Dragging building#1 has made building#2 non-square -- it would be better in the future if you could please adjust the offset for the imagery you are working with to fit existing content -- otherwise one has to move everything that's already drawn.

It'd be great if you could respond and fixup the issues -- or I can revert the changeset until it can be surveyed properly.

Looks like exit from "Redclife Street" onto "Victoria Street" is a one-way that suddenly becomes "motor_vehicle=no" -- going to end up with a lot of stuck cars there :-)

Just adding "motor_vehicle=no" will disallow all motorised vehicles (including buses, taxis, motorbikes, hgv's, etc).

I think the oneway change you've made could be wrong -- it already has oneway:bus=no ??

Not sure about the motor_vehicle=destination -- again that should affect buses, taxis -- and should probably depend on signage?

Just a quick question to check that there's no Ordnance Survey info in the map that you're copying from -- given that it has no copyright info and it's your first edit.

I've reverted this change:
1). I've surveyed this area
2). the turn restiction would mean no one could ever drive into the road
3). I think you have been looking at a sign that relates to the Gloucester Road/Shellmor Avenue junction which is the next turning and is mapped correctly.

I've removed the turn restriction -- there's nothing visible on Mapilary.

Tag the business addresses one way and the buildings the other way -- then at least someone searching will find a match whatever they are looking for?

Maybe add:unit="2" addr:housename="college square"? But if it's addr:street="Anchor Road" what housenumber is it on Anchor Road then?

Note: OSM has the pedestrian area next to tthe buildings also marked as College square.

I've put the housenumbers/street back -- it matches the FHRS address https://ratings.food.gov.uk/business/en-GB/1073792 -- it would be unusual to have a number as part of a housename, and "College Square" is well-marked.

Is the name still on the building?

Modified to cycleway:right -- thanks.

That's correct -- I was trying to say that when you just added "oneway=yes" it broke routing for cyclists.

https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=4a418b2d-d163-42dc-afc2-09b99fea097e&cp=51.461243~-2.507735&lvl=19&dir=155.23178&pi=-8.496526&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027 suggests it isn't one-way for cyclists?

I think using some only straight-on / only turn-left/right might simplify the restrictions.

The traffic lights on Bing streetside *mostly* seem to have "->" arrows in various directions.

Has a sign been added since last Bing Streetside?

If not, please don't add restrictions that aren't signposted.

A large segment of administrative boundary seems to be added to the South Bristol Way (osm.org/way/106446518#map=15/51.4335/-2.6318) was this intentional?

It's great that you reference your company website -- is there any discussion of this tagging on OSM mailing lists or on the OSM wiki -- if not I will remove the turn restriction since it isn't visible on the ground.

Area routing is not clearly defined in the wiki. There are at least two interpretations -- osm.wiki/AreasTab suggests that the area is freely routable -- osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Highways_as_Areas suggests that routing may only occur around the perimeter of the area.

Please don't do this unless you can guarantee all routers will route through pedestrian areas.

The start of the road (near Saint Johns Lane) is already marked as oneway - are you sure that the rest of the road is also oneway? Limits access to the service road significantly?