Hi, please remember to add the relevant maxspeed:type tag when adding or changing maxspeed tags. Thanks!

Please see the wiki for the correct maxspeed:type tags osm.wiki/Key:maxspeed:type#United_Kingdom

Not sure, I just removed the outdated 'proposed' tags

I believed this area was unchanged due to the flyover, but as you wish

Just because barely anyone uses it in the other direction, it doesn't make it not oneway for a certain length. This situation occurs in many places, e.g. A74(M) J22, A303 West Amesbury, A34 East Ilsley, A55 J31 to name a few. Here it seems it was twoway to access a gate that has become abandoned over time. The twoway has not been revoked.

The ramp at Dowlais heading on the A465 towards Y Fenni is two way traffic for a short length - why have you reverted this?

Hi, please remember to add maxspeed:type tags when adding maxspeed tags. You can find the relevant ones to use on the wiki: osm.wiki/Key%3Amaxspeed%3Atype#United_Kingdom

I don't think this is the best way to tag this. Either maxspeed:variable or maxspeed:conditional, not both. Also, maxspeed:type relates to default speed limit, so should be GB:nsl_single if default is still 60.

Not really in my eyes, the reasoning for all this still seems ambiguous. Regardless, as I said, I am not going to argue further as no one is going to budge from their position, so I will oblige.

Then that needs to be made clearer.

If there is a consensus then it is not a very clear one - the wiki page states that either mapping technique is acceptable. Regardless, this is pointless for me to continue arguing with those who refuse to move from their positions, so I will move from mine.

I kept the dual carriageways here, I am not sure what you mean otherwise. In fact I even split Birmingham Road where there is a large traffic island fulling traffic onto the A38.

Hi, please remember to change the maxspeed:type tags when changing maxspeed tags

You are being incredibly rude, obstructive, and hypocritical, speaking of myself "forcing your standards" on an area, and then forcing your own "standards" yourself just because (I presume) you live here. You do not own any part of the map, as do I. And no, this road should not be mapped like this. Yes, despite the fact I disagree with the pointless and frankly ugly mapping of traffic islands as two separate ways, I have conceded on the one mapped in Llechryd as you might have seen. However here, no, the B4257 is not a dual carriageway and there are prolonged areas of centrelines between each of these small islands. It should not be mapped like this. It is frankly laughable that you suggest this is "borderline vandalism" after having already reverted several of my changesets entirely for single changes you think were wrong, despite the fact each had a multitude of other edits, fixes and tag updates.

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.