From local knowledge I can tell you that this bridge DOES exist and your edit was damaging to the ground truth map. Please do not delete without verifying things in person.

Alignment corrections are fine, but positioning improvement can't really be done from Bing alone, unless you have amassed GPS traces or say align with OS StreetView.

Quick TagInfo check for GB showed more biergarten than beer_garden, and just two beergarden instances.

The wiki description of the differences between the two is pretty poor. I’m aware of the technical difference in concepts, but in both cases, you can have beer in a garden-like environment. Could put amenity=beergarden perhaps, but which do you think would be more widely understood, rendered and searched on?

The computational effort to produce and match bounding polygons for search versus database key text value essentially. Can get a sense of that from XAPI poly: documentation.

Fair point about The Circuit identifier being the less than unique thing.

You leave out addr:country in postal addresses based on geolocation. UUID is universally unique, even beyond Earth. The statistical chance of randomly produced clash of GUID is phenomenally low. However, if it freaks you out that someone searching by GUID might possibly one day find two instances of a circuit, then fine :)

Looks to be a GUID reference, as in globally unique, so probably no need for the :GB suffix.

A changeset per edit, really?

Then I suggest you contact StreetComplete to add in that option, as otherwise erroneous tagging will continue to be added. If paved is an option that's actually better in such instances.

It’s actually surface=bitmac (bitumous McAddam), asphalt used typically for the road surface (hot-rolled).

Thanks for correcting.

Glass, renowned for its opaqueness…

I doubt the pathways are actually asphalt (the hot-rolled kind). More probably they are bituminous Macadam (surface=bitmac).

The A11 is not a motorway, where such restrictions do exist.

Why do you think pedestrians are not legally permitted on dual carriageway?

That it does, but is all back on the legal limitation side and not the physical explicit lane tagging.

I could add detail about the alighting/loading meaning parking:both=lane is appropriate over parking:both=no for UK double yellow lines.

Loading can be banned by adding double yellow orthogonal paint to the kerb edge intermittently too. In London there are also double red lines, just to add to the mix.

In UK law it is 'waiting' that is not permitted, with exemption for alighting/picking-up passengers or cargo, typically of under 5 minute duration. So stopping and waiting is conditionally lawful.

Except the new scheme deliberately splits physical from legal. Previously just parking:lane:both=no_parking was sufficient. Motorways from rule 240 are generally prohibited from stopping or waiting, so parking:both=no would be fine now. Residentially though as above can actually wait on the double yellows for a bit.

The latest scheme is actually a little unclear as to what to do with double yellow lane edge lines. Is that parking:left=lane, or parking:left=no, since legal definition is because of the yellow paint, but physically remains possible to park briefly to alight/pick-up passengers/cargo. Opted for lane value.