While checking for infill housing, garages and sheds, I am finding streets where only one driveway is plotted for a whole street or estate. Previously I deleted the solitary driveways I found on a street as I could see no reason why only one driveway had been plotted where many others existed, or why that particular single driveway was mapped. I was accused of vandalising the map for this. I therefore decided where I found only a single driveway plotted to plot all the rest on the street in the same way that the original single driveway was picked out to be plotted. If the original single driveway connected to the footpath only, I followed that initial established pattern for all driveways. If I found the original single driveway connected to both the road and footpath, I follow that pattern for the whole street. Where no driveway on a street had been plotted by anyone else, I do not start, adding any driveways, leaving those streets without driveways.
The paving in of an entire private amenity front garden for parking or any other use requires planning permission. This is because it has significant implications. The widening of a driveway entrance to access additional parking also requires planning permission. The paving in of a grass margin on the public footpath to access additional parking requires a licence from the Local Authority. The removal of a street tree to access additional parking also requires a licence from the Local Authority. It also brings about the elimination of public on-street parking space(s) in favour of private only parking. In some instances such private parking is then made available for rent where the Local Authority has imposed on-street parking restrictions or charges. It is difficult to establish however where commercial arrangements apply. I only plot such private parking where the entirety of the front garden has been paved over.
It seems compliance with a rigid orthodoxy established by persons unknown to me is required for contributing to OSM. No departure from this orthodoxy is to be tolerated and anyone who does is to be blocked and or silenced. I have regularly checked the OSM Inspector issues flagged by Pascal Neis’s OSM Quality assurance system for my contributions to OSM. I have a very low level of OSMI or Osmouse issues flagged against my contributions compared to others. Despite this none of the points I have made in the previous discussions I have engaged with have been given any consideration, instead I’ve received total dismissal of my points (in particular regarding (i) “dismount” for cyclists on a public footpath, and (ii)private additional parking in residential areas that can simultaneously reduce public parking availability and more than double private parking in residential areas. I therefore see no point in contributing further to OSM

While checking for infill housing, garages and sheds, I am finding streets where only one driveway is plotted for a whole street or estate. Previously I deleted the solitary driveways I found on a street as I could see no reason why only one driveway had been plotted where many others existed, or why that particular single driveway was mapped. I was accused of vandalising the map for this. I therefore decided where I found only a single driveway plotted to plot all the rest on the street in the same way that the original single driveway was picked out to be plotted. If the original single driveway connected to the footpath only, I followed that initial established pattern for all driveways. If I found the original single driveway connected to both the road and footpath, I follow that pattern for the whole street. Where no driveway on a street had been plotted by anyone else, I do not start, adding any driveways, leaving those streets without driveways.
The paving in of an entire private amenity front garden for parking or any other use requires planning permission. This is because it has significant implications. The widening of a driveway entrance to access additional parking also requires planning permission. The paving in of a grass margin on the public footpath to access additional parking requires a licence from the Local Authority. The removal of a street tree to access additional parking also requires a licence from the Local Authority. It also brings about the elimination of public on-street parking space(s) in favour of private only parking. In some instances such private parking is then made available for rent where the Local Authority has imposed on-street parking restrictions or charges. It is difficult to establish however where commercial arrangements apply. I only plot such private parking where the entirety of the front garden has been paved over.
As it seems compliance with a rigid orthodoxy established by persons unknown to me is required for contributing to OSM and no departure is to be tolerated and that none of the points I have made in the previous discussions I have engaged with have been given any merit, instead I’ve received total dismissal of my points (in particular regarding (i) “dismount” for cyclists on a public footpath, and (ii)private parking in residential areas that can simultaneously reduce public parking availability and more than double private parking in residential areas, I see no point in contributing further to OSM

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2964663,-6.4921866,3a,25.3y,41.89h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHzrrc_VWXKSQzBkp9QTe-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu - ""The Crescent"

Edited

Some dwellings only have a driveway where vehicles can park, while others have paved in the entire front garden to provide significant additional off-street parking. Could be a reflection of adult children gainfully employed owning vehicles and still living with older generation longer than previously or the provision of additional off-street parking for short-term letting or for rent

Mapping no exit from a turning circle is an alternative to tagging the turning circle with a kerb edge, the kerb height and the presence, if any, of a grass margin service wayleave between the kerb and a footpath

The gate blocks the private highway, and if mapped along with a link to a the nearby public road would be flagged as a highway blockage. This highway represents less that 1% of similar private highways in this area a somewhat arbitrary addition to the network. Mapping all private highways and all gates / barriers is an option. The adjoining property has converted the entire front garden into what may be interpreted as 3 parking spaces - a parking lot, , but maybe one is a driveway and 2 adjoining parking bays. The property opposite is similar, 3 parking spaces, nothing else, accessed across a concrete footpath and kerb. Should not all driveways be mapped, along with their gates and any private parking bays installed? A nice challenge? Or maybe private domestic driveways and parking bays should be left out as is the case apparently with domestic garden paths.

