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

There are two forms of on-road cycle tracks under the Roads Acts. Where the line is continuous, the lane is dedicated to cyclists and vehicular traffic should not cross the line and enter the track. Where a broken line exists, the track although also dedicated to cyclists is only advisory to vehicular traffic which may enter if safe to do so. The continuous painted line is a clear legal separation between vehicular and cycle traffic. It is just a cheaper separation to a kerb or row of bollards.

East of Idrone Close are the private rear gardens of Coolamber Park where aerial photography indicated a continous boundary from no 35 to 38 Coolamber Park

I consider driveways are hyper-detail and only a small minority are tagged correctly. I also consider your allegation of map sabotage as potentially defamatory.
Most driveways are mapped very inaccurately. The tagging by default allows access to all; foot, motor vehicles, bicycles and horses. Usually there is just a node point at the end, but I’ve encountered them joined to buildings, walls and administrative boundaries. Unfortunately more are being constantly added. I do not add driveways myself. I edit them as private where I encounter them and I preserve the continuity of the dedicated pedestrian footpath where one exists. If no public footpath exists, I leave them linked to a road, but tagged as private. I disconnect them from buildings etc. where appropriate and add a ‘no exit’ tag to the end point.
Driveways are virtually all private rights of way. The private right of way usually extends only to the back of any footpath that exists. Footpaths where they exist or where provided with a development granted planning permission or directly by a public body like a local authority are public rights of way dedicated for pedestrian use only. The crossover between a driveway at the back of a footpath and the road carriageway still has a dedicated pedestrian priority right of way and there is only an easement to permit vehicles or others to cross. Pedestrians still have a dedicated right of way on a crossover that has precedence over all other users who must give way. This for the protection of pedestrians. Vehicles, cycles and horse owners have virtually no defence for any conflict or injury to pedestrians on a dedicated footpath. Footpaths are connected to the road network at marked and unmarked crosswalks, thus ensuring that there is connectivity in the map network [everywhere there is a dished kerb there is potentially an unmarked crosswalk]. It’s unfortunate that so much focus with OSM map edits reflects a vehicle centric prejudice, and not pedestrian safety considering they are more easily get killed by vehicles. OSM tagging seems to forget drivers are pedestrians whenever they get out of their vehicle, and most vehicles spend around 95% of their life parked.
A separate problem with driveways indicated as giving access to all is the implied infringement of private property rights. Printed Ordinance Survey maps in Ireland and the UK all carry a disclaimer that the indication of a route on a map cannot be taken as proof of the existence of any right of way (or access). This has arisen due to case law where maps were offered as evidence of a right of way and hence a public right of access, or an obligation of the state to maintain the right of way.
Rights of way in Ireland are created in common law by deeds of dedication. This requires both a grantor and a beneficiary to be identified and details to be recorded with property title deeds. The Planning and Roads legislation also address the establishment of rights of way and access which must be publicly declared.
My driveway is part of my private property and I would not welcome any map that implied a right of access for all to my property. No driveway in my estate is marked on OSM and there is no reported failure of GPS navigation as a result. Driveways though hyper detail, should be private, or permissive if the intention of the property owner is known. OSM does not have an unambiguous capacity to indicate by disclaimer that access shown may not in fact exist.
Footpaths are a very small part of the public realm where pedestrians have dedicated and exclusive priority and are entitled to be there in complete safety, segregated from vehicles, cycles and horses. It is at crossovers, marked or unmarked where a pedestrian needs to exercise caution. It is wrong that driveways should erode a dedicated pedestrian priority.

The Planning Authority prepared a naming scheme for the distributor roads in the 1980's that would have been later added to the County Road Schedule - then Dublin County Council, now Fingal County Council. These are generally the roads with no direct access so no or very few postal addresses. I think one of these roads should be Blackcourt Avenue, - Road Schedule for confirmation. Its unfortunate that Councils no not make county road schedules readily available to the public