It's fine for me. I really didn't pay attention whether it was a bridge or culvert.

Hi, yes I did, it seemed strange without a watercourse and I don't remember them when I cycled through, but looking now on satellite images there is some small ditch, so there is at least a culvert. I don't mind if you make it a bridge.

Hi According to osm.wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom having C classification is not enough to map road as tertiary, "Generally used only on roads wide enough to allow two cars to pass safely where adequate road markings are in place".
For C references official_ref tag should be used to not render what is not visible on the road.

Sorry for that example

That's great, thank you. Unfortunately most often things can be either easy (like taging according to references) or more practical

Hi, what do you think is more important for OSM users: safety and travel time or reference numbers? What do you think about marking roads by Ordnance Survey maps according to width? How did you check that roads that are now tertiary are "wide enough to allow two cars to pass safely where adequate road markings are in place"? osm.wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom Do you think passing places are enough for it? Maybe I'm blind but from what to what towns or villages these narrow, slower and more dangerous roads carry through traffic way/38303288#map=14/55.59951/-2.81663 way/55414855 way/237116806#map=15/55.67264/-2.74970 ?

Hi, I think the source was OS map.