You asked for a review, so here it is. This looks quite a simple and straight forward change. I can't see anything wrong. I like how you added many tags to the castle. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the local history could explain if it's exactly as you describe (e.g. There were things called "towerhouses" which are similar to, but the same as, castles.). *However* I don't think the tagging of heritage/archeology stuff is that advanced in Ireland, so I don't think it matters much now.

Thanks for adding things. 👍

You asked for a review, so here it is. I don't know if what you're adding is accurate (I'll take your word for it 😁), but I can give hints on how it's in OSM.

Mostly this is fine. You have glued the construction site to the RTE outline (at this node osm.org/node/5345151809#map=19/53.31714/-6.22889 ). It's a little strange to only attach it at *one* point. It can make sense to "glue" two areas together when they share an edge, but you need more than one node for that.

You've called the site "Cairn Homes site", and I wonder about including the word "site" in there? We know it's a (construction) site from `construction` tag. Should the name be just "Cairn Homes" instead?

You asked for a review, and from an OSM data perspective this looks fine. If that's the name, then that's the name. Maybe another local can confirm?

OK. It was only a teeny little segment. You can see it here: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=55527989

Feel free to recreate it

You asked for a review, so here it is.

One thing I'll say is that you've created a building within a building, which is wrong. There already is an outline for the building (57 Gardiner St.) ( osm.org/way/233487785 ). You've changing it to a single point building, so now there are 2 "buildings" there, one as a point the other with an area.

If this office really is gone, you can just delete the node.

You asked for a review, but I'm not really sure what could be wrong here. I don't know the area. But if there's a convience shop there, then this is all fine.

In your comment you talk about "health food shop", but you've added a convience. If you meant an actual health food shop, you can use `shop=health_food` osm.wiki/Tag:shop%3Dhealth_food

You asked for a review, so here it is.

Firstly I'm not sure what an adult playground is. And I'm curious. 🙂

Anyway, I don't think "name" is the proper place to put that data, since I presume that's not the actual name, right? It's a description of the thing, not the name of the thing. (Not everything has a name, that's OK!) You could put that text in the `description` tag.

There are some people using `min_age` and `max_age` for features, maybe that might be appropriate?

Are you sure this isn't a "fitness station"? ( osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dfitness_station ) they look kinda like playgrounds for adults. If you change the tag to that (instead of leisure=playground) it would be more accurate

You asked for a review, so here it is. This looks fine. You've impoved the map by changing an undescriptive name to a real name. Thanks. 👍

Hi! You added a way here ( osm.org/way/501806361#map=19/52.70627/-8.73282 ) but you didn't put any tags on it. I've deleted it now, to clean up. But maybe you should remap it with the correct attributes (path/track/etc)

You asked for a review, so here it is.

The only change you did here was add "(under renovation)" to the name of the hotel. Obviously to mark that it's under renovation!

So is that OK? I dunno. It's a little tricky. The name of the hotel has not changed to add "(under renovation)" to their name. They aren't putting brackets on their signs, and they aren't ordering new stationary and letterheads. So in some ways, it's wrong to change the *name* tag like this.

OTOH, how else are we supposed to mark that someone is closed down (even temporarily)? If the hotel is still operating as a hotel, just with some scaffolding or something, then you can just leave it as an amenity=hotel tag, and leave the name the way it was originally. Maybe put something in the `description` tag.

If the hotel is closed (temporarily), it might be better to use the original name, but delete the `amenity=hotel` tag. That tag is supposed to show that "you can turn up here and pay money and stay the night". If it's closed, you can't do that, so it's wrong to have that tag. It might look like a duck, but it doesn't walk like a duck and only sorta sounds like a duck. I think this is the best approach.

There are some proposals, in OSM, for how to add these "lifecycle" attributes, but I don't think they are widely supported.

Hello and welcome to OSM! I'm one of the OSM Ireland old hands. I notice you requested a review of this, so let's have a look.

This is mostly pretty good. Everyone in the world can see things from aerial imagery (we call it armchair mapping), but there are things you can't see from aerial imagery, and paths like you've added are one of them. For those things we *need* people on the ground mapping things. 🙂 So thanks for adding things like that! 👍 You've added more than the bare minimum, with the surface & rating.

*However*, there is 2 little things. (a) You've set the name to "forest walk" and (b) connected the forest o the N22.

(a) "name" in OSM can be weird. It can often be tempting to add the description of a thing as the name. But if it's just a description, then we don't put that in for the name. It's OK to just leave the name blank. We can see that it's a path, and that it's inside a forest.

(b) this is a little tricker, and probably just an honest mistake due to how the iD editor does things, but you'd attached the forest to the N22 at the point where the path goes from the road. Not a big mistake.

Just keep requesting a review, and people, incl me, will pick it up and look at it. 😁

Hi, you asked for a review, and this all looks good. Is there anything in particular that you're unsure about?

Hello! Welcome to OSM! You asked for a review, so here it is.

Here, you just added the `landuse=recreation_ground` tag to the park, which already has the `leisure=park` tag. But I'm not sure if `landuse=recreation_ground` fits here.

The Wiki documents that as "An open green space for general recreation, which often includes formal or informal pitches, nets and so on.", which doesn't sound like the same thing as a small, encosed urban park, which is what we have here.

The OSM tagging system is flexible, but *usually* there is only one "main" tag to say what kind of thing this is. In this case, leisure=park is that tag.

So I think it might be best to remove that, what do you think?

You asked for a review of this edit, so here it is.

I can see what you're trying to do, but I don't think what you've done is quite right. You've connected the post office to the way/area for the little retail zone. This sorta moved it outside the centra. It doesn't make sense to merge that POff with the area.

I think it would be better to put it back inside, perhaps behind the Centra, and add a `is_in` tag.

Hi, In this changeset, you added this little way ( osm.org/way/373701765 ) with a coastline tag. I think that's wrong? Coastlines can be tricky in OSM, and I think this might have been a mistake. I've deleted it.

Likewise this untagged way ( osm.org/way/373702115 )

Hi. You added a house here ( osm.org/way/483165329 ) with name="Luka's residence". That sounds more like a description? Is that the actual name of the building?

This is a weird, long and untagged way ( osm.org/way/384707302#map=12/51.6206/-9.3257 ). I presume that's a mistake and can be deleted?

Hi, you asked for a review. I think the only thing you did here was add the New Road to 3 different administrative relations? Is that what you intended? I don't think that's a right move, since it sorta makes 2 of the townlands invalid (geometrically). I can undo it if you want?

hello. I see you added a few ring forts. I've been using the historic=earthworks earthworks=rath tagging scheme. I've remapped all these using that, and I've also replaced them with circular ways, instead of point, because it's more accurate.

I'm glad to see someone else interested in mapping these things. :)