Also see changesets listed below for some minor post-edit fixes (adding small missed sections, removing stubs, removing duplicate entries/correcting order):
177491370
177491435
177491497
177491591

Yep, I see the changes now which solve it, thank you!

That is principally what I was trying to get at, thanks!

Whilst that distinguishes the turn direction after a junction, it does not distinguish if the signs apply to the line to the west or the east, or both (as in, if they will be followed by a train on the western, eastern, or both lines, the lines being referred to as the ones before the junction).
Also, whilst it refers to the direction of travel (forward/backward), which can be inferred by a person, it is not possible for a data consumer to infer which direction the signs apply to and thus display that without the signs being attached to a track way.

Hi, I've noticed that on nodes 13175588681 and 13175588682 that you've removed fixmes without doing any changes to the nodes themselves. Could you please either change them as appropriate so that the line each sign refers to is clear, or explain why you removed them without changes?
Thank you!

*restricted byways

*restricted byways

*restricted byways

*restricted byways

*restricted byways

Hello, can I ask you as to why way/59419947 (path under London Road) was set back to a tunnel when it is a path under a bridge?

I was going to type out a long response but this is an issue to which I cannot be asked to deal with. I have shortened it thus.
Knocking through walls is an issue everywhere. This can be solved by editing the buildings as appropriate. Arguably address mapping would aid in the identification of such instances, as an address may disappear or change, thus prompting a change to the building area.
My adress interpolation is correct as of the date when the survey was taken.

My biggest issue with this however is in its undocumented nature. Perhaps you could update Exeters wiki page (osm.wiki/Exeter) to inform of, and explain this better?
I have fixed the supposed issues, thereby arguably worsening the map quality.
Bear in mind the only reason I have done this is that I cannot be bothered to argue with an illogical and unreasonable position.

Done!
If you notice something else like that, please reach out!

Thanks for noticing it though, I'll remove the address from RAF Chetwynd now.

I'm not local to the area, so the address seemed accurate (read later in message). When I went through the AIP, there were a few clearly incorrect addresses that I didn't add (mostly for sites that are just a field with a few small buildings). The AIP addresses are moreso for contacting, but generally appeared to be on the airfield/base. I didn't realise that they shared an address, in fact looking back at it, I'm not sure what I was thinking with the address, given that it's so clearly different.

Appears I missed that I had some changes in the top right - used LiDAR for new path.

Hello MOTORSTEP, this changeset seems to be making an edit without source, as if someone is trying to advertise their services. It is possible that you may have made a test edit by accident, or a mistake. I’ve decided to undo your edit for now, but if I am mistaken, could you please reach out to me.
Whilst you can’t use OpenStreetMap for advertising, if you would like to add your business location(s) to the map, please feel free to reach out to me, and I would be happy to help.

Follow on changeset to solve editing deltas and complete the tagging changes: 160998627

I've retagged this set of 2 ways as a planned road in changeset/160345086.

Edit to changeset/159937105.