Looks like your editor changed "wheelchair=no" to "wheelchair=wheelchair-no" (I fixed that), and added a weird note (note/4243256).

You might want to open a bug (https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/issues) with some details about what you were doing.

I wouldn't have known an informal name, they must have mentioned "the lake" on the building somewhere. https://www.stjohnsthelake.ie/ uses "The Lake School, Kilkenny City" as a subtitle after "Saint John's Junior School". So I think it should move to alt_name rather than loc_name ? I'll resurvey this week, to be sure.

The `name:en` of way/488355770 seems wrong, should actually be in English.

Using Irish for the main `name` tag looks like the right choice according to note/4117571 ?

Care to weigh in on note/4061311 ?

Wondering about bus stop, see note/3821223 but maybe you had a better source than I had.

Sorry, I thought the node/way links were enough context, changeset is changeset/126361633

AFAIUI a turning circle implies [some kind of widening](highway=turning_circle) to make vehicle manoeuvres easier. There is nothing of the kind here.

In fact, this alleyway is hardly suitable for cars. Only a Micra with a skilled driver could hope to get there unscratched. I use it weekly and the only "motorized vehicles" I ever saw were electric scooters.

I had a look though the gate today, it's a concrete yard but I don't think a car is ever parked there. Not sure what the white shape on satellite was. Access an parking is easy at the front of the houses.

It could still make sense to micro-map these garden/backyard gates if we start mapping all the walls, but I don't think they'd deserve to connect to the highways.

The turning circle at node/1149070240 doesn't make sense, I assume it's a missedit, reverted.

Also removed way/1095419478 and associated gates, as these are just backyards with no vehicular use.

I use metric. Nice to meet you ;p I guess people interested in historical features like benchmarks are more likely to still think in imperial units.

But OSM as a database defaults to metric; conversion to old units can be done on the fly if needed. I'd say in an OSM context there are very few reasons to use non-metric, the only one I'm aware of in Ireland are old signposts, which should be vanishingly rare nowadays.

Hi !

Is there a reason for the non-metric units for height and width ? JOSM validator complains about that. I could do the conversion, unless maybe benchmark types are named colloquially after their size in inches ?

Reverted by changeset/79304593 most riverside buildings are razed, there are big transformative plans for the area but they haven't materialized yet.

Clicked too fast, wrong changeset comment.

De-abbreviated church name, removed generic "st mary's church" wikipedia tag, added wikipedia tag to town.

Nicely done on that first changeset, hope you'll have fun making more :)

As a starter you might fix the housenumber on that building, it's probably not "Laragh" ;) It's ok if the house doesn't have a number at all : many in Ireland don't.

Not sure if "Laragh" corresponds to any other part of the address either ? I don't see a matching boundary nearby. Use the "query features" button on the right in the main website to find boundaries the house is in. None of those need to be tagged on the house itself : being geometrically inside it is enough.

Cheers.

The `ele` tag was apparently using the WGS84 referential, which the wrong referential for this tag according to osm wiki. Corrected to 925m as taken from the `ele:local` tag and original mointainview.ie source (now sure if mountainviews.ie changed its mind in using wgs84, or if the import was using the wrong value).

In case you're looking for it, the original node is node/332372493/history

Reported by note/2011005

Actually the 15 days old changeset/73072101 was when the error happened. I fixed it with changeset/73598091 and changeset/73598199 I just reapplied the tags on the latest version of the relation (membership changes and all). I wasn't sure at first how to proceed but the reverter plugin helped. Might be worth looking around in case you spot more issues.

Hum something went wrong here : relation/6045364/history Achill Island got turned into an islet, it's a member of a bare_rock MP... I was trying to do a quick coastline improvement and stumbled upon this. I'll investigate a bit to see if there is a clear fix, but I'd welcome your insight.

From garden center to B&B, that must have been a weird conversion :)

Is the garden center fully gone ? There's a very non-B&B-looking building on Bing/Digitalglobe imagery. Would be nice to trace the buildings, if you have time.

You've got a better grasp of it than I do, I'll let you edit to "Eir" if that's correct. I might photomap it tomorrow, this whole area could do with poi updates.

Don't really know, how would I check ? The shop front says "Eir", I thought these were all marketing names or subcompanies of "Eircom", but they're very hard to follow.

Fair enough that you can't spend too much time on each issue. I skip a lot of non-trivial issues myself.

But that relation will still show up on QA tools such as Jochen's or OSMI's checkers after you added a fixme, and IMHO the fixme tag doesn't make the issue more visible. I feel that fixme tags are much less likely to get attention than area errors or even a note, and I wouldn't add a fixme (or a note) to something that is already detected by automated tools.

But that's just me; if you think it's worth it, go ahead, there's nothing wrong with adding fixmes.

Moving the problem from one QA category to another doesn't seem that useful ? Arguably harmful in this case: I'd rather be able to look for old-style MPs than digging thru FIXMEs when I do fixup using QA tools, because FIXMEs are way too numerous and diverse for me to handle whereas MP problems are rarer and have a clear importance and fixup workflow.

I'm curious what QA tool you use that doesn't flag an old-style MP just because it has a fixme attached ? The fixme tag didn't change anything, the QA tool should still flag this as an old-style MP. For what it's worth, I found this flagged as old-style MP using OSMI Area QA tool.

Lastly, the fix was easy in this case: that relation simply needed to be deleted, it didn't represent any feature that wasn't already repersented.