Thanks for correcting.

Glass, renowned for its opaqueness…

I doubt the pathways are actually asphalt (the hot-rolled kind). More probably they are bituminous Macadam (surface=bitmac).

The A11 is not a motorway, where such restrictions do exist.

Why do you think pedestrians are not legally permitted on dual carriageway?

That it does, but is all back on the legal limitation side and not the physical explicit lane tagging.

I could add detail about the alighting/loading meaning parking:both=lane is appropriate over parking:both=no for UK double yellow lines.

Loading can be banned by adding double yellow orthogonal paint to the kerb edge intermittently too. In London there are also double red lines, just to add to the mix.

In UK law it is 'waiting' that is not permitted, with exemption for alighting/picking-up passengers or cargo, typically of under 5 minute duration. So stopping and waiting is conditionally lawful.

Except the new scheme deliberately splits physical from legal. Previously just parking:lane:both=no_parking was sufficient. Motorways from rule 240 are generally prohibited from stopping or waiting, so parking:both=no would be fine now. Residentially though as above can actually wait on the double yellows for a bit.

The latest scheme is actually a little unclear as to what to do with double yellow lane edge lines. Is that parking:left=lane, or parking:left=no, since legal definition is because of the yellow paint, but physically remains possible to park briefly to alight/pick-up passengers/cargo. Opted for lane value.

Deprecated, yes am aware of that. Since relatively recently mapped will go back over and bring to the newer version.

node/1495520465 ended up in the Riverside car park within this edit. Perhaps move back to where it originally was, or delete it a temporary node?

The Lion Wood Nature Trail would be better mapped as a relation with the constituent ways and the related tags lifted to the relation itself. The actual paths through wood likely aren’t individually signed.

Wouldn’t shop=toys be more appropriate appropriate for plastic toys? Perhaps add material=plastic? The Eurocell Building Plastics Ltd company sells a full range of UPVC products to homeowners, specifiers & trade customers - so shop=plastic is not a bad fit, and doesn’t imply toys. The name also hints.

surface=bitmac, technically more appropriate than (hot-rolled concrete) asphalt, or just surface=paved if trying to show that these aren’t loose material.

Their degree-level courses are provided through UEA. So students may be studying at the college while undertaking a FE qualification.

The argument for St being an accepted alias of Saint is flawed in my view, from historical origins where brevity was valued in written materials, and in cartography from limited space. In a modern day database there's no reason to not store the full information property (i.e. a road named after a saint) then capture specific shortened form for similar render issues. Search works best on full forms, not making guesswork decisions from contractions/abbreviations.

Well, best you go and edit the name to that then, not "St. Leonards Road" like you did earlier.

You are clearly both in the other camp than those who adhere to osm.wiki/Naming_conventions

At least your council has an up-to-date list of roads. I’ve watched my own change the official prefixes of roads over time, progressively towards “Saint” then back towards “St”. It’s all a nonsense to change these back and forth so much. Computational just stick to the full expansion form and use short_name if you must capture the signage form.

Please do not abbreviate road names that mismatch the council official list of streets naming pattern either. The "St." contraction is clearly short form for "Saint" in any case. Perhaps you are one of those who map 'Example Rd.' or 'Mistake Ave.'

In normal language, perhaps. In computational tagging with defined values, change like this adds no value.