I'm not sure about the name change here:
osm.org/edit#map=19/54.518700/-1.502995
from
"Morton Park Beefeater"
to
"Morton Park"

The latter is the branch name used on the website, but the restaurant itself would be identified as the "Morton Park Beefeater". "Morton Park" is the name of the area, and so it is a bit confusing for the two to have the same name. The visible signage has just "Beefeater".

If the car park is open, why not tag this as amenity=parking?

That's not what permissive means. The original tagging was:
motor_vehicle = no
motor_vehicle:conditional = yes @ (19:00-7:00)
which encodes the 7-7 restriction correctly.

I will revert for now, but it probably needs further checking if the sign has changed.

Conditional access is a very advanced topic and one that has big effects on routers etc. Best to steer clear or ask unless you are 100% sure.

Please also respond to my separate changeset query about not:brand changes.

"motor_vehicle=permissive" only makes sense on a private-owned highway, whereas this is a public highway. Access restrictions are complex, so I think you need to explain how exactly the sign has changed.

I'm not clear why wikidata:brand = Q37158 was changed to
not:wikidata:brand
This is the brand:wikidata used to identify Starbucks locations, for example, in this tool:
https://osm.mathmos.net/chains/Q37158/

I was confused by the NSUL postcode later, which has 8DU for all the buildings. It makes sense to go with 8DS. Fixed.

I'm a bit concerned about this edit.

Most importantly, we are not allowed to use Ordnance Survey maps as a source for OSM.

Secondly, we use `highway=unclassified` for public roads (adopted highways), even if a single lane, rather than `highway=service` (I'm looking here as Roughley Bank).

I really think the changes based on OS maps should be reverted.

Do the addresses added to building perimeters in this changeset correspond to entrances? It would make sense to add entrance=yes to capture this.

These cemetery sections should be tagged using "cemetery=sector" rather than as individual cemeteries. Although not rendered in Carto, cemetery sectors are shown in the Tracestack rendering e.g.
note/758921#map=17/53.426959/-3.046314&layers=PN

I've been able to complete the Wall Trail thanks to an old leaflet I found at home + a survey. These routes (which date from the 1990s) are much decayed, and only work if you have the leaflets (which I can't find online) - they don't link to information panels en route. To be honest, I would delete the fragments of the other trails and leave them to rest in peace. Paul H.

Alec, I'm honestly not picking on your edits, but I'm changing the alley behind Stowell Street back to `highway=service` and adding `service=alley`. I was going past this today, and it is a horrible skanky alleyway and no way a `highway=pedestrian`. I would be very cautious about making changes to highway classifications based on imagery.

I agree that suitability for bicycles is not a deciding factor for the suitability of of highway=bridleway. But this isn't the question; the question is whether a multi-user path intended for pedestrians / cycles / horses / wheelchairs is best tagged as a bridleway.

The accusation of tagging for the renderer is unfair - this implies using incorrect tagging to get a specific effect. The original tagging (not mine) was not incorrect. CyclOSM has an easy job, since it ignores the horse access tags. The interpretation of tags by Carto is more relevant since it needs to consider them all.
Here `highway=path` + `bicycle=designated` is rendered as `highway=cycleway` THEN (as a lower priority) `highway=path` + `horse=designated` is rendered as a bridleway, whether a way is intended for bicycles is a key factor.

Anyway, we are clearly not going to agree, so I'll open an issue on the UK Community Discussion Board.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86

I agree with most of this but the definition of a bridleway is that it is primarily intended for use by horse riders, rather than just a way on which horse riding is allowed. Most UK bridleways are not suitable for riding a normal bike (not least because they often go through fords), but this is a multiuser path designed to be cycle friendly. For a map user, it is much more informative that this shows up as "cycleway blue" on the standard map rather than "bridleway green".

I don't think changing the Hawthorn-Ryhope way to `highway=bridleway` was correct. It is not legally a bridleway. It best described as a multi-user path:
https://www.durham.gov.uk/article/3691/Railway-paths
The previous tagging of `highway=path` with appropriate access tags looked fine to me.
You could also argue for `highway=cycleway` + `foot=yes` + `horse=yes`. Either way, I don't think `designated` is correct since these railway paths are not public rights of ways and Durham County Council could change the access arrangements.

I thought that was probably the case, but best to get local knowledge. Fixed!

I made some comments about weird double tagging on this changeset
changeset/167817988

For instance, `tourism=artwork` had been changed to `tourism=attraction;artwork` which is just wrong and shows a poor understanding of tagging. Do they not see that the retagged object disappears from the map?

I am tempted to bring this up for discussion in the UK discussion forum if I don't get a reply.

Similarly I would avoid this kind of double tagging `barrier=cattlegrid;gate`. Data consumers won't handle this and will ignore this. It is better to pick one. On a road, the most obvious is `barrier=cattlegrid`. You can add `note=Also 0.7 m gate`. Alternatively you can split the way to show a separate footway using a gate. But this gets messy. Retagged using the 1st option.

I wouldn't double tag the Entrust sculpture as `tourism=attraction;artwork`. Objects should have one primary key.
Retagging as `tourism=artwork` + `artwork_type=sculpture`

Thanks for the reference. But these dotted greens paths on the cycling map are labelled as "paths where you should walk your bike" (strange to include on a cycling map). I suspect it means "nobody will really mind if you cycle on these". Either way, I think they should be tagged as footways rather than cycleways.

Is this actually a cycleway? I couldn't see any signage to indicate this.
These isolated sections of cycleway around the roundabout don't make much sense.