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.

After reading the linked article, I am further convinced that these should be tagged as highway=footway. The article for highway=pedestrian states "Generally, mappers use pedestrian tag only on wider streets which might accommodate motor vehicles.". These streets cannot accommodate motor vehicles at all; in fact less so than most routes tagged with highway=footway.

Furthermore, the article describes how these exact areas could be more appropriately tagged as a pedestrian area with a highway=footway running through it. It was/is my intention to do this once the surrounding buildings are filled in.

As a basis for tagging these as highway=footway, I will refer you to the footpaths located with the University College Cork main campus, which I did not add myself. All the ones I have not edited myself are tagged as highway=footway, despite being much wider, having removable bollards to divide them from more active roadways, and regularly accommodating motorised maintenance vehicles.

These streets are not roadways. They are foot paths that never did or could accommodate motor traffic of any kind. They do not have the characteristics of a street such as separated sidewalks, raised curbs, traffic junctions or traffic rules of any kind. If this should be tagged as highway=pedestrian, the foot path tag is obsolete and every use of it should be changed. Does that seem appropriate?

It could, but there are also separate footpaths that could be added as sidewalks. This would account for when motor vehicles are allowed down the street but pedestrians can still use the paths

This is a steep drop off along the edge of the grass area, likely for drainage. I believe there is also a drain at the corner but I could be misremembering that. Perhaps this could be tagged better as some kind of embankment? I didn't feel the "ditch" tag was appropriate as this is rarely, if ever, filled with water

I believe the overlapping part is a stairwell of the student accomodation, not connected to the tesco express underneath, though the building kind of wraps around it. I am unsure of how to my it so feel free to simplify it or make it more precise

@VictorIE How should this rule be applied to areas such as School Grounds? E.g. Coláiste Choilm in Ballincollig has buildings that are all part of the school grounds, but some have distinct uses and some are general school buildings.
Should other School Grounds (or areas like hospitals, colleges, and fire stations), have their buildings labeled as School Buildings or just "Buildings"?