(to be clear, unadopted, private-owned can’t - adopted status is independent of public/private ownership)

What are you talking about? maxspeed=none would not be inappropriate for roads with speed limits. Speed limits require both a Traffic Regulation Order and at least one circular specification-meeting sign at the boundary points. This short private development road will likely never show any sign requesting a lower speed. For now, like my own home road, it is without enforceable speed limit.

Legal status is perfectly clear. Adopted roads can have Traffic Regulation Orders, unadopted can't. Ergo no enforceable limit.

By all means stop deleting the tags of other users without consulting them too.

maxspeed=none is that explicit case in OSM. Legally there is no default limit on private land. Only driving without due care and attention as prosecutable minimum offence. Why double negative? adopted=no is sufficient given implicit default yes. Not not a not.

Abels Close is a non-adopted road, privately owned in some way by the residents or land owner. That's why there is no applicable speed limit here. Why I was right with maxspeed=none all those years ago. You could add adopted=no, maxspeed=no and be done with it. Occasionally such residents make up their own speed suggestion that they'd like visitors to adhere to.

They must have changed the sign since. Probably a misheard road name over the phone at the sign-makers originally :)

Alternatively sidewalk:surface, sidewalk:right:width, etc. style attributes on road itself.

I map on the basis of adding pavements when they detour away from the road edge and curb, connecting that back to the road for routing benefit. Just remember yourself to adjust sidewalk tags on the road to separate value or as appropriate when doing such micromapping. Those sidewalks tags already enabled routing agents to optimise for pedestrian safety. Adding partial sections with dead-ends isn't of much use to anyone, aside from more precise distance measurement I suppose. I'm all for it at complex intersections though with railings or other safety mechanical interventions.

Is there any point adding explicit pavements that run adjacent to roads already tagged with sidewalk=both? It just seems to add complexity and mess to the essential map modelling with little gain. I've just re-routed the local circular walk to make use of such though.

I've also seen some power poles with two individual poles at base joining together to form an inverted V peak with the usual three-phrase carrier bar.

I'm not sure node/4500440105 counts as a power=portal. It has two wooden posts for extra strength but the current carrying cables connect at the top and not between the legs. power=portal wiki contains "If some cables are outside them, it's a h-frame tower and power=tower + design=h-frame should be used."

Ah, missed the typo! Yes, should be public_footpath in designation instead of public_footway. The Quiet Lanes map for North Norfolk used dashed lines for the links, but the marker posts on ground call them Quiet Lanes still.

Can spot the marker in Aug 2016 StreetView, but like a lot of them they have become rather overgrown or accident impacted since.

+quiet - it continues along Robinson’s Loke bridleway too.

It is actually one of the relatively few quiet lanes that happens to be cross-field. I only added the designation in from the point fairly inset where the quite lanes marker appeared on the SE end.

I do love snapping new solar installs on my walk surveys so I can add the module count where possible. On average each month 11,500 domestic panel installs/upgrade happen, around 4,000 heat pumps too.

Good stuff. 106,340 domestic solar installs so far this year!

Will just point out at-grade "Internal turning lanes" from osm.wiki/Highway_link - specifically "They should be tagged with the _link classification of the highest classified road they connect to."

Trunk_link is also intended for channelised (physically separated by an obstruction) at-grade turning lanes connecting the through carriageways/through lanes. The road itself visually looks like significant infrastructure unlike a tertiary road. I'm well aware that council C-road classification does not necessarily equate tertiary in OSM, if only because their own grading is frequently outdated. Am curious what prompted you to make the change in the first place. Was there something beneficial? Such as navigation routing agent behaviours?