I don't know why there is a kerb on the no exit node - I can delete it. way/494324129 is a private driveway and parking bay with a metal gate normaly closed with a latch separating it from a 1.2m wide footpath link to the nearby public house car park

Not exactly deliberate. I’ve noted that the https://hdyc.neis-one.org and https://osmstats.neis-one.org websites flag a level 3 issue of concern between a turning circle and a node on any way, be it a driveway, footpath or even steps. This disappears if a noexit node is placed by the turning circle. As https://hdyc.neis-one.org and https://osmstats.neis-one.org represent a measure of Quality assurance for OSM mapping, a lower level 3 issues of concern has merit.

"Access to all other modes of transport other than foot is implicitly "no", " is weak as "implicitly" falls well short of "no"

Footpaths are not roads/highways and roads/highways are not footpaths. There are road networks and there are pedestrian networks and they are different. I’ve tag footpaths being separate from roads as dedicated to pedestrian use / access, and no access to vehicles, and horses and where cyclists must dismount. For footpaths, access to all=No, AND pedestrian=dedicated and cyclists=dismount I feel is correct as footpaths are provided only for pedestrians to access and use. I have not encountered a single source of OSM orthodoxy agreed by everyone specifying only one way to do everything to which everyone must comply. It seems we must agree to disagree on this.

Footpaths are an important and separate network infrastructure, and are mostly separate from a road. They are dedicated rights of way only for pedestrians and other vulnerable users of the public realm. Footpaths and pedestrian areas are the only part of the public realm provided for the safety and enjoyment of vulnerable users of the public realm. Cyclists are not regarded as sufficiently vulnerable users for footpath access or use, they are required to dismount and be pedestrian. It is not legal to cycle on footpaths as it endangers pedestrians and other dedicated vulnerable users such as the disabled, babies in buggies, the young, elderly, visually impaired, the deaf or hard of hearing. That this is regularly not enforced is immaterial (it is of note that a Dublin Bus filmed driving on a footpath in Rathfarnham a few months ago was an item on the main RTE News). A separate cycle network exists and is currently being developed or retrofitted for cyclists; on-road, off-road or as shared pedestrian & cycle paths. It is somewhat arrogant to assume that deficiencies in the cycle network can be addressed by tagging the dedicated pedestrian network for cyclists and other users. The footpath network for pedestrians only is constantly being developed to ensure safe access to vulnerable users of the environment. It is of note that in 2022 one third of road traffic fatalities were pedestrians, both on footpaths and on roads where no footpath existed.
It has long been identified that a significant contributor to traffic congestion in urban areas it the perception that it is not safe for young children to walk anywhere, and in particular to school. It is also considered unsafe for young people to cycle similar journeys. Millions of euros and previously punts have been spent on a wide range of initiatives to promote alternatives to driving children to school and sport with little effect. Shared space initiatives in residential areas where no separate footpath was provided proved unpopular and is no longer proposed. Multi-annual budgets are allocated to retrofit pedestrian infrastructure enhancement to both extend the pedestrian network and to make pedestrian only footpaths easier and safer to use. Long straight through roads are converted to vehicular cul-decs where possible while maintaining pedestrian through traffic, i.e. foot only movement. Pedestrian only short cuts to public transport infrastructure are being opened up where possible. Various design guides are provided to developers to incorporate pedestrian routes separate from vehicular routes. OSM tagging permits tagging infrastructure provided in the public realm as dedicated for pedestrians only as the dedicated access for pedestrians, as it is pedestrians only who have the right of way there and all other traffic cannot use them and any non-pedestrian crossing a footpath must give way to pedestrians. Use by vehicles, cycles and horses is prohibited and therefore appropriately tagged = No. To emphasise the nature and importance of footpaths, they are usually constructed of a material different to a road, concrete, and separated from a road by a raised kerb. It’s similar to urban OSI maps at the 1:1000 scale where the kerbline for a footpath is shown as a continuous dotted line. Pedestrians in turn cannot walk on a motorway where footpaths are not provided. In some instances the separation of pedestrians on footpaths has to be reinforced by the erection of barriers and railings on kerb edges near schools, recreation facilities and heavily trafficked roads. This is because experience has shown that vehicles use the footpaths in some locations to drive on or as a parking space. Mapping footpaths is important both in indicating a separate pedestrian network required for their safety and the underground network of wayleaves, underground infrastructure as well as the public realm for vulnerable users of the public realm who need to be protected from motor traffic hazards. The mapping of footpaths also highlights deficiencies. Most pedestrian road traffic fatalities occur where footpaths do not exist. For footpaths, access to all=No, pedestrian=dedicated and cyclists=dismount I feel is correct as footpaths are provided only for pedestrians. How is it confusing that access to all is no because the access is Dedicated to pedestrians only? I’m stressing ‘Dedicated’ here and use the tag accordingly. Where no pedestrians are expected or allowed no footpaths are provided. There is a clear difference between a rural road where there is usually no footpath and access is available to all, and an urban street where a separate footpath is required, provided, differentiated, and dedicated for pedestrians only. It would be hard to imagine a safe urban environment without footpaths.

