I was under the impression that some of the banks were called HBOS for a time (although actually I'm not sure that's correct now). Whether they were or not, on the basis of progressive enhancement, exposing some sort of name with the best available information from the current tagging is arguably better than none. (And exposing an old name more visibly will help with the "noticing" part to get things fixed.)

I didn't add a note as this is a relatively minor issue. If I added a note for every error or missing bit of data I came across, the map would be full of them, making them of little use to anyone! Also, notes will probably not be seen by data consumers and tool makers, whereas fixme's can be.

Hi,
This changeset seems to have left four neighbouring buildings all tagged as a Lloyds Bank:
way/506288610
way/506288622
way/506288620
way/240442862

I guessing that the right-most one is correct, and the others are an accidental copy-and-paste error. Any change you could take a look?

The NSI was fixed some time ago, but I they were changing the format they publish the output in and it took them some time to release a new version. I don't know if iD can accept their new format or not yet, but either way there's been an annoying hold-up between the two projects.

Hmmm, that site seems rather opaque over where it's data has come from, and it's not entirely clear how it can be re-used. Without further information, I'd say it's not an acceptable source for OpenStreetMap.

We are able to use Code-Point Open though, since it's released under the Open Government Licence. See osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData#Code-Point_Open

Hi! Could I ask where you got the postcode from for node/8586745658 ? According to Code-Point Open, NR34 9HT belongs to Bramley Rise in Beccles, which isn't the location of the node you added. See https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/NR/NR34/9/#9HT

Could you check the postcode of "KW17 2BB" for way/931591884 ?

According to the centroids in Code-Point Open, KW17 2BB is located on Sanday not Westray. Perhaps the postcode should be KW17 2DD instead. See https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/KW/KW17/2/#2BB and https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/KW/KW17/2/#2DD

Hi there. Are you sure that KW17 2TY is the correct postcode for Howabreck way/897701399 ? Code-Point Open locates that postcode 20km away on Gairsay: https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/KW/KW17/2/#2TY

Could you have a look at way/894413064 -- which you created in this change-set, and tagged with disused=building and amenity=place_of_worship. Is the building still in use as a church or not?

Also there's an additional amenity=place_of_worship node inside the building footprint node/2296331060 . That should be removed if the church is now represented as a way/area.

Many thanks.

Hi! Can you check way/887012993 . It looks like there was an unintentional copy-and paste of tags into the addr:postcode key. Could you check the rest of the tags are right on that object too? Is the building a set of 3 appartments called "The Rose and Crown"?

Yes, and there are about 3.6k uses of amenity=kindergarten in the UK: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/amenity=kindergarten

amenity=kindergarten seems clear enough, that it's the tag to use for what we'd typically call pre-school or nursery schools in the UK. While there's nothing on the page specifically about the UK situation, there's a pretty clear dividing line in our education system between nursery schools and institutions that offer compulsory primary education for age 4/5+.

Generally, I've found NCC's GIS data to be pretty good, and more reliable than their signage on the ground. So ordinarily I'd trust the GIS data to be a better representation of the official route on the Definitive Map.

But I had a closer look here, and the previous alignment matches a marked footpath on an historic OS 1:25k map. So I'm guessing the NCC data is incorrect here. (With no features to align to, it's perhaps understandable.) Thanks for the heads-up. I've restored the previous alignment.

I'm not sure how that happened, as I was looking at each one individually before fixing the tagging. I guess I must have missed the the two amenities being different there. I've checked all the other items in this changeset and they were fine. I've fixed that particular way. Thanks for spotting my mistake.

Certainly, there shouldn't be more than one object on the site tagged with shop=mall, since there is only one mall (shopping centre) there in reality. That was the main thing I was trying to address. Sorry if it's messed anything else up.

Oops, sorry if it did. It wasn't supposed to. This only objects that should have gone (I hope) were some of the pedestrian avenues, that I merged into one. There wasn't any different tagging on them, so there didn't seem any need to keep them as separate objects.

In this changeset you added the postcode of IV63 6XQ to way/97730742 .

Based on the location of the Postcode Centroid in Code-Point Open:https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/IV/IV63/6/#6XQ it seems unlikely that this is the correct postcode for the church. What source did you use for this, and do you think it might be wrong?

Did you mean to tag node/8077882100 with both amenity=recycling and shop=funeral_directors ?

Could you have a look at node/7902557559 please?

I believe that this restaurant is not located where you have placed the node. There appears to be an error in the address: it should be "Lindfield", not "Lingfield", as you can see from the postcode: https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/RH/RH16/2/#2HH

Given this error and the fact that there are no house numbers already mapped on Lingfield High Street, I'm curious as to how you worked out that the location should be precisely at osm.org/?mlat=51.17432&mlon=-0.01692#map=18/51.17432/-0.01692 . Did you use some sort of geo-coding service to obtain a location for "22 High Street Lingfield"?

Also, it would be better to add the restaurant's official website ( http://www.tamashalindfield.co.uk/ in this case) rather than a page on a third-party ordering site.

In this cahngeset, I think you might have deleted the section of service road (driveway) linking osm.org/?mlat=52.07982&mlon=0.71814#map=19/52.07982/0.71814 and osm.org/?mlat=52.07927&mlon=0.71727#map=19/52.07927/0.71727 .

The route between these two points, looks from aerial imagery that it is some sort of track (though maybe not a driveway). It is also the route of a Public Footpath (Long Melford FP 26) so there should at least be a highway=footway linking the two points.

Do you have local knowledge or survey notes as to what is on the ground there? Or did you have some other reason for removing the service road? If there is a connecting route of some wort, it would be good if it could be mapped appropriately.

The website and postcode that you added to node/5577985238 in this changeset belong to a cafe in Peterchurch, Herefordshire. Presumably it's not the same place as this one in Edgeware, London.