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.

Deprecated, yes am aware of that. Since relatively recently mapped will go back over and bring to the newer version.

node/1495520465 ended up in the Riverside car park within this edit. Perhaps move back to where it originally was, or delete it a temporary node?

The Lion Wood Nature Trail would be better mapped as a relation with the constituent ways and the related tags lifted to the relation itself. The actual paths through wood likely aren’t individually signed.

Wouldn’t shop=toys be more appropriate appropriate for plastic toys? Perhaps add material=plastic? The Eurocell Building Plastics Ltd company sells a full range of UPVC products to homeowners, specifiers & trade customers - so shop=plastic is not a bad fit, and doesn’t imply toys. The name also hints.

surface=bitmac, technically more appropriate than (hot-rolled concrete) asphalt, or just surface=paved if trying to show that these aren’t loose material.

Their degree-level courses are provided through UEA. So students may be studying at the college while undertaking a FE qualification.

The argument for St being an accepted alias of Saint is flawed in my view, from historical origins where brevity was valued in written materials, and in cartography from limited space. In a modern day database there's no reason to not store the full information property (i.e. a road named after a saint) then capture specific shortened form for similar render issues. Search works best on full forms, not making guesswork decisions from contractions/abbreviations.

Well, best you go and edit the name to that then, not "St. Leonards Road" like you did earlier.

You are clearly both in the other camp than those who adhere to osm.wiki/Naming_conventions

At least your council has an up-to-date list of roads. I’ve watched my own change the official prefixes of roads over time, progressively towards “Saint” then back towards “St”. It’s all a nonsense to change these back and forth so much. Computational just stick to the full expansion form and use short_name if you must capture the signage form.

Please do not abbreviate road names that mismatch the council official list of streets naming pattern either. The "St." contraction is clearly short form for "Saint" in any case. Perhaps you are one of those who map 'Example Rd.' or 'Mistake Ave.'

In normal language, perhaps. In computational tagging with defined values, change like this adds no value.

I meant ‘aren’t‘

Sigh, your logic grip is poor. There's nothing there that says singular units are for use with singular coefficients.

"Valid units include: …, hour" - you aren't reading the same as me. You are interpreting the allowance of plural units as de facto. This is all fairly pointless when user agents have to support both forms.

Maxstay wiki is written such that plurals are accepted for plural coefficients, not that plural is the only accepted form.

Hm, was that really worth doing? It’s not like "8 kms" is supported (osm.wiki/Map_features/Units), even if the wiki is permitting of plural time units. Wasn’t a typo of mine.

I disagree with your view based on the single comment within the Talk page of highway=proposed. Per your own note, this idea has everything but the funded, and funded isn't happening soon, so to me it is a proposed route and should stay so.

Just because funding is not yet secured does not rule out the road won't happen. The whole point of highway=proposed is for roads with potential to exist in the future. If that potential has gone, then it can be deleted. Otherwise you should have left as is, with note.

Confirmed the change, deleted the excess node on the area below to neaten. Realised that that steps are actually still there, just hidden behind the front wood boarding and earth fill above. Raising the question of should unseen things be mapped? Probably not, hard to verify without digging :)