As an aside, a quick check of local POs in POL's branch finder finds the Sunday hours plausible (closed) 6/10 cases, maybe plausible (some daytime opening) in 2/10 and completely implausible in 2/10.

(prompted by an IRC conversation following changeset/123421872 )
On way/110265979 you've added "opening_hours:post_office=Mo-Su 06:00-23:00". Does that not strike you as a teensy bit unlikely? POL's branch finder page for it is https://www.postoffice.co.uk/branch-finder/3873498/bad-bargain-lane , but that also says "Please Note: Not all services are available outside of the dedicated Post Office operating hours. Please check with your local branch". Unfortunately it doesn't say what the "dedicated Post Office operating hours" actually are.
I'd expect that "opening_hours:post_office" should reflect "dedicated Post Office operating hours", not general shop opening hours (also opening_hours on a separate PO node).

Hello ConsPh,
Previously you've been asked to explain what sources you were using: http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=14718666 . Please do so here too.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello innovaden,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 9 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on node/2283890316 here. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK - and of course it'd be great to update it to whatever it is now, given that Fresh & Easy ceased to exist as a company several years ago.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello AKLAB,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 5 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on node/4933605394 here. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello TomesLaw,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 9 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on node/2232000240 here. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
As this is your business, "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Sorry, that should be "Hello thalyaface" - copy and paste error from a previous message!

Hello deldred,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 10 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on node/1622836795 here. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello deldred,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 8 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on node/2320263113 here. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello Nadeau,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 8 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on node/2561302571 here. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

你好霍華德cc1，
請不要將測試數據添加到 OpenStreetMap。 如果你想測試一下，請使用開發服務器。 有關更多詳細信息，請參閱 osm.wiki/Sandbox_for_editing#Experiment_with_the_API_(advanced)。
此致，
安迪

Hello howardcc1,
Please don't add test data to OpenStreetMap. If you want to test things out, please use the development server. See osm.wiki/Sandbox_for_editing#Experiment_with_the_API_(advanced) for more details.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I've remapped the gap in changeset/123395426 and added a bit more detail to the immediate area in changeset/123395629 .
There's lots more that can be done, including the "large not all grass fixme".
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I've remapped this in changeset/123395426 and added a bit more detail to the immediate area in changeset/123395629 .
There's lots more that can be done.
Best Regards,
Andy

If you are an organisation that has customers, you probably need to follow https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines .

Hello,
Who are you if you have "customers"?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello - I've filled in a gap in NCN422 here in osm.org/history - hope this is OK. Bother sides either side of it are route relation members, so I've assuming that this bit is too.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Just to let you know that I've connected up a gap in NCN1 here relation/9579#map=18/56.19986/-3.41796 in changeset/123333039 . The previous layout https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=123247480 had a bit of a "convenience link" across the (old?) car park that didn't match the recent imagery. Hopefully my link around the service roads is OK.
Best Regards,
Andy

As requested earlier, please use changeset comments that explain to other mappers what you have done. "675" does not do this.

Hello,
What change was actually made here? "a few tweaks" doesn't really help :)
For info, changeset/123170512 (the changeset before yours here) deleted a bit of the Jubilee Way. See https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=123170512 for info.
Best Regards,
Andy