I've also seen some power poles with two individual poles at base joining together to form an inverted V peak with the usual three-phrase carrier bar.

I'm not sure node/4500440105 counts as a power=portal. It has two wooden posts for extra strength but the current carrying cables connect at the top and not between the legs. power=portal wiki contains "If some cables are outside them, it's a h-frame tower and power=tower + design=h-frame should be used."

Ah, missed the typo! Yes, should be public_footpath in designation instead of public_footway. The Quiet Lanes map for North Norfolk used dashed lines for the links, but the marker posts on ground call them Quiet Lanes still.

Can spot the marker in Aug 2016 StreetView, but like a lot of them they have become rather overgrown or accident impacted since.

+quiet - it continues along Robinson’s Loke bridleway too.

It is actually one of the relatively few quiet lanes that happens to be cross-field. I only added the designation in from the point fairly inset where the quite lanes marker appeared on the SE end.

I do love snapping new solar installs on my walk surveys so I can add the module count where possible. On average each month 11,500 domestic panel installs/upgrade happen, around 4,000 heat pumps too.

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C-road classification does not necessarily equate tertiary in OSM, if only because their own grading is frequently outdated.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.