This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/84100770 where the changeset comment is: Revert changeset/83959791 following consultation with mapper: Unlicensed source was used to add postbox ref=* tags.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/84100750 where the changeset comment is: Revert changeset/83959979 following consultation with mapper: Unlicensed source was used to add postbox ref=* tags.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/84100544 where the changeset comment is: Revert changeset/83898001 following consultation with mapper: Unlicensed source was used to add postbox ref=* tags.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/84100496 where the changeset comment is: Revert changeset/83840546 following consultation with mapper: Unlicensed source was used to add postbox ref=* tags.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/84099081 where the changeset comment is: Revert changeset/83755876 following consultation with mapper: Unlicensed source was used to add postbox ref=* tags.

In the UK, it should not be assumed that highway=footway implies foot=designated. The validator is incorrect if it is telling you to remove this tagging.

Can you check the address / location details for node/6945824248/history please? The postcode (GU35 9QE) and street (Woolmer Way) tagged on that object are actually located about 8km away at osm.org/?mlat=51.109790&mlon=-0.867069

In this changeset, the way way/628824513/history and way/552237665/history were tagged with designation=public_footpath and destination=public_footpath (possibly a typo) and source:designation=definitive_statement. Can you check this is correct, as I don't think that route does appear in the Definitive Statements at https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/out-and-about-in-norfolk/public-rights-of-way/map-and-statement-of-public-rights-of-way-in-norfolk/definitive-statements for either Dereham or Scarning.

highway=bicycle is not a recognised tag, but perhaps you are thinking of highway=cycleway instead? (See highway=* .)

However for way/327755843 it really needs a ground survey to determine what highway=* value is appropriate, depending on the physical condition on the ground and whether the route is physically accessible at the two ends.

highway=cycleway is very unlikely to be appropriate -- rural routes like this with no maintained surface will not be "cycleways" in any meaningful sense. If the route is accessible and appears either as a path or with little evidence of use, I'd probably use highway=bridleway . If there's a clear track (suitable for off-road vehicle use) then I'd use highway=track. If it is not accessible and there's no signs of any use, I'd use highway=no.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Is there a highway=bicycle way that you don't think should exist, or you want to use highway=bicycle on an existing way that is not tagged like that at the moment? Could you give a link to the way in question?

... Here we go: changeset/76086538

However, we do now have better Open Data about the routes of Public Rights of Way in Norfolk ( https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/norfolk/kings-lynn-west-norfolk/east-winch/ ), and part of the route has been mapped. So we can certainly make some improvements here...

I don't see why you would want to delete it, unless the route of East Winch RB 14 has been confirmed and mapped. The note there is still as valid as when it was written.

I'm afraid I can't shed any light on it, as the tags were already there before this. In my changeset I created way/703228515 from a spit of way/105885027 . Looking at the history of that way way/105885027/history it seems that the odd tag combination was added by wilbysuffolk in changeset/31773456 . It looks like you've already asked that user about the odd tags a couple of years ago, but never got a response.

Cancel that -- I see that you didn't actually add the number in the first place!

Could you check the house number on node/4623975698 ? 917 seems unlikely as the Post Office a few metres south is only number 78.

Yes, it looks like a typo in "addr" meant that the auto-completion I was expecting didn't happen. Now corrected to addr:village=Brundall.

So what tagging would you suggest instead then?

"HE" is "Historic England", the government body that maintains the list of listed buildings. I believe that HE_ref is documented in the Wiki for the listing number. By extrapolation, I've used HE_name=* for the name Historic England uses in the listing, where I thought it would be useful to have it recorded, and where there isn't another standard OSM tag that's suitable for it. So it's nothing to do with any operator.

I've added a bit more detail from a photo I took.