Long story short, you don’t get to interpret the licensing intentions of rights holders. If a rights owner sues, which would be their right, it would be very bad for OSM. Furthermore, OSM data is routinely used commercially, as its licence permits. I urge you re-read the OSM documents on how to map, where these issues are all covered.

You appear to have overlooked the terms of use on the site you used: https://www.eircode.ie/legal

I draw your attention in particular to the text:

"You are permitted to browse this site and to reproduce extracts by way of printing, downloading to a hard disk and by distribution to other people but, in all cases, for non-commercial, informational and personal purposes only. No reproduction of any part of the site may be sold or distributed for commercial gain, nor shall it be modified or incorporated in any other work, publication or site. No other licence or right is granted."

The incorporate into OSM of content from other maps or data sets is only permitted where the data in question is published under a compatible licence. The owner of the Eircode database offers it under a particular commercial licence, and if you've taken the view that it is in the public domain then I have to suggest that your understanding of IP rights is not as solid as you claim.

I will be placing this matter into the hands of the Data Working Group, who will have the task of removing the offending data.

Where did this name come from? There is no sign nor any online reference to the name that doesn't come from OSM.

BTW, this Mapillary image shows that the R139 is signed from the exit to the (previously motorway) roundabout. And because it's not shown in parentheses, that indicates that the road you follow is already R139 (again, signs can often be wrong in Ireland, but this fits what we expect and it's one of the newest signs we have in the area). https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.41057080005979&lng=-6.225413883371175&z=18.23259127326142&pKey=1469265353413246&focus=photo

No, a motorway link is a road under motorway restrictions. These roads are not (though they used to be prior to the freeflowing of the M1/M50 junction).

The signage declaring the old Santry Bypass to be N1 was newly erected when it was downgraded from motorway status. Ignoring fossil signs is not the same as going with newly erected ones. For the record, I don't enjoy the fact that the paperwork is out of step with the ground truth, but OSM practice is to go with ground truth in cases of real ambiguity. Signs on the ground can be manifestly wrong or they can be outdated, and it's reasonable to overrule those. But the only reference we have ever seen to the existence of a non-motorway N50 section is in the document you mention. If N50 were the number, highway=trunk would still be correct. And it would leave us with an annoying bifurcation in that route, since N/M50 also runs through to the port in the tunnel.

Every road has a number. If you can find a better one, we can tag it. In addition, many of the legal documents are out of step with reality on the ground (see the other edit of yours that I just reverted). We have seen all these documents and done a lot of soul searching to make the most reasonable tagging decisions we can. The N52, which legally isn't supposed to exist north of Dunleer, has very new signs for it all over Dundalk and on the M1. This is Ireland and a lot of this stuff is sloppy. So again, numbered regional roads provide connections between higher road categories. R139 is there to strategically connect to the M50 and M1. I'm sure we can agree that its strategic purpose is _not_ to end a few hundred metres short of the motorways to terminate on an unclassified road. The status of the spur is troublesome to work out, but what's clear from the newest signs (those erected when the junction was freeflowed) is that the roundabout and spur road are no longer under motorway restrications (the spur previously was under restrictions, and I think that's why the legal docs describe the R139 as terminating on the spur). But now the spur is detrunked, the only reasonable classification is R139. And if it is to be classified as highway=secondary, it would need to be R-something.

Reverting this. If you have a more correct number, tag it. In the meantime, the R139 is a route that connects to the M50.

Although there is old paperwork declaring these roadways to be N50, all ground truth indicates the road to be N1. Furthermore, N50 would indeed be a national primary route, therefore highway=trunk. I am reverting this change.

You updated the whole island of Ireland to be a public toilet. What was the intention here? I've reverted the edit.

BTW, anybody who's been following all this who isn't in the community telegram channel will find it a low-volume friendly place to tease out stuff like this. Be welcome: https://t.me/+ubOH4mwEoVhjYzdi

So:
Mutton Lane, Market Alley/Avenue: I agree with you on these ones.

