Is a choice, but suspect post and parcel couriers might prefer the address to resolve to a building than the boundary.

You appear to have drawn explicit footpath when the road already had sidewalk=left tag (e.g. Wendene south of roundabout). I've amended the sidewalk tag to value separate. The north-bound grass trod path could also be represented with verge=left tag on the road itself, as nothing physically separating it from road edge. Or a path=desire type.

It seems there was a public notice about the removal of the 3T limit:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240221181609/https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/-/media/norfolk/downloads/roads-and-transport/public-information-notices/bridgham-bridge-bridge-existing-3t-weight-limit-to-be-removed-updated-pin.pdf

Expecting usual use as before, but could add Map Note to request survey I suppose.

The Mapnik icon does look more Britishly appropriate, now that I've seen it.

They do sound very similar, even Wikipedia defines: “A beer garden (German: Biergarten) is an outdoor area in which beer and food are served, typically at shared tables shaded by trees.” Do the bar staff have to wear Austrian dresswear? Do the tables have to be a certain length? Must the trees be of a certain species?

These roads were mapped in 2020 as service driveway kind. Why did you change them to residential, for what is a cemetery surfaced access route?

The raised crossing and cyclists is something I have no problem with, as that is part of the roadway. It’s the narrow riser footpaths either side of Old Watton Road that shouldn’t be used, as they aren’t listed as cycle links. The city cycle streets map isn’t zoomed in enough to show such detail, but it would be sensible to route cyclists through the main road junction for increased visibility and reduced pedestrian contention.

Also this particular one is narrow, pedestrian width and inappropriate for shared use, opening out at 90 degree directly on to 20 mph traffic crossing unseen from the left having descended an incline.

Paved footpaths are by default not for cyclists. The one in question is not owned or maintained by the county council, per their GIS.

bicycle=dismount is acceptable, but it is clearly a privately owned footpath on the Spire grounds. They probably don’t mind and I don’t doubt cyclists have used it (such as the one with life-threatening injuries after collision with bus/Mini yesterday).

Why did you mark the footpath from the shared pavement of Tollgate Way to Old Watton Road as permitted for bicycles? The flush tactile paving and island and lack of paint/signs indicates this is a footpath only.

How come public right of way has been blocked off? Or is there just an unlocked gate that you are meant to open? Really access=no?

Why add ' Village Sign' suffix to man_made village_sign name nodes? It’s not verifiable on ground.

Have supercharged my S there for free a couple of times. The view from within the showroom outwards past the glass frontage is worth a look too.

Oh, seems it is another of those Americanisms that have made it into OSM tagging convention. However, can see why I queried since only one letter transition away from what they are commonly referred to here. Thanks for the background info.

Also sure this reads number plates and isn’t just a basic traffic counter?

Typo ALNR?

Norfolk County Council often have phrase-like names for obscure things such as short footpath links that I tag using official_name key. However, those are from official source, so description/note probably best from OSM mapper point of view.

Perhaps replace name=[value] with description=value then.

Why the square brackets in name tag value?