I see - so no matter what, it'll never go above 100 features considered. (only 88 changes were made here). So perhaps next time it's run on this area, number 42 will also be picked up?

Other gaps (non-exhaustive): 11-21 Osbourne Road; 12-14 Hampton Road; 33 Claremont Road 38-42 Claremont Road; etc. Easy to see here: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174234008

Generally looks good, and a few spot-checks didn't find any errors. But there are a few teeth missing in this smile. Why do you think (for example) - way/971379363 wasn't touched? (Many such cases) The outline is squarely within the cadastral, and the UPRN location is dead centre too (per https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ )

I dunno what went wrong there. Thanks for spotting it!

Reverted in changeset/174167859

Expect a reversion shortly

(my changeset message wasn't brilliant either)

addr:flat is a typo, it should have been addr:flats. I've always used addr:flats even if there was only one flat. I've not come across this addr:unit style for flats before. Thank you for explaining it.

I have a question about this changeset.

At number 60, you changed an addr:flats=1 to addr:unit=Flat 1; but left the addr:flats=5-12 in place (correcting my typo). But if addr:flats is correct for Flat 5, why should it be addr:unit=Flat 1 for Flat 1?

I don't think either style is wrong, but it was (an attempt at) consistent before this changeset, and now there's two styles.

It does make sense that a street is in a parking zone, whether or not there is somewhere to park on it. It might also be a good survey prompt. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Where you've added the parking zone tag (like in this changeset) should there always be a parking:[side]=* value? (Likely streetside). Take way/1432750640, for example - it has a parking zone tag, but nothing to say there is parking actually present.

There was a change recently to a wikipage dealing with this topic (URL follows) - does the step-by-step instructions happen to match your method? Or can you suggest an improvement on them?- osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Proposed_import_of_UK_postcodes_and_UPRNs_(England_%26_Wales)&diff=next&oldid=2881160

Good to know! Is the method documented anywhere? I'm asking because I've been adding lots of housenumbers just north of here, mainly from out-of-copyright NLS-hosted maps and from lots of direct in-person surveys for postwar buildings and edge cases. I've been adding postcodes to the centre-most building of each postcode only, from Code-point Open. (So once you hit E15 / E6 / E13 etc, you'll come across these entries.)

Happy to help, or to leave you to it!

Hi. In this changeset, you've added a lot of addr: postcode tags. What's your source for them?

Thanks for adding this, and welcome to OSM!

Thank you very much! It was the combination of disconnected sidewalks with sidewalk=separate on the main roadway that would trouble the routers. Happy to see that it's connected up again.

Also note that the westernmost end strays onto a construction site.

Hi there. In this changeset, you've added disconnected sidewalks. Please could you connect the ends of the sidewalks to routable ways?

Otherwise you've made it impossible for routers to use Rick Roberts Way for pedestrians.

If you routinely add sidewalks without joining them at the end, please stop, and go back and fix them.

Happy to discuss.

I'm familiar with JOSM, but less so with Level0. I have used it for one of my favourite changesets - The move of a statue from Euston Station to up near Middlesborough. With Level0 I could just punch in the ICBM coordinates.

oh dear, what a blunder. Hopefully Level0 meant you could fix this with a sort-of search/replace, rather than having to go object-by-object. Thank you!

I understand your point. I might reach out to previous editors on this one, I suspect that they may have created the separate stop areas to cover some detail of ticketting or responsibility between LU / DLR and C2C. But thank you for your response and explaining your (reasonable!) logic!

Good morning! In this changeset, you deleted three stop area relations - why was that? relation/7673063 relation/7772681 relation/9736740

You also renamed some items, back to "West Ham" from the more detailled names that local mappers had applied. Is that what you meant to do, and why?