Rochford's Lane: I mostly agree with you here too. ViriatoLusitano mapped it in its current form, with an earlier version (also from V.) having been a footway, so clearly I'm not the only one who sees it as an edge case.

Market Lane: Actually started on OSM as a footway and was changed in 2020. Your change to that one still has effect. I'm 50/50 on this one, It's wide enough that I'd probably make it a pedestrian street but it's certainly on the cusp. I'd be curious what others think on this one.

I'll start with the easy one - for the northern "mouth" of Winthrop Street, it would be valid to add a highway=pedestrian area on top of the existing linear feature with connecting nodes. The usual rendered output of that looks like a uniform grey like a pedestrian street but having whatever shape you gave it. You can see an example of this along the west edge of Grand Parade, with a bunch of routable linear pedestrian streets like Tuckey Street padding through. I'm going to have a look at the other examples you gave.

At the risk of repeating myself: highway=pedestrian is an appropriate tagging for roads on which vehicles are never permitted. This is very clear from the wiki. Our evolved norms in Ireland for distinguishing between footpaths and pedestrian streets (which are consistent with other countries I have mapped in) are based on a combination of width and "streetiness". Where you see the word "wide" used as a criterion in this context, that should be viewed as wide in the domain of pedestrian ways. So for me, anything above about 4m width is already a strong contender. Streetiness for me is a mixed bag. Being named a street is a strong indicator, and being flanked by buildings likewise. Being historically a city street (often dating from an era before motor vehicles, so could still be quite narrow), likewise. There are grey areas, and some of them probably even occur in Cork near where we are talking about (I'm thinking about some of the alleyways to the north of Patrick Street, say, French Church Street). I think that those are correctly tagged as is, mostly for the sorts of reasons I mention above.

The council listing is secondary in this - I've walked down these streets, they are about 7m wide and have "street" in their name. Pedestrian streets having these characteristics are routinely tagged like this all over Ireland and have been since the beginning of the project. In addition, I've just been shown a photo of the entrance from Patrick Street. It carries, as I mentioned above, the usual no vehicles sign and has a plate naming the street a "Pedestrian Zone" between 11:00 and 18:00 Monday-Saturday. There's really no more to say here.

If you look here, you'll see that all three of the streets I name do permit vehicle access at specific times: https://www.corkcity.ie/en/council-services/services/roads-and-traffic-management/pedestrianisation/

There is no ambiguity here - these are pedestrian streets.

Taking the place-of-worship tagging off the building seems like a bad idea here - the church, not its grounds, is the place of worship. That's how we always tag churches and not doing so means that the building renders in a generic style rather than standing out in the way that you'd usually want a church to on a map.

Princes Street, Cook Street and Marlborough Street are the archetype of what we use highway=pedestrian for. They are pedestrian streets. There are many metres wide, they are flanked by buildings and they are accessible to pedestrians. They literally have "street" in their names. On the ground, they are signed with a white disc inside a red circular border. Many of these roads did, by the way, previously carry vehicles, but that is immaterial to their status as _pedestrian_ streets. Likewise raised kerbs, a red herring. Go to some Italian old towns with narrow streets and see how many of those have separate footpaths. As to highway=footway, this is a valid tagging. It can be used for footpaths that run alongside roads (often above raised kerbs) or through green areas. It can even be appropriate for very narrow alleyways between buildings. You'll see this tagging documented on the wiki, and you'll see that at least one of the sample images resembles the streets I've described: osm.wiki/Tag%3Ahighway%3Dpedestrian

highway=pedestrian is the correct tagging for a roadway with the characteristics of a street and with motor traffic excluded. I am reverting this changeset.

You could be right on this one. The reason I went for a turning circle was that the car appeared to be occupying a widened part at the end of the road, with all points south being more constrained on the west side of the road. But looking more closely, that constraint consists of a short area of bushes (which could overhand anything) and south of that a shadowed region which does actually look like a footpath, meaning no extra width at the end of the road. Since it's such a narrow road, I'm going to remove the turning circle, since the consequences of being wrong are not nice.