Thanks!

Hello,
It looks like the update here has created a gap in a couple of boundary relations. relation/12409614#map=19/54.856662/-6.763608 has a gap under the bridge and relation/12403345#map=19/54.856662/-6.763608 also.
The new culvert needs adding to both relations with a role of "outer".
I think that iD will do this automatically unless you redraw it manually.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Did you let any data consumers know that you were going to make the change?
If not, how could they possibly know of it?

What was it that guided you to change these objects?

Hello,
Was this mechanical edit discussed anywhere?
Best Regards,
Andy

I've asked the second question of an active Facebook mapper with similar MO at changeset/162522036 . There the "divide at intersection" makes more sense than here.

Hello,
You've written "#maproulette" in the comment - does that mean that this change was done as a result of a maproulette challenge? If so, where is that?
Best Regards,
Andy

Their last edit was only 9 days ago!
Hopefully somewhat at Facebook is monitoring the email with which @VLD296 was signed up. My experience with osm@fb.com is that sometimes a bit of cage rattling via backchannels to get a response.

Thanks

Thanks - does maproulette allow you to say things like that in the changeset comment?

Hello,
What actually was the problem before and what was actually fixed here?
Best Regards,
Andy

One more question - you've written "#maproulette" in the comment - does that mean that this change was done as a result of a maproulette challenge? If so, where is that?

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(!).