For a deaf pedestrian, a blind pedestrian, a mobility impaired pedestrian, an elderly pedestrian, a special needs pedestrian or a child pedestrian, walking distance does not trump safety. A pedestrian network separate from cyclist, vehicular or horse networks offers the best potential for safety and it is when avoidance of conflict, safety is perceived to be paramount rather than routing then use of such a network by all will grow. Pedestrian facilities are not perfect, but fortunately there is broad political and popular support to commit multi-annual funding to enhance the development of a separate and safer pedestrian network. A large component of this is the retrofitting in urban and suburban areas of dished kerbs and pedestrian cross-overs at junctions. This is a reflection of how in the past pedestrian need and safety was not properly considered and how this is now rapidly changing. I map these retrofitted crossovers. It’s unfortunate that many of the retrofitted crossovers are not signed or marked to highlight the separate pedestrian network being upgraded. Imagine if railway crossing of roads were not signed or marked. It is of note that in a few but growing number of instances where the pedestrian only space is inadequate and conflicts with the road space, the road space is reduced or given over exclusively to pedestrians only. It is also of note that the https://osmstats.neis-one.org website does not appear to flag any significant number of quality assurance issues regarding how I map and tag footpaths. I have not found any OSM orthodoxy on the only way to map and tag footpaths, so I suggest we agree to differ on this.

