I wonder why you removed my note about Manor Road. You have not added any tags regarding access to it, so you removed relevant information. Years ago I had a friend who lived here & it was an unadopted road then, so it ought to have access=destination or access=private as a tag. As I havent visited for 20 years I cant do this myself.

Nice try, but it's in the wrong place: way/320358081#map=19/51.89439/1.48253.

People doing something as geeky as OpenStreetMap can't resist this sort of thing. It's been done before!

I'd put Premier as brand=Premier. It's a trading fascia owned by Booker Group (formerly a buying group IIRC). The shop is likely operated entirely by the folk behind the counter.

You might want to review if all these peaks are really peaks sometime :-)

Thanks for doing this, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I'm sure there are other changes on the High Street which I havent caught up with. Also Sports Bar on King Street has gone I believe. If you spot more it would be great if you can either put a note on the map or edit them directly.

If something has address info try and keep that info. usual way is either just delete the shop/amenity tag and replace with shop=vacant.

Glad you've not only highlighted problem but worked out how to fix it. For obvious reasons things like this are not stuck out in front of new editors.

One other thing which can be done with these relations is add wikipedia tags of form "wikipedia=en:Mazini Region". These get properly parsed on this website so one can click on them. Mainly this is useful in case other mappers want to check up on a place they're not familiar with: its not meant as dynamic way to look at wikipedia. There are other uses, search uses parameters based on wikipedia articles to weight importance of places & wikidata could be used for things like population.

Nice spot that this wasnt connected to Halifax Way. Must have edited a few times & not noticed.

Does the interpolation way 4-9 for The Cliff still make sense now that Rufford Court is a B&B. Dont think I have any pictures from this area from when I first surveyed it.

Just to add a welcome from another mapper in the Nottingham area. I think the houses N. of Carlton Hill have been added very recently. We've had more mappers living on W & S of city which has meant the buildings have appeared there first. Adding just addresses can be very helpful as these have to checked on the ground, particularly if at street corners as other numbers can then be interpolated. Houses can be drawn in from Aerial Imagery. Like will_p I'm not familiar with OpenMaps for IOS so can't help there.

I'm not sure about this. To board a train I have to enter the concourse on the LHS. Current routing along the additional footways allows entry at exit only points.

Or possibly amenity=post_depot (but parcel services do not handle post (yet!))

I think basically in the UK tagging them as post_office is not accurate. The minimum I would expect from a post office is to be able to buy stamps & send letters, packets & parcels through International Postal Union members.

I would suggest amenity=parcel_service

Mapillary images were used to determine the values of speed limit changes & Bing the position. Should have a colon not comma

It should, of course, be source:maxspeed=survey. It means that I have driven this road & noted changes in speed limit (rather than used other sources).

A quick point about the LA building import. There seem to be buildings with low height and small surface area tagged as building=residential + building:unit=2. My suspicion is that these are actually garages & that all buildings in a lot are getting the same tags. Might be worth checking. Some good egs. at junction of Crandell & West 2nd in this changeset.

Was completely mystified as to why the path to S of Rainbow didnt match my recollection, so v. glad about your changeset comment.

Is the diversion permanent?

I've changed B45 in the centre of Erback to highway=secondary. I've assumed that when you changed it to highway=service the former was what you intended.

Can I add again, the standards for admin_level assignment are clear (they were not in 2009 when this was added). You certainly should not have removed the existing relation.

The rule is tags on relation, lowest admin_level. In fact for Nottingham the highest level is 6 as it is a unitary authority without any districts (8) or parishes (10). The fact that boundary line data comes with unparished areas is more an artefact of the underlying GIS model.

Hi Alex, Please dont add (unparished) to names. It breaks all sort of things & Nottingham has never been called N* (unparished).

The fact that it is unparished merely means in OSM terms that there is no admin_level=10 relation within the relevant part of the authority. It is therefore readily captured by simple queries about what is within something else.

You seem to have set a negative width on footpath way/413746723. I imagine you meant something slightly different