Original building postcode added by me in June 2011. No surprise to see Robert Whittaker adding them to the closed way in May 2019. I just don't believe Royal Mail would ever be all that happy about their postcodes ending up on things other than deliverable units (typically buildings).

Don't addr:postcode and addr:street belong on the building as part of deliverable address? They're already there, but are now duplicated.

I suspect the 130 may have some from the OS OpenData used as source for the original import, or the original author was European in mindset ;)

The surrounding road speed limit just hasn't been added yet. Being highway=unclassified the author may have assumed the UK default national 60 mph may have been understood, instead of explicitly adding it in at the time.

You're within rights to change the bridge to "60 mph" if you wish, as that's a closer match to the actual legal limit than 130 km/h.

The publicly maintained section of road with speed limit is to where the asphalt changes type to privately-owned developer build. Please restore maxspeed=none tag.

This maxspeed is not wrong either. 130 default interpretation is km/h, which it is for a national speed limit. A better correction would have been maxspeed="60 mph" and maxspeed:type="GB:nsl_single"

It was wrong to remove the unlimited speed here. This is a private, unadopted road with no signage and no enforceable limit. Only driving without due care/attention is prosecutable here.

Typo in earlier post of mine, meant SE one.

I suggest surface=brick_weave then, but find it surprising if you understood my reference to way/990768300

Isn't the SW one more a highway=path foot=yes surface=asphalt kind of thing, not a formal paved route?

From taginfo:
building + addr:postcode = 47.37%
amenity + addr:postcode = 2.24%
amenity + building = 0.54%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address
It's still rather building-centric in the definition there though. Largely since the posties needs to find the building where the mail is received, while people navigating mainly rely on postcode for locating the street.

Aren't addresses as used by Royal Mail assigned to deliverable building units though? So shouldn't that information be on the building itself, perhaps postal_code on the outline if necessary?

There's another tag postal_code that could be used, but addr:postcode is building-specific per UK Royal Mail deliverable addressing.

Please avoid adding addr:postcode to the school area when there's a building=school present with it already.

Re: maxheight=*?uselang=en-GB

The unit for maxheight isn't required as its default interpretation is in metres. The explicit unit 'm' is accepted if desired, but not 'meter', 'meters', 'metre' or 'metres'.

You can add POI tags directly to the building, so as to avoid two taggable things, resulting in the same mapping render outcome.

Please restore the addressing information you removed.

I found in RTRA 1984 Chapter 27, Traffic regulation orders outside Greater London may make order for facilitating: 1(c) "any class of traffic (including pedestrians)"

Norwich City council made a TRO at https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Norwich/Norwich-City-Council-Bowthorpe-Clover-Hill-Bus-Lanes-Traffic-Regulation-Order-2018.pdf but with statement "no person shall…drive or propel or cause to be driven or propelled any vehicle to enter or proceed".

Highways Code indeed doesn't feature the 'no pedestrians one', with disclaimer stating it only features the most common signs. Though it's there in DfT's know Your Traffic Signs, and is enforceable if desired by authority.

Also definitions from TSRGD 2016 Schedule 1 - Part 2: “bus lane” a traffic lane reserved for— (a) buses; and (b) where indicted on a sign, authorised vehicles, pedal cycles, solo motor cycles or taxis, plus:
“traffic lane” a part of the carriageway intended for use by vehicles travelling in a particular direction or reserved for use by vehicles of a particular type and separated from other parts of the carriageway by road markings

That's all sufficient to convince me that it is legal to walk there now. I'd still like pedestrian routing to prefer pavements or slightly longer routes to avoid, but that's a separate issue.

Re-reading that again though it is restricting route use to particular classes of vehicle, not necessarily exempting foot or horse-drawn carriage, say. TSRGD2016 Schedule 3 also headed "Upright signs that indicate regulatory requirements for moving traffic". So I remain unconvinced.