What actual evidence is there that the two things called "RAF Digby Other Ranks Family Quarters" east and west of here are actually _named_ that (as opposed to it simply being a description of who lives there). If I have a dog kennel in the garden and a dog called "Spot" lives in it it doesn't mean that the kennel is called "Spot".

The same logic as note/314434 applies here - does this really have a _name_ of "RAF Digby Officers Family Quarters" or is this just a description of who lives here?

Do the two residential stretches of 2 Tháng 9 north and south of here join the main road? It's not immediately clear from the imagery.

Do either of the two identically named churches here node/3343935379/history and node/3343896520/history#map=17/5.40387/7.01119 actually exist? What about the road way/327580870/history ? The mapper who added those also added a couple of other implausible features (motorways), so it's possible that they may not exist at all.

If this really is a public_bridleway, it's probably a "bridleway" rather than a "footway". Also, it probably joins the road?

I'm guessing that node/1706257198 isn't really a "hunting stand" within the normal meaning of the term.

There seems to be a discrepancy between the designation on way/111513802/history ("public_footpath") and the changeset comment on changeset/28254518 ("Public Bridleway")?

Needs survey to check.

Is way/326788334 really not a oneway? It seems fairly unlikely that it isn't, but the parallel road is. A number of other roads nearby where also changed to "not oneway" at the same time, and a couple of nearby dual-carriageway roads were not added as oneway to start with. All could do with checking.

Somewhere here there's probably a cemetery. Someone had added the name "Cemetry" to relation/3353788 (which it clearly isn't) but presumably there's one somewhere; I'm guessing at the village end.

See changeset discussion comment on changeset/27882876

Is "locality" really the best way to tag way/338935213/history ? Sounds like some sort of landuse might be more appropriate.