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.

Good spot, so I guess all that's needed is to revise motor_vehicle=no to vehicle=no, with the override more-specific exemptions for psv/bicycle and default UK foot=yes.

DfT "Know Your Traffic Signs" contains "Blue circles generally give a mandatory instruction,such as 'turn left', or indicate a route available only to particular classes of traffic, e.g. buses and cycles only" and "Blue rectangles are used for information signs except on motorways where blue is used for direction signs". Traffic can be understood to include pedestrians, though OED defines as vehicular.

In this case there's separate pavement provision and the sign 'only' implies all except listed mode types, which to me excludes pedestrians. I've been trying to find where in law it's okay for pedestrians to walk in bus lanes or in zones such as this. Am fine with tagging to law, just want to be certain about the legal interpretation.

The pavements are legal for pedestrians of course, but that split-section of road is not legally permitted to walk and has no pavement. The resolution could be to explicitly create a footpath/sidewalk for pedestrian routing while maintaining the correct legal restriction on the road ways.

So are you saying the legal sign bus and cycle blue instruction type means pedestrians are permitted? That seems risky considering it's a bus lane.