Your changes visualised
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=101139405

This has since been resolved. It is clearly unmarked (also based on Mapillary), so zebra tag was removed.
changeset/134944551

Based on other edits by this user this was an accident/mistake. The only other thing which may be missing with this castle is its supposed later use as ball alley (of which walls should still be visible), would need surveying.

Removed in
changeset/173968734

Hey Victor,

Though this changeset is 4 years old, based on Mapillary (and the similar usernames), this path is a duplicate of the road.
way/899965275
seems to be incomplete to the north and part of that end has a separate service road running along it.

Both should be checked if tags can be merged / they are tagged correctly as well.
ie. I don't think informal applies. (they likely just meant 'rural path')

I didn't check any other edits.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Victor,

Be careful with what you (multi)select.
iD can be unforgiving in this; here changing all the housenumbers as a result.

Manually reverted in
changeset/173787345
( https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=173787345 )

Your changes
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=173774303

Regards,

Daniel

You can see here how the empty nodes of the grass areas had tags added
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=114632979

Hey Victor,

The street lamps and underground cable were glued to the landuse areas. Glueing objects also makes it harder to maintain them.
Manually unglued them in
- changeset/171867687
- changeset/171868996

Regards,

Daniel

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.