Thanks for your message.

I'd forgotten about these turn restrictions. The restrictions had been put in place before I made this edit, but seem to have been some sort of trial of additional traffic calming/diversion on the Lakewood bike route. There had been plastic bollards and signage about turn restrictions. The bollards are definitely gone, and I think the signage is gone too.

While there continues to be lots of other measures in place, this one seems to have been removed.

I've deleted the turn restrictions, and will inspect the intersection next time I am passing by, to see if any restrictions remain.

This one too: way/109684770

Another address error I've fixed on this building: way/102521333

I forgot to update the source field, it should be "survey".

This building (way/160290132) also contained an error, should have been 3 addresses, not one. I've fixed it.

This edit contains at least one error, this (way/309854489) building contained one address, when in fact it has 3 separate addresses. I've fixed it by moving the addresses to nodes.

Thanks for updating the node.

Another error in the address added to this building:

way/291869937

There are multiple addresses to this building, and they are already added to the nodes of the business's.

I mistakenly forgot to update Josm's source tag. I should have said "local knowledge"

Two more buildings with addressing errors in this changeset:

way/536535030

way/309857585

Thanks for seeing my note and changing the name of the plaza. To tell the truth I'd forgotten all about it.

Additionally a building (way/331422458) had an address tagged on the building outline, but in fact the building contained at least two addresses. I've fixed it, after doing a site survey.

I don't mean to give you a hard time, but this changeset also contains at least one error, with a single address for a building (way/309857586) that has multiple (at least 5) addresses. I've fixed it.

This one (way/160289773) too.

This edit also contains bad data, one building (way/309666268) that has multiple addresses, has only been tagged with one. I'll fix it.

This is another changeset, that contains bad data, in this case two buildings with the same address. One (way/309666268) was numbered 901, but a survey proved the correct address to be 909. I've fixed it, but it's all too common to find bad address data in your changesets.

Also, it'd be good to know the source of this data.

Unusual for Nepal, that is. The forest traces here are generally very well done, far better than India.

This looks like the name of a school, but is on a road. Can you please clarify if it is the name of a school or a road.

I'm wondering what the "Ezhammile Edakkad Thengamam Pazhakulam Road" (way/359734078) is based on. It is absent from the Bing and Esri imagery, and a note says it is absent from DGP images too. There is no GPS data available.

I'm putting up a note (note/1597839) recommending it be deleted, if more information is not available.

My edit 5 months ago seems to have mistakenly left two unclosed ways as part of the relation that contains pretty much all the wooded areas of North Pender. I think it had been rendering after that edit, but due to a technical change no longer was editing. My mistake caused no forests on N Pender to render. Sorry!

I think I've fixed the issue with this edit.