Thanks :)

I have restored the addressing tags for this building and tagged the new details at the new building location.

Future changes could be reported by using the "Add a note to the map" facility.

From a coding and database point of view a non-conditional fee would be stored as a nullable currency numeric value. Which is probably why seeing fee=yes + charge=1 GBP/hour seems a bit strange to me, instead of fee=no or fee=1 GBP/hour. Despite the many use cases that TagInfo higlights, but such is the sway of the wiki.

I'm fine with the conditional, but if you read the wiki discussion it becomes apparent that bias towards using two keys appear to originate from one single user unsure of how to code handling for the fee key. Not a great single-point reference for defining guidelines.

I don't really see what the problem is with using charge key-like value in the fee key. Either there's no fee and zero charge, or a fee and non-zero charge. Seems wasteful to be using two keys for that sort of thing. People really should be able to handle fee=no, fee=0, fee=free few cases as none, and the rest paid.

Lakenfields apartments, that is.

Something amiss with your edits on this one, per doubled up 10-20, 22-36, 67-75, 76-81 address numbering. Shouldn't they be unique?

Of note, Royal Mail have gone and changed their wording/definitions since I last checked, and lifted what may have been the mistaken text from before. So I no longer take issue with postcodes going on to polygons such as this, but do check buildings to avoid duplicate addressing.

Also houses displaying only name or number, but having both in the addressing system, still benefit from having a name key to express their preferred identifier per installed signage.

Could add access=private to indicate if it is signed private or physical barriers exist to prevent public access.

Probably better to use surface=paved for BitMac surfaces, rather than surface=asphalt of typical driven road material.

addr: prefix is related to the postal address service addressing scheme. The name tag is the commonly known identifier for an object. In the case of a named-only house either addr:housename and name should exist and be the same without nohousenumber=yes to indicate the fact, or if the latter is present then I think it acceptable to just have addr:housename.

However, there are numerous services out there making use of OSM that fail to make use of the addressing scheme and other schemes for suitable name resolution. There's little harm in having two definitions that are the same spelling but for different purposes. It's a sort of optimising for the database approach, instead of just focusing on capturing data key-value pairs.

Sometimes shop names change and the address name lags behind.

The main objection I have to the mass edit you did was that it destroyed the semantic content from some of my previous edits for other cases of name-only houses.

Did you actually take into count the nohousename, noaddress, etc. tags during the dataset build request?

I'm still left manually reviewing and restoring…

For such cases and systems unaware of nohousenumber tag itself, e.g. ABetterRoutePlanner, then the absence of name results in addresses without name or number. Also for cases where both number and addressing name exist, the name tag can help explicitly define the common case instead of leaving it to a renderer to pick one.

The difficulty I have now is the 632 buildings affected here including a number of my own manually surveyed entities, before the nohousenumber wiki entry was created.

What about name-only houses? How else can that be indicated through tagging if the name tag is stripped to leave only addr:housename, presumably nohousenumber=yes? Otherwise it leaves things ambiguous as to whether the addr:housenumber has yet to be mapped.

Removing name tag is still an issue for some it seems: https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/3447

The 40 mph signs still missing from NSL roundabout eastbound and this directional route being 'road' not 'street' due to absence of residential access means ambiguous legal interpretation of upper limit, with absence of repeaters until nearing Lord Nelson Drive.

The C854/12 “Saint Benedicts Street” I mentioned was from the Road Name column in your XLS. It also contains 403 "Saint " prefixes vs 188 "St " prefix in the same column (including footpath descriptors). Since this changeset was all about standardising on the List of Streets.

I don't think OS Open Roads is actually authoritative, as that's a derived product with the multitude of individual naming authorities having final say. Their claim is "definitive road information". I'm still waiting to hear back from Norwich City Council, but will let you know if/what they say.

OS themselves have a history of gathering their own road name sources, independent of councils (sometimes out-of-sync with them too).

I sometimes find companies own published addresses aren't that helpful, with incorrect street names/postcodes and inconsistency with adjacent businesses address formatting, but do accept for a lot of people its their go-to form.

Since your July 2014 FOI request itself contains 18 cell ref to "Saint Benedict", including "Saint Benedicts Street" (C854), but only 4 cell ref to "St Benedict" - one a foot path, the other a close, then I believe this should be returned to the ground truth.

Also in my findings with the council databases it became apparent that as suspected their admin is largely a mess. In the years since some "Saint" prefixes have become "St" while others changed from "St" to "Saint", pretty much arbitrarily. The only stable thing is the ground truth and the wiki naming rules, which are more readily verifiable than repeat FOI requests.

The building tag is for the original intent of the building, the current purpose is recommended to be tagged using building:use. It would be ideal if the wiki were followed, but I guess you have your reasons.

Easy to miss but there's a road sign "St. Benedicts Street" at the junction corner with "St.Margarets Street", plus:

NCC: "POTTERGATE TO SAINT BENEDICTS STREET"
Section Ref: 4F199

Other oddities:
NCC: Saint John Maddermarket
Signed: St. John Maddermarket

NCC: St John Street
Signed: St. Johns Street

Just noticed that the the description fields from your FOI Request include full forms such as "SAINT STEPHENS STREET", but I'll await the response from NCC for now.