cyclists. The one in question is not owned or maintained by the county council, per their GIS.

bicycle=dismount is acceptable, but it is clearly a privately owned footpath on the Spire grounds. They probably don’t mind and I don’t doubt cyclists have used it (such as the one with life-threatening injuries after collision with bus/Mini yesterday).