Thank you, you are on the right track you are following a universally consistent format. It is difficult for editors when entering mobile numbers as the first digit following the mobile carrier prefix determines the format and not the number of digits that follow the prefix. Good thing we've got people like you aligning these to a standard format.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182199919

Thank you for the response and good to understand the logic driving the changes you've applied. Your results seem correct if following libphonenumber.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182199919

Hi, I am a bit confused of the logic you're applying to these corrections. In this edit as an example you've modified 64273583877 → +64 27 358 3877 which I agree. But then you've also modified +64 21 055 1884 → +64 210 551 884. This goes against the logic of the first example you've corrected, why not leave this second one alone as it's already correct?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182199919

All good, the single concrete footprint consists of two separate building structures with a single large roof canopy with a small gap between the structures as a walkway. I believe the building footprint is correct as well as the fact a path exists. If you want to adjust to better represent the situation feel free to do so

Lancaster Park Community Centre was built last year, opened just before xmas, it does exist, removing demolished tag