It was someone else that did almost every business and building in the city centre a year or two ago and kind of set the standard for placing businesses on the main entrance. Have a look through the changeset and see if you can ask them

Many of the locations you have added already exist as points on the main entrance to those businesses

That's a brilliant resource I never knew existed. I have updated the name and ref and added a note of the source. I'll keep this page in mind for the future and add the same note on other streets I come across with no on-street signage. Thanks

It does indeed seem to appear at the same time as WGB on aerial imagery I can find. WGB was officially opened in 2009 so I'll set the construction date as 2009 for now. No idea on a name?

The address of the derelict site on Sullivan's Quay is "Former Government Buildings, Sullivan's Quay, Cork" without the "site" added. The official address is available on the public record of the previous planning permission granted. "Site" would be a generic descriptor that is already covered by the brownfield tag

I've placed it in the Residential Area name "Evergreen Buildings" as it is number 43 of the buildings with those addresses

It is not listed on any Cork City Council site as a park and there is no signage for this park on the ground. On the basis of the OSM on the ground policy, I removed it as a park

This car park is a weird one. The underground portion has a closing time (which I can't recall right now), whereas the surface does not have a closing time. I feel that the way I had it tagged before worked as you could consider the upper and lower decks to be totally separate car parks with different restrictions in time and height.

Simply having the two entrances to the lower deck tagged as "parking garage entrance/exit" could work, but as the upper and lower deck have different rules (and different signposted names which I discovered), I feel it would be appropriate to tag them as separate car parks.

Either way, I don't feel the building tag is appropriate because of the examples I mentioned previously

The multi-level parking garage only encompasses the area North of the covered walkway. There is no underground section south of this roof. Should not be tagged as a building similar to other obscured underground areas such as those in the UCC Boole lecture theatres, the underground parking on Anderson Street, and the undergound sections of Camden Fort

I have also reverted the changes to the names of the 3 apartment buildings of Idaville to maintain consistancy with other area named in a similar way, such as the neighbouring Crawford Mews

I have reverted these changes. The amenity=monastery tag is for the area of a monastery's grounds; not the main building which you removed the building=yes tag from. The monastery's name and denomination is also already included on the larger amenity=monastery area in line with other uses of religious area tags

What does this "bond=english_bond" tag mean? I have found no mention of it on the forums or wiki

This is a difficult one as "Q-Park City Hall" does indeed overlap the greater Cork City Hall building by using the roof of the modern section as part of the multi-story car park. No error showed up for an overlapping building so I assumed this was a built-in exception for parking=multi-storey. I would not know how to better tag this in a way consistent with other free-standing multi-story car parks. Would it be correct to tag "Q-Park City Hall" as layer=1? As is usually done with roads that pass over or under a building?

These do not meet the standards for "artwork_type=graffiti". Sprayed "tags" are given as an example of what should not be tagged on the wiki

If it is, it certainly isn't in regular use. The area it leads to is exclusively for pedestrian use and is blocked by a fixed concrete flowerbed, which can be seen on this page https://www.buildingsofireland.ie/buildings-search/building/20503284/wandesford-quay-cork-city-cork-city-cork

The concrete tracks inlayed with the paving stones of the tunnel may mean that vehicles used it at some point, but the curb is not lowered, nor damaged, and there is no sign saying the gate is in constant use (like almost every other vehicular access point in the city) I wouldn't say this should be mapped as it was previously with a highway tag

Why are so many areas tagged as individual buildings rather than building parts? If an area functions as one building, it should be tagged as one building, regardless of how it looks on the outside

I'm glad we could work this out. I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive at any point; I always seem to have trouble with that in any text-based debate, no matter what my intentions. I will go ahead and change Mutton Lane, Market Alley, and Market Avenue. I will leave Rochford's Lane as is for now but add a note explaining the possible dispute.

I will also add that pedestrian area between Winthrop Street and Patrick's Street

The wiki clearly shows to me that all my remaining examples would be inappropriate to tag as highway=pedestrian, and I would prefer not to have to quote the article. At risk of repeating myself, Market Avenue, Market Alley, Mutton Lane, Rochford's Lane, and Market Lane do not fit any of the criteria no matter what way you look at it, and there still seems to be no issue with tagging Market Lane as highway=footway

Winthrop Street, according to the Wiki, should be tagged as "highway=pedestrian + area=yes" due to it being significantly wider than any other nearby streets and its transition to the Patrick's Street pedestrian areas being arbitrary

You both are correct about the signs on the Patrick's Street entrances to Princes Street, Marlboro Street, and Cook Street. That was my mistake as I walked the Oliver Plunkett Street side only. I apologise for getting that wrong.
There is no signage on the Oliver Plunkett Street side, or a lowered curb, which would imply there is no through traffic allowed at any time however

Mutton Lane, Winthrop Street, and Rochford's Lane, however, should still be highway=footway in their entirety as they do not have any of the signage, especially Mutton Lane, which can barely fit 2 people, not to mind motor traffic.

Additionally, Market Alley and Market Avenue, which I did not change, do not have signage and cannot fit motor traffic of any kind. In fact, part of Market Alley is tagged as highway=footway, but not all of it, despite not changing in any way until it reaches the English Market entrance. Refer to the matching Market Lane, which was not disputed in being highway-footway

You have again proven me correct. That website refers to the "South" version of those 3 streets, which I correctly left as highway=pedestrian. The Northern sections are not listed, do not have designated motor vehicle hours, do not have signs, and have failed every definition you presented.