Cheers! It doesn't seem to be there any more, or present in current Translink datasets (although I do see it on a much older dataset on the OSNI site). Seems that it is no longer in use.

Is there really a bus stop here?

Well you also shouldn't be tagging to please AI routing engines either ;)

Worst typo ever lol

thanks Mac!

I doubt it! the "l" was probably meant to be a semicolon :)
it should be "fern;crozier"

I suspect this was just a case of selecting the wrong proferred option in the ID editor!

Hah! Yeah, I think currently in Northern Ireland, once planning permission is granted, you typically have 5 years to start building, before it expires. So if people don't have the funds available, a common trick is to build foundations. You'd particularly see this with farming families who already own land and want to secure a plot of for one of their children to have a house on.

Hi - been a while since I was down that way, so I forget what I was thinking at the time - but looking at it with the imagery available today, it looks like a site where someone has put down foundations in order to avoid their planning permission expiring (and NMDDC have allocated it an address), but the house hasn't been built yet. The other two things showing on the satellite imagery actually look like parked lorries/containers to me, rather than buildings.

Yeah I have tagged half a dozen or more Ulsterbus routes that now operate from Grand Central Station - Translink's own app (which uses OSM mapping!) is a dog's dinner at that area, their routing algorithm is all over the place. One tagging decision I made was to simply show all the busses using one 'bus stop', rather than to try and tag them on particular bus stands (as in my experience these change frequently, as drivers don't always pull up in the right stand anyways!)

Hi LateNightTone - great to get more accuracy in the Grand Central Station layout, but your edit seems to have broken the relations of a few bus routes (215, 216, ...) - the OSM Inspector validator is complaining (see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ ) - could you check? I think maybe you just need to remove tagging on one of the ways you extended?

I would not relish manually retagging all that in ID though :)

It would probably be less problematic just to have Ulster Way as a separate relation, rather than a parent of all the segments. And so a bit of the Newry Canal Way which was also part of the Ulster Way would have a tag for each.

*nest them.

However the snag is that several of the component segments have extra waymarked bits which aren't part of the Ulster Way. Hence things like the Newry Canal Way and the Lecale Way have ended up as a pair of relations, one with the suffix "(Ulster Way section)" and the other not. But these are quite prone to tagging errors and circular nesting....

There's a bit of a nesting problem with these: originally (1970s) the Ulster Way was a continuous waymarked hiking route the whole way round Northern Ireland. But it kinda fell to bits, and in the 'noughties, they rejigged it as a series of a dozen or so disconnected off-road hiking routes (such as the Newry Way), which all have the same waymarker symbols). Several years ago, someone make the fairly reasonable decision to make relations for the dozen or so segments, and net them under an overall Ulster Way relation...

OSM Inspector seems happy today! Thanks for fixing it :)

Hi LateNightTone - I spotted that bus route validator at https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ is currently complaining that Ulsterbus route 109a (Lisburn - BFS airport - Antrim) isn't PTv2 compliant any more - looking at the change history, possibly one of your edits has perturbed the relation. Could you check?

Well fair enough if there was another nearby node with similar tagging. I agree the razed/abandoned/disused tagging is a bit woolly at times - although often with those old rural rail lines in NI, although the track itself is gone, it is still crystal clear on the ground that it's an abandoned railway, cos the corridor is still there with field boundaries and hedges untouched.

(Meanwhile, in terms of administrative boundaries, there are already are accurate boundary relations for Newry, Mourne & Down District Council, and the 'DEAs' and wards that it is divided into.)

Yeah I decided to remove the 'place=city' relation, and use the node to designate the city. (Previously the node was being use as 'label' in the relation.) The OSM wiki's guidance is not dogmatic on the issue, but I felt the boundary relation had just been drawn empirically as a 'residential' area, using the satellite imagery, and it didn't correspond to any actual legal/administrative boundaries (either electorally or for local government). So I just left it purely as a (residential) land-use designation.
Maybe Nominatum needs a day or two to refresh its cache, or however it works?