Dear mr. Cooley,

As this is one of your first edits, it is understandable there are some mistakes along the way.
Also, there is a question at the end of this message, which I would like you to answer if possible.

These two changesets delete an existing object with correct details, replacing it with an 'identical' object. Although it likely has better geometry, it
- wastes other contributors' effort adding the correct details to the existing object
- has inaccurate details
(historic fort is for more modern fortifications,
building=no is only used to indicate something on i.e. aerial imagery is not actually building, but it is usually a redundant tag.)
- makes it hard for them to check changes made to this object and maintain the data.

Because of this, mappers should usually try to keep the history of such an object. See
osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

I have reverted both changesets
changeset/171222692
and manually improved the geometry. (changes visualised here):
https://osmcha.org/changesets/171226412
(it now mainly matches the vegetation and the extent of the 'stone' surface visible below it, while checking it still roughly matches the outline on the War Office map available in the editor.)

Furthermore, I would like to know;
Does the 'Little Fort' mentioned here refer to the whole of this ringfort and this ringfort only?
https://athenry.org/record/kilskeagh-282/
In that case, it can be added as local name (as it is refered to locally)
loc_name=Little Fort

Could you also explain what the exact access permission situation is on the ground;
Can people visit the ringfort (or perhaps a surrounding field), do they need your/neighbor's permission, or is it a fully private area? If they can visit, what is the proper route to get there?

Regards,

Daniel

You can view a better version here
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17.3&lat=52.75295&lon=-6.71879&layers=6&b=ESRIWorld&o=100&marker=52.752934,-6.717127
(It is one of the Six Inch maps, but same idea.)
The direction of the 'teardrop' marks indicates the bottom of the slope. There are only arrows pointing inwards, meaning it is likely a pit, cutting or similar.
(surface pits are quaries in OSM.)
Archaeological sites (mainly ringforts) which you refer to ausually have an embankment, which is indicated with two sets of 'teardrops' pointing in opposite directions, or on other variants it is marked as dense set of straight lines pointing outward (connected by ring or not).
You can find style sheets for these maps here
https://maps.nls.uk/view/128076891

Note, not all embankments (mainly unclosed straight-ish segments) indicate an archaeological site. Some are (modern) artificial or natural slopes or bumps/erosion. They were recorded because they are/were sufficiently visible in the landscape or were possible fortifications but turned out not to be. Most of these do not have an entry on HEV.

(In case you are not aware yet, we can use the historic maps on National Library of Scotland for OpenStreetMap. As opposed to the maps present on Historic Environment Viewer, which we can't use. We can only use those for reference when surveying.)

NLS:
https://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch-ireland/index.html

HEV:
https://heritagedata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0c9eb9575b544081b0d296436d8f60f8

How to use the HEV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDILb9r0VX0

If it is not on HEV, and you think it is an archaeological site, you can mark it as
maybe:historic=archaeological_site
note=Not on HEV.
You're welcome to report any possible sites using the NMS monument report form.

Reporting a possible monument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAXIJsxD1wU

Happy mapping :-)

way/1425083209

Seems to be a small former quarry.
No archaeological site on HEV.
(the surrounding enclosure is marked as a tree ring.)

The area to the south seems to still be quarried from time to time, but such small area could become disused quickly. You can still tag it as
landuse=quarry

Regards,

Daniel

Suggested tags

historic=archaeological_site
archaeological_site=field_system
heritage=2
heritage:operator=IE:smr
ref:IE:smr=LI040-113----
source=Esri World Imagery Wayback 2017-10-04 (DigitalGlobe WV02 2014-03-11)

Map as area. Use on the whole field(s), or rough shape, where you are able to see the (here: rectangular) cropmarks indicating the field system.

Ref note/4850599

After checking with hotel staff, this defibrillator has been removed as it is a duplicate. There should be no other defibrillators in/outside this building.
However, you can still add details to the one at the -indoor- reception.
node/10230966127
Of course if one is actually installed elsewhere in the future you're welcome to add it separately, or open a note for it.

(see above for useful tips)

Your changes visualised
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=168300749

If it is an enclosure, the eastern edge might be visible on the 2001-2005 photo on HEV. It seems to combine with the ditch for the west/left barrow (LI040-116----). There might be an entrance facing east.
(anyhow, for OSM we can not use this photo, of course)

Hey Victor,

Did you check the plausibility of this archaeological site with other sources?

