Good stuff. 106,340 domestic solar installs so far this year!

Will just point out at-grade "Internal turning lanes" from osm.wiki/Highway_link - specifically "They should be tagged with the _link classification of the highest classified road they connect to."

Trunk_link is also intended for channelised (physically separated by an obstruction) at-grade turning lanes connecting the through carriageways/through lanes. The road itself visually looks like significant infrastructure unlike a tertiary road. I'm well aware that council C-road classification does not necessarily equate tertiary in OSM, if only because their own grading is frequently outdated. Am curious what prompted you to make the change in the first place. Was there something beneficial? Such as navigation routing agent behaviours?

I don't get this. The road is within the A146 boundary. It should have the name of the parent road. It acts as a link from trunk to tertiary, therefore is a trunk_link, which it has been for the past 14 years. You made it tertiary (there is no official C ref), removed the name and the parent road reference.

While bitmac is technically a subtype of asphalt, its binder/filler additions make it distinct enough in my view given solvent permeability and non-recyclability compared to road hot-rolled asphalt. Longer lasting kinds are probably fine to do as you did here.

Thanks for correcting it.

Good spot. I didn't even know that was there!

(Well, opposite the one-way is what I meant)

Yes, but they all illegally cycle either way regardless.

No idea why generic 'sign' type of speed limit sign is favoured over 'numeric' to distinguish between single/dual national or zonal limits though.

It used to be, but seems sign is more popular as a value. It however is a 'correct' tag in the sense of OSM mappers are allowed to tag as they see fit. Nothing is forcing adherence to wiki of the moment. However, since there are only 6 instances of 'numeric' I don't mind changing in this instance.

Verging on vandalism actually.

Okay with bicycle=discouraged on the ground path, so have retagged as that with note to explain nature of path.

Tagging does not have be standardised, OpenStreetMappers are free to choose a suitable value and TagInfo will show the range of that. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Cyclists do use that line, even though they aren't meant to. I have changed the barrier to bicycle=dismount already.

No, that is not designated! It is a desire line. The council wish for cyclists to dismount and walk their bicycle through the barrier.

Oh, the place=suburb. I've moved the historical place name tag you deleted to that.

What was the place tag duplicating?

In the UK pedestrians are legally entitled to walk on all public roads unless signed otherwise, so there is no need to add the foot=yes tag as it is implicitly the case if ill-advised given sideway=no.

If you're going to explicit add pavements please make sure to amend the roads with sidewalk=both accordingly. The presence of pavements is already captured and general guidance is only to tag them if there if something separating them from the road curbside.

In simple terms, asphalt is normally used on road surface for longer wear/longevity, bitmac is usually what the pavements were and are patched up with. Best to ignore the render aesthetics and focus on the semantics. Asphalt itself isn't a generic term, it has a technical meaning. Which is why many say tarmac in the UK.