I've replaced the Hours and Payments tags with ones which are more likely to be recognised by data consumers.

No, I certainly did not mean to do that, presumably a rather careless fat finger error. Undeleted in changeset #62776397

The ele=* tag used is for the height above sea level, I have changed this to level=1 (and updated the corresponding tag for Ekcovision) in changeset #62760693.
osm.wiki/Key:ele
osm.wiki/Key:level

Hi, many thanks for adding this to OSM.
There are a couple of tags which you have used which are not common tags (Hours and Payments), or are not quite in the format which data consumers might expect (addr:street).
Would you like some help fixing these?

Many thanks for checking! POI node #5909864846 at number 53 is probably Wolfpack (based on FHRS data). If Charles Auto is now Wolfpack, both POIs can probably be merged with the way.

For addresses in Rowden Park Gardens, Chingford Road, I wonder if having addr:street="Rowden Park Gardens, Chingford Road" with just the number in addr:housenumber=* might work better? I think this would better represent Rowden Park Gardens to data consumers as a subsidiary part of Chingford Road, particularly if that reflects what is on the street name signs. I've added addr:postcode etc. from FHRS for Corner Choice (node #4687208617), but kept your addr:* scheme unchanged.

It may be worth noting that fhrs:authority is not always irrelevant/redundant. There are about ~120 records in the FHRS Open Data where the authority is City of London Corporation, but not physically located within the City, presumably under Port of London jurisdiction in other matters (including ones in Gravesend and Sheerness).

Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for adding this to the map.
There doesn't really seem to be a good way to tag when dogs are allowed on beaches, although dog=yes should be OK for access all year round. My reading of the wiki page for leisure=dog_park is more for an area within a park etc. (and leisure_1=dog_park may not be picked up by data consumers). Perhaps it might be worth adding the tag website=https://www.torbay.gov.uk/leisure-sports-and-community/beaches/find-a-beach/babbacombe-beach/ as well, which might help people looking for dog-friendly beaches?
osm.wiki/Key:dog
osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Ddog_park

Thanks for adding this bar. Could you confirm whether this is "Wolfpack"/Wildman Project Ltd (for which an FHRS record exists) at 53 Lonsdale Road? Could you also confirm whether "Charles Auto" at this address is still trading?

Yes, I'm aware of that, the transient tags fhrs:rating and fhrs:inspectiondate have been removed from the 2 nodes in the changeset where they were included in error (4583062983 and 4583062985). Thanks for pointing this out.

Thanks for mapping all of these! I don't have the patience to make notes somewhere as crowded as that. I've used the FHRS tool to add some addresses and other metadata.

Thanks! - Although it was @yourealwaysbe who did the hard work of actually mapping the stores, I just used the FHRS tool to add metadata :-)

Thanks. I preferred to rely on what I could see on the ground, but it's reassuring that LB Newham's records agree.

There may be a caravan sites in and around Deal, but probably not in Gladstone Road, a narrow street of terraced housing near the town centre.

That would explain it, thanks for replying so quickly. Now added.

The contact:website URI for the Boots store near Mornington Crescent <http://www.boots.com/stores/5062-london-camden-high-street-nw1-0jh> works for me, so it seems odd that it appears to be broken or non-existent to you. Do you get a 4xx status or something else?

Thanks - it's perhaps not the most obvious tagging scheme and probably did look a lot like a typo.

The "Tags to use in combination" table in the wiki article for the key heritage at osm.wiki/Key:heritage#Tags_to_use_in_combination has:
heritage:operator=* xxx see table under abbreviation
and
xxx:inscription_date=* Date when the object was added to the preservation list

So no, this is the inscription date by Historic England (he) and its predecessors, not a generic inscription date. This is potentially slightly messy as there is some duplication/conflict for listed buildings in the UK ( osm.wiki/Key:listed_status ) where ref:he=* is duplicated by HE_ref=* and heritage:operator=he is replaced by heritage:operator="Historic England".

I suspect, although without any evidence for this, that the rationale for xxx:inscription_date=* may have been that an entity might be listed by more than one body e.g. a site could theoretically be both a Scheduled Ancient Monument in England and a World Heritage site, in which case it would have both an whc:inscription_date=* and an he:inscription_date=*.

I can find a reference for xxx:inscription_date=* in the wiki, when used in combination with heritage=* and heritage_operator=xxx, where xxx is the abbreviation for the operator, in this case he for Historic England - see osm.wiki/Key:heritage#Tags_to_use_in_combination

I cannot find a wiki entry for heritage:inscription_date and of its 6 occurrences in taginfo ( http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=heritage%3Ainscription_date ), 5 appear to be in this changeset.

The node representing "Vue Stratford City at Westfield" is in the wrong place (on the low-level DLR platform at Canning Town station), rather than within the bounds of Westfield Stratford City ( osm.org/way/130911408 ).