Indeed, which is why I opted for a reasonable self-made suffix in the hope that software displaying opening hours my be able to parse out the variants for the end-user to comprehend when they apply. Ideally it would all be exact, but real world and all.

Whenever the local operator determines essentially, as I was surprised to find they had changed on last survey. In this case, the season is what is commonly known as Christmas, but others could be Easter, New Year's Eve/Day, bank/public holidays, who knows.

That they do, but due to the government funding for the NDR the A1194 is actually funded and operator by the county council, so from their point of view not trunk. Much like the Western end of the NDR itself.

Have been for a quick drive with dash-cam to confirm and have updated using Esri imagery. Node removed too.

https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/major-projects-and-improvement-plans/norwich/city-centre-improvements/improvement-projects/recently-completed/hall-road

If you are sure that Hall Road is currently 30 mph then that will need revising as it is all 40 mph between the two roundabouts, and in that case the note node can be removed fully.

I'm not sure why you removed my note. It was beside Sandy Lane, that throughout lack of the 30 mph sign at junction with Hall Road will be interpreted by drivers as 40 mph initially, contradicted by the 30 mph sign at the southern end of Bessemer Road. So it is indeed likely a missing 30 mph road sign, that the council have yet to fix even after I told them years ago.

There's already a source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator for where the name came from. It's not an official council one, and OS' is indeed more a description than an actual signed name, but it's the nearest thing to a name for it in that case. Could add a signed=no tag perhaps.

It appears you changed official_ref but not source:official_ref, can you complete this please?

They were correct at time of authoring in those less common cases, and there are plenty of instances where the county council has what I consider outdated but legally defined uses of C-road where obviously things moved on, dual carriageways occurred, roads downgraded into paths etc. so they still technically have those references until the council renumbers, which seems to be a never-ending saga of non-happening.

I'm not quite sure that you understand the meaning of accuracy, as amalgamating has nothing to do with that, but being more specific with the key name potentially does (at the cost of repeating the primary key name and increasing length).

My point was about the lack of a wiki article. I added those references for most of Norfolk in the first instance, and had freedom to chose what I thought was the most sensible key name. I'm not sure how the database is any more accurate now than it was before, you've added nothing of new value other than easing a perceived issue with search/canonicalisation that I've already pointed out isn't a problem elsewhere. My critique of your key choice is in changeset/35989077. Aren't you meant to discuss this sort of mass edit in advance?

If you're going to batch change tagging nationally without the consent of authoring users based on a 3-year old thread among a few then I suggest you at least make a wiki page documenting your particular preferred key name, as surely not all C roads have been mapped nationally yet?

The re-use of "highway" in an alternative reference key name, when there's already a highway main key, seems a bit excess to me. These references after all are mostly issued and used by the main official provider, be that a transport authority or street name and numbering department of a city/county council. If there's more than one then the usual approach of ":provider" suffix would do. I'm not sure why the alternate name needs to be more precise, the valuable information is the identifier value itself. Of note, Nominatim doesn't index any of these key names (and said they wouldn't when asked), so search will likely seek keys ending in '_ref' I imagine.

Not sure what happened there, was uploaded in JOSM with title "Store closure (signs remain)" and source "survey".

The tag you wanted is "maxheight" with a value of "2.7" (default unit is metre). I don't know why you added an access=private tag, as that has since prevented pedestrian and vehicle routing through the gate.

Having taken a quick look at Street View I noticed a small sign from the south-bound direction, suggesting "Public Footpath" was tagged as though official, instead of the probable recommendation to avoid people crossing on the bridge asphalt there. I've removed those tags now.

I didn't add those tags, they were just copied to branched parts of new ways without history showing that fact. So I can't qualify the nature of public right of way. I suggest you add a map note.

Puzzling that, and rightly pointed out, so thanks. I've removed those curious tags from the two adjacent ways, given the existing speed limit is already 30 mph there (though due to change to 20 mph in April).

In this particular case, I accept the contracted form is acceptable as I can find no official alternate form. The short_name tag will help search agents still match with a full form query.