It does look circular at first (on Bing).
(ie. think of a large enclosure)
Zooming in it looks fairly regular, octagonal (or even square) in shape.
(ie. still enclosure, or moat)
East edge is not visible, but that is okay.
The west edge seems more convincingly circular when viewed in Esri Clarity, but only as thin edge.
First edition maps have a regular boundary along the west edge.
Looking at aerial imagery the area is wet, there is some streams and tracks, no clear ditch.
https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=15212&mapCenter=-8.43883%2C52.42166%2C18&mode=explore
It might include (part of) a field system (LI040-113----), though it is unclear to where it extends. Personally I only see the linear strip along the boundary. I doubt it is (nearly) circular, though there exist examples of those around enclosures.

If you think there is a possible archaeological site, you can mark it with 'maybe' lifecycle prefix and add a 'note' tag to describe what you think it might be and whether it has been reported/confirmed by NMS (which can be done using their monument report form via email).

Regards,

Daniel

Gyms were added in Kilkenny by new user. I doubt they visited any of them, or used a compatible source at all, but just correct/remove them when you see them.

"Th"ursday is a day of the week though

Ref note/4850599

Added NIAH refs in
changeset/170097818

way/1395063538
I am not sure building with gaping holes in walls is still house?
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=52.895576~-7.146993&lvl=17&dir=72.314&style=x&v=2&sV=1
(use for reference only, use Bing Streetside as provided in editor instead though it is basically a mirror with lesser quality images due to a bug)

Maybe it is ruins?

Tagged both as abandoned for now.
Other contributors can add/verify further details (on location / on the ground) for fountains/memorials as needed.

Articles (used for reference only)

Stoneleigh and Cheam memorials
- Nonsuch park. Epsom & Ewell History Explorer.
Photo of Stoneleigh memorial ca. 1930s (incompletely labelled).
Mention of Cheam memorial car crash article which is also linked below.
https://eehe.org.uk/25296/nonsuchpark/

Stoneleigh memorial
- Waymarking article
Mentions fountain for Stoneleigh memorial is defunct.
https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/wmNTDM_Charlotte_Farmer_London_Road_Ewell_Surrey_UK

Cheam memorial
- Cheam, Nonsuch Park, Bellgate Entrance 1925. Francis Frith Collection.
Mentions Cheam memorial was moved.
https://www.francisfrith.com/cheam/cheam-nonsuch-park-bellgate-entrance-1925_77073
- Car crash destroys Victorian monument at Nonsuch Park. Your Local Guardian. August 27, 2013.
About Cheam memorial
https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/10635908.car-crash-destroys-victorian-monument-at-nonsuch-park/
- Cheam Monument Begins Restoration Two Years After Destruction. This Local London. January 8, 2016.
Mentions remaining foundations.
https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/young-reporter/1877/

See also Geograph (mirrored on Commons), Commons and Historic England entries.
There do not currently seem to be (local) Historic Environment Records for these memorials.

way/1414084463
This seems to be path. Where they are changes from time to time.
(Compare with Esri Clarity)
There is no archaeological site indicated on historic maps/viewer.

Hey JayBee,

Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap.

Local knowledge is a valid source for OpenStreetMap, but regardless I have checked the information you provided.

On historical maps, the label does point more clearly to the adjacent building in the 25 inch (which we can use only for reference, not for mapping, as it is still copyrighted and otherwise not explicitly permitted for use by National Library of Scotland.

However, the NIAH/NBHS building inventory
https://www.buildingsofireland.ie/buildings-search/building/12401306/clomantagh-lower-clomantagh-kilkenny
does mention it was in use as RIC barracks.
(maybe it counts adjacent building as part of it)

but a discussion on a blog post article which you may or may not be aware of, which includes (family of) owner, mentions similar idea as you do, where it was barely in use as RIC barracks (but due to rumors people assumed it was built as or always used as such).
https://theirishaesthete.com/2016/12/14/an-architectural-conundrum-update/

Resolved in
changeset/169609975

Changes visualised
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=169609975

Sidenote: Changed name to description, since this seems to be case of descriptive name
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
in Ireland users tend to use the name tag anyways, but usually it should be only done where it was the common name. (due to being solely outbuilding I assume it's not the case)

Message privé reçu de l'utilisateur (en anglais ci-dessous)
«
Daniel,

je vous prie de m'excuser. Étant donné que vous avez apporté tant de contributions en Irlande, je suppose que votre langue principale est l'anglais. (Mais cela serait plus clair si la langue était indiquée sur nos profils OSM.)

Je m'y suis rendu : sur le menu, il était indiqué que le restaurant était ouvert de 17 h à 21 h 30. Le propriétaire m'a dit qu'il avait créé la page Google. Plus tard, j'ai vu sur la page Google que le restaurant était ouvert de 18 h à 21 h 30. J'ai donc téléphoné pour vérifier. 18 h est la bonne heure.

