Yes I did alter it, and the road geometry there is correct. The spur off Swine Hill does not connect to Church Street. It obviously used to, but has been closed off. You can just about see the grass on Bing imagery.

No idea where that came from or what it was supposed to be. Everything was version #1 so now deleted. Thanks for spotting this.

Can you check the postcode you gave to way/658607527 as it doesn't appear to be located in the TW20 postal district. TW20 9PB appears to belong to a different Malt Hill at osm.org/?mlat=51.429777&mlon=-0.556472#map=18/51.42957/-0.55581 .

It looks like you've accidentally created two amenity=postbox nodes in this changeset: node/6269754946/history and node/6269754944/history . However, there are different collection times on them, and I don't know which is correct. Is there any chance you know what the times should be, and can delete the incorrect node?

For reference numbers on highways it's also very common to use XYZ_ref. For example, we have prow_ref, unsigned_ref, highway_ref and highway_authority_ref, ncn_ref, rcn_ref all in extensive use.

NSG stands for the "National Street Gazetteer". See https://www.geoplace.co.uk/streets/managing/what-is-the-nsg . The NSG reference number seems to be the only ID on non-road highways in Suffolk County Council's List of Streets (https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-adoption/streets-maintained-by-suffolk-county-council/), so I used that in the tagging.

So it's not a typo, but I don't know if there's a better tag for that particular type of reference number.

Thanks, I think you're right. On the DigitalGlobe-Premium imagery, you can see lots of red vehicles in the car park. I've updated way/15660773 accordingly.

This changeset added the Post Office node/5965080695 . But there is another amenity=post_office at way/15660773 which is only about 400m away. It's unlikely that both exist on the ground. Do you know if the other one has closed, or if it is incorrectly tagged?

This changeset added node node/5765582580 as a Post Office, but there was already another Post Office node less than 100m away at node/431997222 . It's unlikely that there are two Post Offices this close together, so which one is correct? Can the other one be removed?

I'd agree that official_ref=* isn't really specific enough. FWIW I've been using the shorter highway_ref=* for such official Road numbers where I've needed to add them (principally for what OS marks as ORPAs, once the official status as an unclassified highway has been confirmed via the List of Streets). The extra letters in highway_authority_ref don't seem to add much to me.

It would be unusual, but quite possible that a section of route is both an unclassified highway and a BOAT. Unfortunately, I don't think we have permission (yet) from Cambs CC to use information from their "List of Streets" in OSM.

In this changeset the postbox ahttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/761569560 has been given a ref=* value of "IP4 287]". The square bracket at the end is presumably incorrect. What should the box number actually be?

Hi, I see you've added a new Post Office at node/5591961557 . There's a pre-existing amenity=post_office node just down the street at node/1038727756 -- do you know if this one should be removed?

Given the tagging of the amenity=post_office in this changeset, do you know if the building opposite at way/86882593 (currently tagged as a Post Office) is now no longer a Post Office?

Hi. Are you sure that the address you added to way/571034326 is correct? Judging by the street name and postcode, that address should be somewhere around osm.org/?mlat=54.025830&mlon=-1.660514#map=16/54.0258/-1.6605&layers=N , which is over 25km away. Perhaps Harpers have another site there, and that's the address on their website.

Hi, I think you may have made a few typos in the postcodes in this (and possibly some other) changesets. My tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/location-errors.cgi#SO has flagged a number of SO21 postcodes in OSM as being a long way from their official centroid, and hence probably wrong. I've already fixed SO21 1BP -> SO21 2BP, SO21 2DD -> SO21 1DD and SO21 2DE -> SO21 1DE, but you might like to look at the rest. Another tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/pc-stats/SO/SO21/ may help you find the correct postcode for these cases.

The new Post Office node added in this changeset, doesn't appear on the official Post Office Branch list from February 2018 (see http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/progress/PO/ ). Can you confirm that there is indeed a new branch here, and also do you know if the nearby branch in the Co-Op at node/1502371678 is still open? Thanks.

Did you intend to add amenity=post_office to node/4524429840 in this changeset? There doesn't seem to be a branch there according to http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/progress/FY/ .

I see you've added a Post Office node node/5532669191 in the same building as Iceland and McColl's. Does this mean that the branch previously mapped at node/319630623 a few hundred metres away on Parkwood Precinct has now closed?

Is the branch you mapped http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/branch/22756 -- if so, you might like to add ref:pol_id=22756 to it to confirm the match.

Hi Chris,

Do you have any local knowledge in this area? I see that there are two post offices mapped almost opposite each other here: way/575041754 and node/319630623 . Presumably there is only one in reality.

Do you know which is correct and could you remove the other one from the map?