I've asked on the SABRE forums before, and there was no consensus on 60 or 70, so I used my common sense of the roundabout being a single circulatory carriageway, therefore it's 60. If you want to settle this, I suggest again to make a discussion on the community forums, but I can't imagine it being correct for NSL roundabouts to be 60 or 70 simply depending on their connecting roads.

What is this "discussion" though, and what do you class as "their" road? I do believe there needs to be discussions about this on the community forum as there is clearly no existing consensus on this, or at least not based on actual evidence.

That's not a consensus. There are plenty of roundabouts in similar situations marked at 60 mph too I could argue similarly. Worth noting that motorway roundabouts are legally 70 mph due to their motorway status.

What consensus is that? Can you point me to the discussion that agreed on roundabouts being 70 mph?

Because slip roads branch from a dual carriageway, a roundabout breaks it.

On slip roads that may be true, but for roundabouts no. Funnily enough I tried asking National Highways the other day about speed limits on slip roads (60 or 70) and they basically said "it's national speed limit" (i.e. no answer. I would presume the same for this case, so we can only go on common sense here, in that it's a single circular carriageway, not part of the dual carriageway.

I refer you to the second word of that definition.

One of my recent big edits was removing a dual carriageway that didn't exist, that's not a "lower standard", that's making the geometry fit the road layout.

If you're referring to the road splitting at traffic islands at junctions, it is unnecessary complex geometry when the island can be represented by a tagged node. For more complex layouts or very large islands it makes sense to split the road, however in locations like this it's not worth it in my view.

It is a dead-end road, why should it be tertiary?

Roundabouts are single circulatory carriageways, not a dual carriageway.

Please update maxspeed:type tags when updating maxspeed tags

"GB:sign" is not a valid maxspeed:type tag

What source did you use for the names here? Wikipedia lists the village as "Cross Hands"

Do you think it would be better to tag "lit=no" in such cases?

Please change maxspeed:type tags when changing maxspeed tags

Well, without the lit tag it cannot be determined if the maxspeed:type=sign designation is correct, so it makes sense to remove this tag pending the addition of a lit tag before a maxspeed:type tag. From my experience it's more likely a lit tag is correct than a maxspeed:type tag on a 30mph road.

And yes, technically the road can be lit, with the streetlights further than 183m apart, and not be under a 30mph speed limit, however it is impossible to tell without measuring the gaps between street lights. Large distances are unlikely to also warrant a lit=yes tag anyway. There is a village near me that has a few street lights on a 30mph road, and yet there are repeater signs so it does not qualify as a restricted road, so that's one way of telling.

If there are no street lights then yes please do include the tag lit=no. From my experience it can't be assumed that the road is lit or not depending on the maxspeed:type=sign or maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_restricted tags, as there are so many erroneous applications of these tags out there.

This is not a dual carriageway, so "maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_dual" is incorrect

Hi, please remember to add relevant maxspeed:type tags when adding speed limits. See the wiki page for more info: osm.wiki/Key:maxspeed:type#United_Kingdom