Footpaths are an important and separate network infrastructure as they are dedicated rights of way for pedestrians and other vulnerable users of the public realm. Footpaths and pedestrian areas are the only part of the public realm provided for the safety and enjoyment of vulnerable users of the public realm. Cyclists are not regarded as sufficiently vulnerable users for footpath access or use. It is not legal to cycle on footpaths as it endangers pedestrians and other dedicated vulnerable users such as the disabled, babies in buggies, the young, elderly, visually impaired, the deaf or hard of hearing. That this is regularly not enforced is immaterial (it is of note that a Dublin Bus filmed driving on a footpath in Rathfarnham a few months ago was an item on the main RTE News). A separate network exists and is currently being developed or retrofitted for cyclists; on-road, off-road or as shared pedestrian & cycle paths. It is somewhat arrogant to assume that deficiencies in the cycle network can be addressed by taking over the dedicated pedestrian network. The footpath network for pedestrians only is constantly being developed to ensure safe access to vulnerable users of the environment. It has long been identified that a significant contributor to traffic congestion in urban areas it the perception that it is not safe for young children to walk anywhere, and in particular to school. It is also considered unsafe for young people to cycle similar journeys. Millions of euros and previously punts have been spent on a wide range of initiatives to promote alternatives to driving children to school and sport with little effect. Shared space initiatives in residential areas where no separate footpath was provided proved unpopular and is no longer proposed. Multi-annual budgets are allocated to retrofit pedestrian infrastructure enhancement to make pedestrian only footpaths easier and safer to use. Long straight through roads are converted to vehicular cul-decs where possible while maintaining pedestrian through traffic. Pedestrian only short cuts to public transport infrastructure are being opened up where possible. Various design guides are provided to developers to incorporate pedestrian routes separate from vehicular routes. OSM tagging permits tagging infrastructure provided in the public realm as dedicated for pedestrians only as the dedicated access for pedestrians, as it is pedestrians only who have the right of way there and all other traffic crossing a footpath must give way. To emphasise the nature and importance of footpaths, they are usually constructed of a material different to a road, concrete, and separated from a road by a raised kerb. It’s similar to urban OSI maps at the 1:1000 scale where the kerbline for a footpath is shown as a continuous dotted line. Pedestrians in turn cannot walk on a motorway where footpaths are not provided. In some instances the separation of pedestrians on footpaths has to be reinforced by the erection of barriers and railings on kerb edges near schools, recreation facilities and heavily trafficked roads. Mapping footpaths is important both in indicating a separate pedestrian network required for their safety and the underground network of wayleaves, underground infrastructure as well as the public realm for vulnerable users of the public realm who need to be protected from motor traffic hazards. The mapping of footpaths also highlights deficiencies. Most pedestrian road traffic fatalities occur where footpaths do not exist. For footpaths, access to all=No I feel is correct as footpaths are provided only for pedestrians. How is it confusing that access to all is no because the access is Dedicated to pedestrians only? I’m stressing ‘Dedicated’ here and tag accordingly. Where no pedestrians are expected or allowed no footpaths are provided. There is a clear difference between a rural road where there is usually no footpath and access is available to all, and an urban street where a separate footpath is required, provided, and dedicated for pedestrians only. It would be hard to imagine a safe urban environment without footpaths.
In addition to the above, since the 1970s footpaths and soft verges where provided have played an increasing role in urban and suburban development. Developers are required to install underground services for water, sewage, electricity and ICT (including broadband) in accordance with specified vertical and lateral separation under soft verges where provided and under footpaths where soft verges are not provided. This is so that they can be easily located and accessed for repair or upgrade - hence the numerous covers and access points on footpaths. Only surface water drainage and service cross-overs are supposed to be located under roadways. Routing traffic off footpaths is important to protect underground service wayleaves as they are not designed for the weight of vehicular traffic.
As for navigation, footpath and road navigation needs to be separate and as far as possibly different so that the vulnerable users of the environment can safely use that part of the environment dedicated to their use Footpaths and kerbs are a distinct and important infrastructure with a clear purpose. They also form their own network different from a road network. Every mapper should realise that everyone is a pedestrian from when they get up until they lay down. Car users walk or run to and from their vehicles. Cyclists walk or run to and from their bikes. Infants and children are not allowed to control motor vehicles and are destined to be pedestrians. Pedestrians only walk or run and need their own safe network to enjoy and survive the experience
Kerbs are required and provided to separate a roadway from a footpath. They define the footpath. Sometimes kerbs have to be raised to ensure separation. Even further sometimes railings and bollards are provided on the kerb to ensure separation of pedestrians from all other users, cyclists, motor vehicles and horses – frequently near schools, recreation areas, pedestrian areas, and along busy roads.

The 3 relations at this stage could all be renamed as "Massey and Hellfire spur from Dublin Mountains Way" so its clear it is not part of the Dublin Mountains Way and goes through both Massey and Hellfire woods

They were once all part of the Dublin Mountains Way(DMW) but when the National Trails Office did not like a spur on a long distance route, several sections were renamed to distinguish it from the DMW. One was labelled the Massey Spur and the other the Hellfire spur. When they were later linked a composite label was applied, we have history and a succession of name changes here for what is a spur from the DMW through Massey estate and Hellfire wood

Footpaths are important as dedicated rights of way for pedestrians and other vulnerable users of the public realm. Footpaths and pedestrian areas are the only part of the public realm provided for the safety and enjoyment of vulnerable users of the public realm. It is not legal to use a mechanically propelled vehicle on a footpath. It is not legal to park on a footpath. It is not legal to cycle on footpaths as it endangers pedestrians and other dedicated vulnerable users such as the disabled, babies in buggies, the very young, elderly, visually impaired, the deaf or hard of hearing. Cyclists are not regarded as sufficiently vulnerable users for footpath access or use on a par with pedestrians unless the footpath has been specifically designed and dedicated for shared use whether segregated or not. Access for all tagging does not reflect this. There is too much attention to what vehicles can access a footpath. Every able body person is a pedestrian first and as such the most vulnerable user of the public realm. Other vulnerable users of the public realm can share the pedestrian space, but not at the cost of a vulnerability to pedestrians for whom footpaths are dedicated.
There is a language issue also. Footpaths, sidewalks, footways and paths have overlapping understandings around the globe because English is not a standardised as some think.
In addition to the above, footpaths and soft verges where provided have an important role in general infrastructure. Underground services for water, sewage, electricity and ICT (including broadband) are generally installed under footpaths in accordance with specified vertical and lateral separation. This is so that they can be easily located and accessed for repair or upgrade.
It is somewhat arrogant to assume that only a road network meets all routing needs.

