Sorry for late reply, I've been away.
This changeset was based entirely on information from Code-Point Open and imagery. Parts of this building contained different postcodes. This method is prone to errors, especially when buildings have multiple addresses and boundaries are not clear.

Hi dzidek23, I have only added a postcode, which coincided with a CodePoint Open unit, and changed area=yes into building:part=yes. The way (osm.org/way/653532526/history) existed before.

Hi RAC_UK,

Do not revert your changes but also please wait a bit before changing more addresses. There are some community members in favour of the scheme you are using (with small modifications) and AFAIK proposals are being prepared.

Hi devonshire,

Any tips for adding postcodes from code-point open faster? I thought I am pretty efficient but this is a different league.

Best regards,
ndrw6

(I don't have an opinion on what conventions should we use, as long as it is clear and generally accepted)

I like an idea of mapping post towns in one form or another. Whether we like it or not, they form a part of an official address and they can be useful (e.g. when addressing isolated houses that don't seem to belong to any town or village). Perhaps instead of using tags we should draw boundaries?

By the way, folks on #osm-gb advised it is OK to use addr:place for mapping names of smaller areas like business parks or campuses even if wiki says otherwise. Again, I am not sure if that qualifies as a consensus but it seems reasonable.

Hi RAC_UK,

I've been previously told this is not how addr:place should be used. It is a replacement for addr:street for villages that have no street names and are instead addressed by the village name itself.

Also, I am not at all sure what are we supposed to tag as addr:city. Towns? If so, what do we call a town? Post towns? Not a bad idea, especially in combination with post codes but it would often require a lower level place name, like addr:place you used in your changeset.

I think that's a material for a broader discussion. As far as I know, current consensus is: addr:place are very rare in the UK, addr:city are for town names but naming criteria are unclear.

Regards,
ndrw6

Yes, these are just code centroids. I have no data for the remaining postcodes. Sometimes they can be guessed/extrapolated from street names and centroids but in general local knowledge is needed to do it correctly and legally.

At present, our coverage of unique code points is pretty poor (currently stands at 11%) so adding even one object per code point has a value in itself.

BTW, nice work in Wellingborough. Try this map paint style to see the postcodes more clearly.
https://pastebin.com/raw/RxKNky3E

Hi, the bottom left roundabout junctions are still shown as under construction, is that an omission or are these junctions still blocked?

Thanks, I've fixed the highway tag. I meant to tag it as "unclassified" (I know, strange typo) like a nearby Lower Downs Slade road but I don't mind having them both changed to residential.

osm.org/way/638831350 is visible in Esri World Imagery. Code-Point Open has a postcode at that location, indicating there should be a building there. Sizes of both buildings look correct to me. The lower one is likely not rectangular but the imagery is not very clear there.

I'm afraid this feature has not yet been deployed on the osm website. Fortunately, the code is already in the repository: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/commit/5935bea3692e631dad4cb70dbdc33660105c7d00 and it should be included in a new release which is due on Friday: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3442

Thank you for doing that. Indeed the alignment of other objects is not great. Would it be possible for you go through them and fix the worst offenders? Roundabouts are the most important as they are often used as reference points.

Hi Mike, please align your imagery to gps traces before moving objects. For example, Marlow Road was previously aligned and is now shifted west. Some imagery sets (eg esri clarity) seem to be better aligned by default.

I like to keep building and company names separate, unless they are strongly tied to each other - my personal preference, others may disagree. In the past office POIs were not rendered so people worked it around by naming buildings after companies occupying them. In this case both conventions overlap, so I am OK with your solution.

Reverted in #62668940.

Is this correct? There are already addresses (57-63) here, which seem to be consistent with other buildings.

Simply tagging them as access=private would do the job. If there are any gates or barriers they could be added too. Pretty much all routing software is aware of them, otherwise it would be unusable.

Hi Samuel, was there anything wrong with these roads? If they're private simply tag them as such, don't delete them.

Hi, thank you for doing this. For this kind of work (changing tags of multiple objects at once, copying tags from one object to another, e.g. address to house, splitting buildings into parts) I strongly recommend you to look into JOSM. It's less intuitive but it makes certain tasks much easier than iD.

Is Owlstone Medical Ltd an owner and a sole occupant of these buildings? Otherwise it is IMHO better to keep the building and the company separate.

Is this really a service road? There are some properties visible on aerials. Perhaps setting a width tag would be a better choice.