No -- do you think it should have been?

I'm not sure exactly what your concerns are, but (a) the use of the DfE data for UK Schools is well-established, and (b) I wouldn't regard the changeset as a mechanical edit as each change was examined individually before being included in the changeset.

The changes were made based on official data from https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/ that said a school with a now-definct ID had a successor institution with the new ID. I used the data extracted by my tool in the table at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/matching-queries.html#no-ref-successor
to manually check that the school still had essentially the same name, and was in roughly the correct location. For such objects, I concluded the ID change was just administrative, and so could be updated safely. Given the nature of the changes (updating the ID and in some cases changing the name to the official name supplied by the school to the DfE) I felt this was sufficient verification for each change. (The currently remaining entries in the table above are the ones I rejected in my initial pass as needing a fuller investigation before making any changes. I haven't got round to looking into those yet.)

Well spotted! Yes, it should have been thanks. I've now fixed it. (It was a 'repeat tags' error using potlatch. I noticed it on another way, and thought I only had one to fix. I must have missed that one.)

Given the position of node/1766526044 I wonder if it is supposed to be a post box (rather than a post office).

If it is a Post Office, then should it be located on the other side of one of the roads?

Three ways way/545809287 way/545809288 and way/545809289 created in this changeset have been tegged as designation=public_footpath .

But they don't appear to be recorded as such in the official council data: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/norfolk/south-norfolk/ditchingham/ . Are you sure this route is actually a Public Footpath, rather than e.g. just being a footway with the highway boundary of the road?

Oops -- I didn't notice that. To be fair though the place=town, name=Wallasey had already been destroyed by the previous edit. Anyway, I've now restored the node in question to its prior state: node/26703036 Thanks for spotting this.

I think you've mis-pasted the addr:postcode value into way/543125303 ...

Hi, I've just noticed that on the Post Box object at node/5217230757 you tagged it with collection_times=Royal Mail as well as operator=Royal Mail. Did you mean to put something different for the collection_times?

Hi! Could I ask where you got the addr:portcode value of "PO180J1" for way/539245375 from? The final three characters of a postcode should be a number followed by two letters. But the 1 you have can't be a typo for an I, as I's aren't allowed in the final two places either.

Yes Rjw62 on the wiki is me. I wouldn't take the wiki as gospel -- it's as much to document current practice as it is to set out guidelines. In particular, there appears to be little information there about how or why highway=no is marked as deprecated. From what is on the wiki, I would suspect that its presence in the list is really to deprecate the (IMO clearly incorrect) use of highway=no to indicated a physical highway over which access is forbidden -- which is (IMO) correctly tagged instead as highway=* + access=no. But that's not what I've used it for.

I think historic:highway would be useful to record what type of highway used to be there in the past, but I don't see it as a replacement for a mechanism to record that there is no highway there now. For instance, you might want to use historic:highway=primary + highway=service for the typical oxbow laybys that you get next to main roads that have been straightened. So the presence of a historic:highway=* tag and the absense of a highway=* tag would just be an indication that the current highway type has yet to be determined.

Are you sure the postcode is correct on way/532684269 and way/532685134 ? According to Code-Point Open there are no postcodes starting "TD11 5".

Are you sure the postcodes on node/5161224522 and node/5161224521 are correct? According to Code-Point Open, EH4 8AJ is located on Strathalmond Park about over 5km away.

I think you made a mistake editing way/520664349 in this changeset, as you've left it with addr:postcode=Eastbourne. Unfortunaetly, the neighbouring houses on each side have different postcodes, so you can't tell easliy which one this house should have.

Typo fixed thanks. That one is local to me, but I haven't tested it yet.

Yes, just a typo. Now fixed, thanks.

Where did you get the postcode for node/2444679163 from and are you sure it's correct?

According to Code-Point Open, "E17 7JH" is about 7km away in Walthamstow. This location is in the EN3 postal district.

There are actually quite a few other ways tagged with highway=no in the UK: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/highway=no

If the route available on the ground is significantly different (to the point where it would be clearly incorrect to gat either one as the other), then I think both should be recorded. If there's a route that's the definitive line, but there's no physical highway and the route is not used as a highway, then arguably you cannot tag it as highway=path or any of the other highway values.

Then the question is how to tag it. I would argue that we need a way to distinguish between a way that may or may not be a highway and hasn't yet been checked, and a way that has been checked and definitely isn't a (physical or used) highway. I think highway=no fits the bill perfectly here.

Some more suspect postcodes in this changeset I think (presumably the same software bug you mentioned before). According to Code-Point Open "NG16 2WX" is right for the Awsworth properties, but not for the ones in Swingate on Babbington Lane. But both sets have been marked: https://overpass-turbo.eu/?w=(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:%22addr:postcode%22=%22NG16%202WX%22)+in+UK&R

Code-Point Open suggests that the houses along Babbington Lane, should probably be "NG16 2PT", but I wouldn't want to add that to them all without some verification or local knowledge.

Yes, good spot, thanks. Now fixed.

I wondered that too, but NG16 2JP is in Kimberley, not Ashworth. So it's presumably not just a missing 6.

Are you sure about the postcode "BH21 2RP" that you've given to this row of Ashbury Cottages? According to Code-Point Open, this postcode is located about 5km away.

(Discrepancy found using http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postcodes/location-errors.cgi )