Yes, that was my question. Based on the current imagery I also believe there is a gate.

Hi, welcome!
It looks like your change of Irish N numbered roads to highway=secondary goes against the standard way of mapping N roads in Ireland agreed by the community.
I undid your changes to N roads in this area to restore the road type to what it was before.
Please check the OSM Wiki for the agreed tagging. See " Primary Routes" and "National Secondary Routes" on this page: osm.wiki/Ireland/Roads
Hope that makes sense.

Sorry for causing this problem and thanks for fixing it. Thanks also for the detailed explanation and guide, I'll make use of that validator from now on.

Thanks for taking the initiative to update the map and also for removing the outdated business information. Just to point out, it looks like the objects containing former business details were also containing the building outline. Building outlines should be kept if the associated building still exists. In other words, it would be better to just delete the "name" / "shop" tags and keep the buidling tag and anything else that is still correct for the affected object.

No worries, I had a go at reverting it with changeset/171377872 . I made a couple of mistakes during it, so followed up with changeset/171378632 . Looks like it's sorted now!

Hey, that roundabout is in reality a traffic lights T junction now, I drove through it last week. The road alignment in OSM was correct last week. Satellite imagery is showing a previous temporary layout of the road that was in place to facilitate construction of Intel buildings.
Also, a bunch of bus route relations have been split in two by this changeset.
I think this and changeset/171318595 need to be reverted. It can be done manually, or with tools. I'm happy to help with that if needed.

PS The CyclOSM layer on OSM website or at https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=14/53.2737/-6.2206/cyclosm are a handy way to see the cycle infrastructure that has been mapped.

Hi, welcome to OSM!

Many of the cycle lanes you added were already mapped using the cycleway tag on the road.

There are two current approaches to mapping cycle paths: cycleway=* and highway=cycleway
Please read those pages to understand their intended use, and pros/cons of each approach. Obviously choose whichever approach you feel is best for the situation at hand, but understand the meaning of each, and also that applying both approaches, like has inadvertently happened here results in duplication.

Also, many of the cycle lane/track lines you've drawn (e.g. way/1372763000) aren't continuous cycle lane/tracks in reality - there is actually no cycle lane at all for part of Sandyford Road.
The cycleway tags already added to the road reflects this intermittent and varying nature of the cycle lane/track, e.g way/108345245

It's unfortunate that the iD editor doesn't give a visual indication of cycleway presence on a road with cycleway tags on it. I made the exact same mistake when I first contributed to OSM.

I hope this all makes sense!

Re. your fixme. It is effectively one-way due to how narrow it is, and due to the turn restrictions at the western junction which prevent traffic from entering it at that end.
However, there are no road markings or signs to stop someone from driving westwards on this section of road, then parking at the side of the road and later heading back eastbound.
So in theory it is a two-way street, but it's practically one-way.

This seems to have resulted in stray house tags being added to nodes, in addition to areas (e.g. at the corners of a house).

Also FYI the wiki page for mapping houses recommends "house=semi-detached" or "building=semidetached_house", but I don't see any mention of "house=semi_detached". I could be out of the loop, I'm assuming the wiki is up to date on this.
house=*

Ok, in that case I wouldn't tag as highway=construction because navigation software will treat the road as closed and unusable. You could map the affected road as being one-way alternating, and map a separate footpath with highway=construction. However you should consider how long the works are going to last. I read somewhere that road works that will last less than 3 months should not be mapped, and started doing same. I don't think there's a hard rule around this, but the main factor for me is that some navigation apps might not update their OSM data for months, which can have the effect of the app avoiding a road that has since re-opened. In this case since its basically a layout change and not a closure, there will probably be little/no impact on routing choices for navigation apps so it's probably OK to map it here IMO.

Hey, sorry for not contacting you about this. I assumed the road is still open to two-way traffic as I saw some housing estates that are only reachable via that road. Is the road completely blocked?

Thanks!

This looks like the wrong location to add this park. Please re-check.

That's great, thanks for that

Thanks for your understanding!

Thanks for your understanding!

Hey,

In relation to the cycle lane that you added as a separately mapped way:

Please pay attention to the cycle lanes/tracks that have already been added by others using cycleway tags on the way that is the centreline of the roadway. e.g. at Stillorgan Road (way/481561458)

For example, there is already
cycleway:left=track
...along a part of this road where you have added a separate cycleway. Your addition conflicts with these tags. This conflict should be resolved somehow.

Accordingly, I want to point out the guidance given on the OSM wiki at this page highway=cycleway#When_not_to_use and the various other pages which that page links to, in case you weren't aware.

Thanks

Hey,

In relation to the cycle tracks that you added as separately mapped ways:

Please pay attention to the cycle lanes/tracks that have already been added by others using cycleway tags on the way that is the centreline of the roadway. e.g. at Constitution Hill (way/370381577)

There is already
cycleway:both=lane
cycleway:both:lane=exclusive
...along a part where you have added a separate cycleway. Your addition conflicts with these tags. This conflict should be resolved somehow.

Accordingly, I want to point out the guidance given on the OSM wiki at this page highway=cycleway#When_not_to_use and the various other pages which that page links to, in case you weren't aware.

Thanks

The northbound cycle lane here is not really redundant when used in combination with the cycleway:right=separate tag, because "separate" has a special meaning unlike the other values of the cycleway tag.
If the value was something like cycleway:right=lane, then yes,that would be redundant if there was already a separately mapped cycle lane.

When the value of the cycleway tag is "separate" that means the cycle lane/track was drawn as a separate way. It's not a requirement to put that value in when mapping a cycle lane/track as a separate way, but some choose to do so.

About the southbound cycle arrangements on Lombard Street with the parallel car parking, it's a tricky one. In my opinion this should just be a cycleway:left=lane on the main road way since it's so close to the road and you can technically enter/leave the general traffic lanes in the gaps between parked cars without a kerb obstructing your way. However as the car parking on this road does distance the southbound cycle lane from the general traffic lanes, I imagine some would argue that this merits a cycleway:left=track or even a separately drawn way.

I've made a small update on this road to keep the separately drawn way because I don't like to undo effort of drawing a separate way when it is technically valid.