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?

If the service roads still exist you should probably leave them. They still seem to be visible on Maxar imagery. Are they really demolished?

M32 needs to be a bridge. You don’t need both a bridge and a tunnel.

Pretty sure that’s not a tunnel.

Surveyed a lot of Easter Compton since Oct-Jan - presume speed limits have changed now. Surprised by the "hgv=delivery" on osm.org/way/507558528

It might be a good idea to filter out boundary items, so that you won't edit them by accident.

I think leave it as it -- it may be a while before it opens -- 2023 at the earliest? -- https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/delays-reopening-portishead-railway-could-4071344

osm.org/way/168837750 looks like a prime candidate for deletion?

osm.org/way/111801084 seems to have less legal standing as a permissive bridleway than a public foopath -- maybe "foot=designated" might be appropriate?

You might find that ESRI clarity is probably more detailed than Bing -- at least for "old" buildings

Tried to fix it up - hopefully it's ok

My guess -- original building was too large -- so split and removed tags, but probably had both halves selected by accident.

Add it back and add a note, or just add a note? I'm not likely to be passing for a while and notes remind everyone, not just me :-)

You've removed the notes from all of the Bristol residential multipolygon -- it's a really bad idea to remove them -- it's a great help for novice mappers to understand that the ways are actually "in use" and not just "empty".

I wonder if the "Access Track" should be a "highway=track" -- and maybe remove the name if it's not named/signed as that?

If you can't buy a permit -- than it could be more like "motor_vehicle=private"

Great, thanks!

Nor at other end https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/VLfHTJH0ZvY2Fw4TD6dgNQ