Thanks. I thought it was probably something like that.

There is a small cluster of buildings in this changeset around Ifield Drive with building:levels=w - was this a typo for building:levels=2 ?

For a road, or other object which doesn't have an address in the conventional sense, the postal_code tag which you've already used is more appropriate.

On roads, it's often truncated to just the postcode district (IG3). That's partly because it's what tends to be displayed on street name signs, but also because many roads have properties with different postcodes.

The addr:postcode tag on the road won't do any harm, but it's more useful when added to individual buildings. I realise that this is a new development, so it may be a while before there's suitable aerial imagery from which to trace them.

(Review requested)

Pedestrians are implicitly allowed on highway=cycleway ways in the UK, please see:
highway=cycleway#Foot_access_on_cycleways
and
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

If you wish to emphasise that it's a shared path, you could always add foot=yes (some might argue that it's technically redundant, but it's very common) and segregated=no.

Use of highway=path creates problems, as it requires explicit access tagging to work out which transport modes are actually allowed.

This was correctly tagged, as the track is clearly visible in aerial imagery and is on OS OpenMap Local. Adding access=private was correct (thanks), deleting the other tags, presumably in order to stop it rendering, is not.

Reverted in changeset/175468517

Changing access=private to access=no changes the meaning from "access only with explicit permission" to "no access for any transport mode", which is unlikely to be correct.

You can read the documentation for the access key here:
access=*

You also dragged part of the track onto a power line, which is why the editor warned you about crossing ways and disconnected highways.

Reverted in changeset/175468464

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If you use highway=footway instead of highway=path, you usually don't need to add access tags like bicycle=no or horse=no (unless they're explicitly signed).

There's a list of default access assumptions for highways in the UK on the wiki at
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

If the paths/footways are separately mapped pavements/sidewalks, it's also helpful to add footway=sidewalk, see
sidewalk=*#Separately_mapped_sidewalks

You inadvertently dragged a section of Campion Grange, which is why the editor displayed so many warnings.

Fixed in changeset/175424400

I realise that this edit was made a very long time ago, but would the un-gated and unadopted streets within the Four Oaks Park private estate now be better tagged as ownership=private + access=destination ?

Thanks for your reply. I've restored the pond (only) in changeset/175404206

Fixed in changeset/175176162

My apologies - I had added Austin Crescent to other buildings without an addr:street=* set in that block, then realised that it wasn't a safe assumption. The houses on Barcote Walk shouldn't have been included in that.

I'm pretty sure that I haven't removed any numbers. Happy to revert any street name changes lost from your SC changeset, I'll do it tomorrow.

The footways appear to be have names from OS Open Names, although as they don't have USRNs, it's hard to tell the extent.

I've found out how to fix this problem. Using "update selection" (Ctlr+Alt+U) in JOSM removes the action=modify attribute for features which haven't actually changed.

Many thanks for spotting and fixing this. An armchair mapper based outside the UK introduced this error ~7 months ago and it should have been spotted much sooner.

No, you caused a unit issue with the speed limit. UK speed limits are in mph and the unit needs to be explicitly specified as OSM's default is kph.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You have created a hotel POI near Brent Cross, London, UK, but given it an address in Chiang Mai, Thailand.

If the hotel is where you have added it, it needs to have its real physical/postal address in the UK. If it's in Chiang Mai, that's were the POI needs to be added.

Thanks. I'll leave the tags untouched until/unless a consensus develops.

There are probably some other objects which fall into the category of not being able to receive mail, but still having some sort of address to describe their location. Electricity substations, bus stops and postboxes might be cases where some data consumers could find it useful.

Thanks - updated in changeset/175072611

As these aren't addressable objects in the usual sense, might it be better to use postal_code=* rather than addr:postcode=* - or are there data consumers which rely on the latter?

@5bp I restored the POI which you added for Five Boroughs Pizza when I reverted the nodes you accidentally dragged in your previous edit.