May I ask what addr:number=1 on house 7 (Barn End) is supposed to signify?

Thank you for your response and updating it. Makes sense to add a note since the situation is a bit confusing.

Just to inform that I did split up the addr:city tag since it's not usual to have multiple names in it and county names are not used anymore for postal addresses. changeset/189421598

For way/786251526 (IGas Horndean C area) are we certain that the addr:street is officially "off B2149" and not just "B2149"?

Paper advertisement leaflet and the legal address in the website privacy policy points to Lagness Road, while FHRS seems to incorrectly list Pagham Road.

Forgot to mention I also added three buildings and adjust the parking aisle.

This is a rudimentary fix and likely needs further work.

It's hard to tell from current aerial imagery but I imagine the footpaths pass under building roofs or possibly building passages and so should be properly split and tagged.

These buildings were updated as residential usage based on local knowledge and aerial imagery.

If a building is tagged incorrectly after survey/evidence, please feel free to update.

These buildings were updated as residential usage based on local knowledge and aerial imagery.

If a building is tagged incorrectly after survey/evidence, please feel free to update.

I am also dubious about the source licensing of the data. This original changeset should include route outlines rather than requiring further edits to remove straight lines.

Overall I don't think this should be added without the discussion that an import would have due to the scale of the change and being an external data source.

An anonymous note nearby (note/5060431) mentions that it is "Clifton" and not "Clayton". The nearby settlement is also called "Clifton".

Can I confirm if the name is correct?

Confirming that private message was received to answer this question.

Hi Peter, this in reference to note (note/3873882).

Was the tagging of shop=builders_merchant explicit or would the more common tags of trade=building_supplies or shop=building_materials be suitable to tag the shop with?

Yes, it was. There is a bike stand there but it's not in any fit state to be used. Been that way for a long time.

I assume the disused lifecycle tag is still valid to use here.

Hi, would just like to question if this tree truly has a proper name that makes it unique?

Hi Pitsche, thanks for the comment since I was keeping an eye on them. Considering they undid a whole business that is actually there and sent me no message, I'll contact the DWG.

Hi Adam,
Just want to make you aware that I will revert/edit the change to the path not being straight as the aerial imagery for this area is out of date and seems to have been used to trace it.

I also don't think the traffic island is that big but I am too lazy to check tbqh.

Hi Dan, I've noticed you've added disused to several names and it's not usual for names to include that in their name, even if they become disused.

May I suggest adding the "disused:yes" key instead in future (since that's still useful to know regardless).

Hello, thank you for your feedback.

Unfortunately I was doing this as remote mapping so am not able to survey on the ground and was doing this as part of maproutlette task.

Personally I don't believe we should leave incorrect data for data consumers to use as reminders but rather utilise `check_date` and notes to call for a survey.

I understand the reasoning and in future will take the advice on board to add a note or fixme for a survey.

Wondering if it's worth deleting "Way: Link Enterprise Bognor Regis Link Road (877577681)" since it's now been proposed for over five years and doesn't look like there's going to be any immediate construction?

The public GPS traces seem to be for the road only and not too great but the OSM UK cadastrals seemed quite off.

Ideally would like a second pair of eyes to check over since this kind of breaks the guidance to keep all buildings "misaligned" to be fixed later when compared to the north and south west a bit.