Het splitsen van de weghelften laat ik over aan mensen die ervaring hebben met het data-gebruik. Die kunnen er evt. over meepraten.

(vergelijkingen hieronder voor de beeldvorming, wellicht niet direct behulpzaam of helemaal correct.)

Meer gedetailleerd is over het algemeen ok en laat expliciet zien of beide wegdelen identiek zijn. Qua onderhoud is het even nakijken en kopiëren-plakken waar nodig, dat moet je toch al doen.
Er lijkt geen paaltje op de weg zelf te staan. Over de lengte tussen de paaltjes is het wegdeel wel fysiek gescheiden. Als onderdeel van de lokale weg is het inderdaad maar een korte scheiding. Als geheel (denk aan voetgangersplein) zou een paaltje wel passend zijn.
Hier zou een paaltje echt passend zijn wanneer de voordelen van een weg zwaarder wegen dan die van twee weghelften; e.a. wat nuttig is voor data-gebruik (waar het bijna niet anders kan dan het op de kaart toe te voegen).

Het wegdeel is een korte verbinding tussen twee lokale wegen en is onderdeel van de lokale weg.
Fiets-/wandelpad (of combinatie), motor(voertuig)en noch hulpdiensten is expliciet aangegeven.
(negeer verder de kleur van de weg en de functie 'fietspad' in de BGT.)

Toegangsweg met breedte zou moeten volstaan; blijft bereikbaar voor motoren e.d., terwijl de meeste auto's e.d. er niet over navigeren.
(afhankelijk van gebruikte systeemstandaarden en kenmerken)

Hey Angelo,

Zou je het bij de wegbeheerder kunnen navragen? Aan de hand van wat daar uitkomt kan je een ervaren fiets-mapper vragen hoe je dit het beste kan mappen.

Ik heb het paaltje weggehaald in
changeset/138712422
de breedte toegevoegd in
changeset/138713262
en omgezet naar toegangsweg in
changeset/138714359

Groet,

Daniel

Ref changeset/138705675

Used Twitter post for reference only;
https://twitter.com/bighappyhead/status/1261242490969100289

name: [fire insurance] mark/plaque
object type wikidata: Q2894464
status: historic, though generally still in use in some places -not here ofc-

it could be argued they were left in place to commemorate the time in which they were used by fire fighters, but it isn't as much an active memorial

alternatively man_made=sign though it might confuse people not instantly thinking of traffic signs.

Altimont townland was changed back to Altamont by an OPW-related user some years later. Could you check the spelling again?
relation/2192617/history

Ok. Connected the footway along the edge and made the parking the cars' width.

fyi this preset is broken for me personally since I'm using an outdated OS. So if there's any changes you want to do just go for it.

Some sign pointing in the general direction probably, which I can't find now. Let's just move on, ok?

Resolved in
changeset/138303338

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.
Note, it's not physically seperated. I would connect it to the end of the footway for the shortest path. The connection point doesn't matter much. In addition a pedestrian area can be added. Not that it looks much like one.

Modified the track, see
changeset/138201320

Note, existing ways nearby seem to have been created with old imagery, which may have been less aligned and is likely worse if not equally bad to use for alignment reference than current imagery.

Sources can be added below where you added the changeset comment (description) in the menu which appears when you initially click on the save button in the top right.

Thank you for the reply. I assume the address information was already known to you then. Is that correct?

In the future, you can (instead) add "survey" when you deliberately visited the address for said information, or "local knowledge" as source when adding such details at a much later date. You can add "of owner" or similar to this if this isn't directly your knowledge.

Also, if you want to do more of such edits, or want to try something different, it is recommended to use one of the mobile editors. See
osm.wiki/Editors#Mobile
(StreetComplete is one of the editors most used for adding addresses; it is a thematic/quest-based application.)
You'll also find the beginners' guide at the top of said page.

Some of the above links can always be found at the top of the OpenStreetMap website under "Communities" and "Help".

node/10581928945
Based on Mapillary (2023-06-23), the gate you added in this changeset does not seem to exist.

See also other comment
changeset/131707599

Based on Mapillary (2023-06-23), the gate you deleted still seems to be a gate, it has two parts and a handlebar/hold on one. I've re-added it here
node/11026545593

Feel free to let me know what you think.

Hey Brian,

Welcome and thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. If you need help with contributing, join the community channels here:
https://openstreetmap.community/?map=53.32909,-7.76595&zoom=5.94

Unfortunately, some data you added may need to be removed. However, not all necessarily. Please read on. :-)

Regarding the address data, it is important other contributors can verify what you added is correct. If you can survey (visit) this location and observe the address explicitly signed (posted on a sign, painted or otherwise physically present, where it is clear it belongs to said location) or have existing knowledge (yourself, from the owner or someone else) of this location having said address, this address can be added to OSM. See
osm.wiki/Verifiability

As for the properties' pricing, it is more complicated. OSM tries to respect owners' privacy to some degree which limits what kind of information can be mapped. It is generally disputed to add parcel data (property-related data) to OSM. Note, the high update frequency of such data makes it near impossible to keep it up-to-date and verify it (as explained above).
osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
(see the "Parcel" page linked there for more information.)

Also, for this data you likely solely used the external source you provided, as the data itself is usually not physically signposted due to its high update frequency. If you intend to use external sources as sole source for your edits, they should have a compatible license. Otherwise, you should have another, compatible source and may only use them for reference (you can't directly use the data for OSM, you have to verify it.)
It looks like we can't use the property price data for OSM. Noteably, information described as "public" does not directly mean it is public, as a description is not a license. The license itself (usually found in the footer or a 'metadata' section as "copyright" or "re-use" disclaimer) includes requirements which the user must meet to be able to re-use the data.
The data from the source you have provided is publicly available for viewing(!) under copyright -the owner retains rights to the data and as such they are able to put some restrictions on its use- and it is allowed to re-use it for certain purposes only. It seems to be licensed for "non-commercial" use only, which is likely a red flag you are not allowed to re-use the data for OSM, as OSM is used commercially. On top, it requires "accurate" re-use, which may or may not also mean they want data to be current (up-to-date) at all times. This is another requirement which, as explained above, is unlikely to be met.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#Licences_that_forbid_specific_use
(see this section and the next one)

tldr; I have reverted only the addition of the property price data -not the address data- in
changeset/138118984

Please use the comment box below to reply to this changeset, so other contributors know you have read this comment.
For any general questions, I recommend using the community channels provided at the top of this comment. Other contributors may not reply (immediately) on posts as this is a voluntary activity.

Thank you for reading in advance.

Regards and happy mapping,

Daniel

Sidenote: I am not a lawyer or otherwise have a professional degree in law or similar subjects. For questions regarding licensing, please refer to the Licensing Working Group (LWG); see
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Contact

I've changed the first to an area and moved it slightly.

Hey Anne,

Is this one still there? Can't find it on street level imagery.
node/5346983622

Also, the inscription for this one seems to suddenly cut off?
node/7734592973

You can use additionally "inscription:1" etc. for the rest if it's longer than 256 characters.

Regards,

Daniel

I'm sorry if there's a misunderstanding.
( Jeg er ked af, hvis der er sket en misforståelse. )

Why did you add the tag "subject:wikidata"?
( Hvorfor har du tilføjet tagget "subject:wikidata"? )

Translated with DeepL
https://www.deepl.com/translator