- Comme le propriétaire m'avait dit qu'il avait des problèmes avec les mauvais commentaires sur les anciens propriétaires, toujours affichés sur plusieurs sites web, j'ai essayé de l'aider en ajoutant ou en modifiant l'adresse sur quelques sites. Et plus tard, j'ai créé deux liens depuis la page OSM vers PagesJaunes.fr et Google. Mauvaise idée.

Encore une fois, je m'excuse.

Cordialement,
»

---

Received private message from user
"
Daniel,

my apologies. As you made so many contributions in Ireland, I suppose your main langage is english. (But it would be most clear if the langage was displayed on our OSM profiles.)

-I went there: on the menu, it was written opened from 17:00 to 21:30 (5pm to 9:30pm). The owner told me he had created the Google page. Latter I saw on the Google page, it was opened from 18:00 to 21:30. So I phoned to check. 18:00 is the good value.

-As the owner had told me he had problems with bad comments about the previous owners, still displayed on several web sites, I tried to help adding or changing the address on a few sites. And later, creating 2 links from the OSM page, to PagesJaunes.fr and to Google. Bad idea.

Again I apologize.

Best regards,
"

---

Erreur accidentelle corrigée dans /
Accidental mistake resolved in
changeset/169427386

relation/19385743

Preferably simple polygons are added as area, not multipolygon, unless not otherwise possible, or prefered by the local community (which it is unlikely to be).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169424226

Si vous avez inspecté le restaurant sur place (sur le terrain, de près) et que vous utilisez uniquement Google pour le montrer à d'autres personnes afin qu'elles puissent le vérifier, vous ou quelqu'un d'autre pouvez supprimer le lien source vers Google.
Nous pouvons utiliser les données du site web officiel du restaurant, s'il en possède un, pour contribuer à OpenStreetMap, mais uniquement si vous pouvez facilement vous rendre au restaurant pour vérifier ces données.
Notez que les balises source sont redondantes, vous devriez plutôt utiliser la source du changeset lorsque vous téléchargez les modifications dans l'application d'édition, bien que cela puisse encore être utile si le restaurant a récemment ouvert et n'est pas encore visible sur les images de rue, bien sûr.
Vous devez ajouter la balise website pour créer un lien vers le site web officiel s'il en existe un.
Sinon, vous pouvez toujours ajouter les réseaux sociaux avec les balises contact:*, c'est-à-dire contact:facebook, s'il en existe. (non, il n'y a pas de contact:google_maps..)

Si vous avez utilisé les données Google pour contribuer directement à OpenStreetMap, sans vérifier sur le terrain ou au moins en consultant le site web officiel, la modification doit être annulée (refaite) et/ou vous devez effectuer une vérification sur le terrain afin de pouvoir vérifier votre modification et la conserver dans OpenStreetMap.

---

If you did survey the restaurant on the ground (on location, from up close), and only use Google to show to others so they can verify it, then you or someone else can remove the source link to Google.
We can use data from the restaurant's official website, if it has one, for contributing to OpenStreetMap, but only if you can easily visit the restaurant to verify this data.
Note, source tags are redundant, you should use the changeset source when uploading the modifications in the editor application instead, though it can still be useful if the restaurant was recently opened and not visible on street level imagery yet, of course.
You should add the website tag to link to the official website if it has one.
Otherwise you can still add the social media with contact:* tags, i.e. contact:facebook, if it has those. (no, there is no contact:google_maps..)

if you used Google data to contribute to OpenStreetMap directly, without verifying by surveying on the ground, or at least by checking official website, then the modification should be reverted (undone) and/or you should survey it on the ground so you can verify your modification and it can be kept in OpenStreetMap.

Salut Mathieu65, (anglais ci-dessous)

As-tu inspecté les lieux sur place ?
osm.wiki/FR:V%C3%A9rifiabilit%C3%A9

N'utilise pas les données Google pour contribuer à OpenStreetMap, s'il te plaît. C'est interdit. Consulte cette page du wiki OSM (en anglais) :
osm.wiki/Google

Si vous avez des questions sur la façon de cartographier, vous pouvez contacter votre communauté (locale) à l'adresse suivante :
https://openstreetmap.community/?map=52.63517,-7.04645&zoom=5.46
ou lancer un fil de discussion sur :
https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Bonne cartographie :-)

Cordialement,

Daniel

Traduit avec deepl.com/translator

---

Hey Mathieu65,

Did you survey the location on the ground?
osm.wiki/FR:V%C3%A9rifiabilit%C3%A9

Do not use Google data for contributing to OpenStreetMap, please. It is prohibited. See this OSM Wiki page (in English)
osm.wiki/Google

If you have any questions on how to map, you can contact your (local) community at
https://openstreetmap.community/?map=52.63517,-7.04645&zoom=5.46
or start a thread on
https://community.openstreetmap.org/

Happy mapping :-)

Regards,

Daniel