I consider driveways are hyper-detail and only a very small minority are mapped. Either all driveways are should be consistently mapped or only those where there is some clear and unambiguous criteria present for mapping – otherwise their mapping is possibly either arbitrary, random or for some unknown reason selective. Most of the small minority mapped are however also mapped very inaccurately. The tagging by default allows access to all; foot, motor vehicles, bicycles and horses – indistinguishable from a public right of way road. Driveways are virtually all on private property, and are private rights of way under the full control of the owner. The private right of way usually extends to the back of any footpath. A deed of dedication created by the owner for public use of a driveway would be very rare, so it would be safer for access to be always tagged as private. The crossover between the driveway at the back of a footpath and the road carriageway still has a dedicated pedestrian priority and there is only an easement to cross and should be mapped and tagged accordingly. Also, usually there is just a node point at the end, but I’ve encountered them joined to buildings and overlapping buildings. I’ve encountered also driveways that from satellite imagery are clearly in rear gardens as paths. In addition by default driveways are assumed to be two way, implying equivalence with roadways, and speed limits are not generally set so they may not feature on some cycle maps. A separate problem with driveways indicated as giving access to all is the implied infringement of private property rights. Printed and on-line Ordinance Survey maps in Ireland and the UK all carry a disclaimer that the indication of a right of way on a map cannot be taken as proof of the existence of any right of way. OSM needs such a disclaimer, especially for driveways.
Given that driveways are connected to footpaths and that footpaths are connected to the road network at marked and unmarked crosswalks, there is connectivity in the OSM map network. It’s unfortunate that so much focus with map navigation is for drivers only and not the pedestrian who is far more vulnerable. All drivers are pedestrians whenever they get out of their vehicle, i.e. there are far more pedestrians than drivers in the community. It is somewhat arrogant to assume navigation for motor vehicle drivers covers the greater number of pedestrians in society.
I do not add driveways myself. I edit them as private where I encounter them, and link them to public footpaths where they exist. If no public footpath exists I leave them linked to a road. I disconnect them from buildings where appropriate, and add a no exit tag to the end point. The public footpath is a very small part of the public realm where pedestrians and vulnerable users of the public realm have dedicated priority use and are entitled to be there in complete safety from cycles, motor vehicles and horses, rather that negotiating a series of road junctions.

Since the 1970s footpaths and soft verges where provided have played an increasing role in urban and suburban development. Developers are required to install underground services for water, sewage, electricity and ICT (including broadband) in accordance with specified vertical and lateral separation under soft verges where provided and under footpaths where soft verges are not provided. This is so that they can be easily located and accessed for repair or upgrade - hence the numerous covers and access points on footpaths. Only surface water drainage and service cross-overs are supposed to be located under roadways. Keeping traffic and vehicles off footpaths is important to protect underground service wayleaves as they are not designed to carry the weight involved, and therefore no routing for vehicles should be implied. Footpaths are also equally important as dedicated rights of way for pedestrians and other vulnerable users of the public realm. Footpaths and pedestrian areas are the only part of the public realm provided for the safety and enjoyment of vulnerable users. It is somewhat arrogant to assume that only a road network meets all routing needs. Mapping footpaths is important both in indicating the underground network of wayleaves, underground infrastructure as well as the public realm for vulnerable users of the public realm who need to be protected from traffic hazards. This mapping also highlights deficiencies. Bicycles are not regarded as sufficiently vulnerable users for footpath access or use. A separate network of tracks and lanes are being provided or retrofitted. All local authorities are required to regularly survey their footpath network and remedy deficiencies identified within budget limitations. Cross-overs (both marked and unmarked), and dished/lowered kerbs are important parts of the footpath network.

I'd be happy for an expert to revert or rollback the changes in question and I'll not make any further edits to transport routes