Hi, I'm not sure what you were using to do the matching here, but something has gone a bit wrong.
e.g. node/306487035 which has fhrs:id=1473267 but should link to https://ratings.food.gov.uk/business/en-GB/1472655

There's something similar for a lot of objects in Cambridge, and not just in this changeset.

https://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhodot/?lat=52.20582&lon=0.12772&zoom=13&layer=fhrs

A lot of the red dots are from issues like this.

Using OSMCha these seem to be the changesets from that session, which include the affected elements (I'm not sure if every element is mismatched or not).
changeset/118673427
changeset/118565161
changeset/118565001
changeset/118315177
changeset/118314501
changeset/118276178
changeset/118275973

It seems odd for
way/1046011963/ to have a phone number tagged but no other feature tagged.

It probably needs a path adding in front of the houses, but it's not visible from aerial due to the trees

Somehow moved some objects, reverted in changeset/119034173

Comment should read "Change building=terrace with singular housenumber to building=house with house=terraced"

It sounds like you're saying that ABetterRoutePlanner is unaware of addr:housename, this sounds like a bug there and shouldn't be dealt with by duplicated tagging in OSM data.

I disagree with your point about name there, as it is still duplicating data.

I'm happy to disagree though

I'm not sure I understand what sort of situation you are referring to.

In my mind if a house has addr:housename but not addr:housenumber then nohousenumber=yes is implied

I don't think that having a duplicate name changes that at all

I'm not sure how you managed it, but in this and another changeset you had a non-printing character between the sections of the postcodes for a couple of places (S36 7JW and S36 7JY)
I've fixed them, but something to watch out for in future

No worries, I was browsing recent notes

See details here
https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/geographicalproducts/nationalstatisticsaddressproducts
Someone made a layer for JOSM, which is what I mostly use, I can probably find the info if you're interested

You marked way/529207530/
as a hotel, when it is a residential area.
If there is a hotel there then it should be mapped as its own separate building. (I have reverted it to residential area)

Also, see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments to let other people know what you are mapping and why

Plugin let me down, notes that ping here were actually resolved in changeset/118215333

Hi, see comments in these notes
note/3048286
note/3048291
note/3048289
Better to ensure that speed limits are mapped (they are) and tag the lack of pavement, cycleway and hard shoulder (they weren't, but I have now done so).
Fixed in changeset/118214991

The plugin let me down and didn't ping the right changeset.
Notes that are sent here were mostly resolved in changeset/118214154

You're welcome
I was using https://osm.mathmos.net/postboxes/osm-collection-times.html
to look for collection time issues and fixed all of the low hanging fruit

Watch out for collection times, there's a specific format that should be followed.

e..g you put "Mon - Fri 17:45; Sat 11:45"
But it should be "Mo-Fr 17:45; Sa 11:45"

I know it seems trivial but the tag is designed to be machine readable

Well, not undocumented any more.

Depends what you mean by 'norm', even before I made any changes, county was used more than either province or state in the UK (according to taginfo).
And we don't have either states or provinces in the UK anyway, obviously.

Surely the fix would be to document addr:county in English (it's already documented in Polish and Japanese) as it is widely used, both within the UK and other countries.
I have therefore done so: addr:county=*
Feel free to add detail to the page.

H, where did you get that postcode from?
I'm sure it should be LV, but also IV30 6QQ doesn't seem to exist

Hi, thanks for adding these, make sure you put spaces in the postcodes in future, I've fixed that here though.