I'd agree with the radio reports and the " at junction 47 (Allerton Park)" in the gov.uk press release (it is "at Allerton Park"). I'm not convinced the junction itself has a name though, especially not "Allerton Park Interchange", which a SABRE mapper renamed it to. For now I've removed that name from the roundabout roads and added "name:signed=no" to the junctions themselves, so that no-one is confused by directions that don't match non-existing on-road signage.

Re the A59 junction "Whole interchange needs updating to June 2022 upgrade, including traffic signals, additional lanes, 50mph speed limit", I've moved the fixme to a particularly problematic section at the southwest. Still needs adding, I'd struggle to do from do from memory - I always concentrate on getting in the right lane and allowing people who have got in the wrong lane to move across!

Fantasy mapping removed. See changeset/151534256

What was the source of the name here?

What was the source of the name here?

What was the source of the name on node/1561127/history ?

What was the source of the name on node/1561127/history ?

Source is local knowledge and driving up the A1M yesterday.

See osm.org/user_blocks/16066 .

See osm.org/user_blocks/16066 .

Thanks for adding the extra crossings. I've added them to the Wales Coast Path as well so that doesn't have gaps there:
relation/3285170#map=18/51.39883/-3.27742
Do you know how people are supposed to get across the road here:
relation/3285170#map=18/51.40884/-3.25143
Cheers,
Andy

No - it was definitely a multipolygon: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1LEQ .
Also, what does Lidar have to do with rendering OSM data? You might use Lidar as an imagery source, but that is it.

Hello,
Here you've deleted a multipolygon relation and replaced it with a single way way/1283786411 . What was the reason that you did that?
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

Just to add to the confusion, there's also "memorial:type"...

Thanks!

Thanks

The question you need to ask is, on a case by case basis, "is this a mistagging". In the case of something like "highway=pirmary" you can be reasonably sure that it's just a misspelling. In the case of a rare type of memorial you can't be sure unless you check other sources (like the IWM's picture, which I've now linked to the object)
Whether there's a wiki page is irrelevant.
Also if a tag is used by data consumers it is only common courtesy to let them know.

Thanks!

Looking at e.g. https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/930968280 , what was the previous "prow:ref" ("326/4") likely to have been? It wasn't the same as "prow_ref" ("Radley FP 4")?
Was it perhaps some internal council GIS thing that doesn't belong in OSM?

Hello,
You are tagfiddling again :)
Previously I used to separate out plaques from plates - you can see that at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/-25.00904/135.17758 . Tag changes should be discussed in the forum, especially if there are data consumers who are going to be affected - something that you can see at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/memorial=plate#projects .
On an individual basis it's certainly possible to argue that "plaque" is the better tag - this one is https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/44738 , and I'd have mapped that as a plaque to start with, but mass changes should be discussed - something that you seem to have trouble doing: @geozeisig/blocks .
Best Regards,
Andy