actually, not from survey, from NLS - OS 1:1,250/1:2,500 National Grid maps, 1947-1963

thank-you, LateNightTone!

I'd suggest it's safe to remove this. If the hill is not really noticeable on the ground, and there is no local trigpoint or admissible source for the name, it can probably go.

I see you're in touch with the DG comments section. I note that user "ap" is confident that there is a hill, and the former trigpoint would tend to confirm this.

Hi there. The addition of this node Mill Hill (617339855), v1 in this changeset has attracted Diamon Geezer's attention. Can you recall more about your source?

https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2025/11/mill-hills.html

Another mystery solved!

Thanks! I ended up swapping some buildings around and THEN realised that I'd mess up the UPRN sequence, so I created a temporary tag to swap the UPRNs back. That one shouldn't have been uploaded. It's gone now per changeset/175104726. (Tagged survey, since I was past there last week and spotted the discrepancy)

It might be good to know when a top-level postcode is 'finished' so that missing UPRNs in that postcode can be hunted down.... is E15 'done' yet based on current map data and currently available UPRNs?

Makes sense, and thanks for the response.

In this changeset, several ways are reported (by OSMCha) as 'changed' but it's not clear what the change was - no tag or geometry mods are listed. The ways are: way/681862646 way/681862761 and way/681862654. Did the script somehow 'touch' these ways?

Hiya and welcome to OpenStreetmap. Hope you're having fun! Can I please ask about this changeset? You've removed the place-of-worship tag from the RC church on Arlington Road - is that what you meant to do? This would be the right thing to do if the building is still there, but people no longer worship there. (e.g. it's disused)

I see - so no matter what, it'll never go above 100 features considered. (only 88 changes were made here). So perhaps next time it's run on this area, number 42 will also be picked up?

Other gaps (non-exhaustive): 11-21 Osbourne Road; 12-14 Hampton Road; 33 Claremont Road 38-42 Claremont Road; etc. Easy to see here: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174234008

Generally looks good, and a few spot-checks didn't find any errors. But there are a few teeth missing in this smile. Why do you think (for example) - way/971379363 wasn't touched? (Many such cases) The outline is squarely within the cadastral, and the UPRN location is dead centre too (per https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ )

I dunno what went wrong there. Thanks for spotting it!

Reverted in changeset/174167859

Expect a reversion shortly

(my changeset message wasn't brilliant either)

addr:flat is a typo, it should have been addr:flats. I've always used addr:flats even if there was only one flat. I've not come across this addr:unit style for flats before. Thank you for explaining it.

I have a question about this changeset.

At number 60, you changed an addr:flats=1 to addr:unit=Flat 1; but left the addr:flats=5-12 in place (correcting my typo). But if addr:flats is correct for Flat 5, why should it be addr:unit=Flat 1 for Flat 1?

I don't think either style is wrong, but it was (an attempt at) consistent before this changeset, and now there's two styles.

It does make sense that a street is in a parking zone, whether or not there is somewhere to park on it. It might also be a good survey prompt. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Where you've added the parking zone tag (like in this changeset) should there always be a parking:[side]=* value? (Likely streetside). Take way/1432750640, for example - it has a parking zone tag, but nothing to say there is parking actually present.