Hello,
Given that way/1348314221 and way/439915296 are tagged identically and have identical relationship memberships, what value does this change add?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I'm guessing that you got to this area via the Asda car park way/1206017691/history but what were all the other changes here?
They don't look like "rare parking=* values".
Best Regards,
Andy

No worries - sorted now.
Unfortunately you got blindsided by a couple of things:
One is the "unusual" storage of historic data in OSM in Ireland (and particularly around Dublin). Like the UK, Ireland doesn't have freely accessible address data, and arguably OSI and OSI are even more "secret squirrel" than OSGB. The townlands project https://www.townlands.ie/ is an atempt to mitigate that, and from that sprang the recording of what e.g. Kingstown (the precursor to Dún Laoghaire) was in 1855. These days a better home for this sort of historical data would be OpenHistoricalMap , but "getting from here to there" isn't trivial.
The other thing was an unfortunately poorly worded Maproulette task. As worded, it was suggesting that the "place" value should be changed from a rare one to a more common one, without giving any thought to way the data was there previously and whether `place=more_common_value` already existed.

Thanks - everything has now reappeared, I think.

Thanks!

Also relation/5328674 Clasharoe needs doing too?
The JOSM validator picks this up:
1) Download object way/1359703304
2) Zoom out a bit
3) Download data (some relations will appear)
4) Click on all relations shown and "download with members"
5) Click on all relations and manually select them
6) Validate
7) Zoom to problem
8) Read the error text and click on the relation
9) The gap is then shown

I'm not sure what happened here but "remove self intersection of way" seems to have changed the tags on way/128205661/history from grass / common to recreation_ground(!).

Thanks - this has reappeared now

Thanks - they've reappeared now!

Hello,
relation/5328674 and relation/5328037 now have gaps in them - I'm guessing that way/1359703304 should be part of both?
Best Regards,
Andy

Also on node/10780586226 I suspect that "bitch" might be an iOS typo for "bench"?

I'm guessing that "bitch" on node/12193471749 might actually be an iOS autocorrect typo for "bench"?

Hello,
Please help other mappers to understand what you are changing by using changeaet comments that describe what it is you're changing.
Best Regards,
Andy

Have a look at e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/13465548 to see the actual tag changes here.

One more thing - I'm guessing tthat all of these changes will need reverting - do you need help with that?

Hello,
On https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/8418714 you've changed "place=historic_township" to "place=town". Do you really believe that there is a town in Ireland called "Kingstown Township 1828-1855" :)
To be fair, the task instructions at https://maproulette.org/challenge/44832/task/246016116 aren't great and don't say "only change to place=town if you think there is a town here", but perhaps the Maproulette task creator assumed that people would use their common sense for that.
Best Regards,
Andy

Not sure if it was this changeset that did it, but a gap has opened up in relation/8815518#map=16/53.14825/-7.18811 and relation/8797261#map=16/53.14825/-7.18811 here.

Hello,
Are you sure that this shop is correctly located?
It seems to be in the middle of the footpath.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I suspect that way/1358422651 needs adding the the townlands that its neighbour up the road is part of - relation/4632073#map=16/52.96480/-7.36730 now has a gap in it.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
I think that there might be a bit of a problem with some of the relations here - way/137279112 overlaps with way/375867813 now, which means that relations such as relation/11047400 have overlaps and have fallen out of rendering databases.
The solution might just be as simple as deleting way/375867813 and checking that all relations that were in it are OK afterwards (perhaps by using the JOSM editor's validator).
Best Regards,
Andy