Hi, it looks like you're doing a great job updating the area around here.

Just a quick note about phone numbers though, for compatibility, it's recommended to use international format, so replace the leading 0 with +44

See phone=* for more on this

I've fixed any I've found, including these recent ones here: changeset/172926617

Hi, it looks like you're doing a great job updating the area around here.
Just a quick note about phone numbers though, for compatibility, it's recommended to use international format, so replace the leading 0 with +44
See phone=* for more on this
I've fixed any I've found, including these recent ones here: changeset/172595217

Hi, it looks like you're doing a great job updating the area around here.
Just a quick note about phone numbers though, for compatibility, it's recommended to use international format, so replace the leading 0 with +44
See phone=* for more on this
I've fixed any I've found, including these recent ones here: changeset/172566425

I've fixed them here
changeset/172470112

Ah yes thanks for pointing that out. I thought I'd done something about that, it's definitely fixed in processing now and I've fixed all schools in the trust here: changeset/172345442

Hi, I know this is old but I'm looking at phone numbers, and there are a few round here that you've mapped with invalid numbers. It seems to be the same thing, where it's got two area codes, such as +44 131 1875 820350. Any idea what the correct number should be? Or maybe all such numbers should be removed and resurveyed?
e.g.
way/1075570746 and node/2737511318

Hi, thanks for adding and confirming these.
I was just looking at phone numbers and it seems you missed the area code (141) off some of the phone numbers here, for example: node/12140956381
I've fixed that and at least one other

Ah no, that check date was based off the update date of the official data. I meant to check if it was changing anything it shouldn't have done, I'll watch out for that in future.

I've reverted the check_date to what it was before

Hi, I don't recall the reason for the change of access. It could well have been a temporary closure, so feel free to revert it to being open

That appears to be an oversight on my part, maybe the interface wasn't clear enough about which Lincoln was being referred to. Maybe best to just remove it

You seem to have covered a huge area here.
I note way/1132974077 which I would definitely not describe as a track, having travelled on it myself.
Can I ask what led to these edits? As they do not seem to reflect how the highway tag is used for tracks and minor roads.

Should read "Add unit to maxspeed"

Hello, thanks for adding this. However, note that we need to include "mph" in the value. So it should be "20 mph", not just "20". I've fixed these, but just to let you know going forward.

Thank you, I have now been able to update it

Hello, I was wondering why the speed limit had changed here, as the tags were not matching. However your description does not help anyone know why you made the change

Can you check way/31060964/history
You added maxspeed=20 mph and source:maxspeed=GB:nsl_single (implying 60 mph)
The connecting roads are both 60 mph so I am not sure to change anything
Thanks

I have surveyed the location and added conditional access tagging, as anyone can go through at certain times, and no-one (other than emergency services and those with permits) at other times. So I think access:delivery=no is wrong

You may want to review the use of access:delivery=no on
node/292217732 now that I have updated the access tagging

See changeset/145000121 I have already commented, thank you

Thanks for fixing this, and sorry for changing the name in the first place, I should have spotted that name was not very sensible. Moving it to official name is good though, because then it won't get picked up again