Bronnen, alleen voor referentie.
- Archieven.nl / Zeeuws Archief (1905-1915)
https://proxy.archieven.nl/0/7376451EBE044A619CE6C0493FECA4EA
- Flickr (2009)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32178000@N03/3914859761/in/pool-grijpskerke/
- RCE (1964)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Overzicht_van_smederij_-_Grijpskerke_-_20402781_-_RCE.jpg

Changed in
changeset/175541056

way/1039132623
The steps are still there

https://api.panoramax.xyz/#pic=184ea516-c722-4793-9672-8a4aa91496fc&focus=pic

also in 2025-01 image
(at top, click on three dots, then on lamp to increase brightness)
https://api.panoramax.xyz/#pic=6591a139-f3f4-464a-99d1-1cba73954c18&focus=pic

though they are only visible from the street as a dark hole in the wall.

node/7060327183
Bus stop no longer in use or demolished. Correctly has lifecycle prefix.

https://api.panoramax.xyz/#pic=94898964-2c2e-46b6-859e-424580ad9a64&focus=pic

node/10151450673

Sind Sie sicher, dass sich der Defibrillator außerhalb des Gebäudes befindet?
(Are you sure the defibrillator is outdoors?)

Siehe Mapillary (2024)
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=440525401945649&focus=photo

Hey Marc,

I see you are adding version numbers to your changeset comments. Could you explain if there is a specific reason and/or use case for this, please?

Regards,

Daniel

Also, would you say the whole building is called 'The Presbytery', or only (the north) part, or only relevant to the west entrance?
note/5038473

node/13175300865
Could you describe the plaque, or is it refering to the reserved parking sign at the same position?
https://api.panoramax.xyz/#pic=2e70ed90-016a-4799-bc8b-b015e84888e5&focus=pic

whole wall
https://api.panoramax.xyz/#pic=1f338046-adbb-4e08-9126-15ecc113729d&focus=pic

Using articles for reference only
- Heritage Audit of Ballygar (2022), p.95, 117
https://dpdgay9x1sxad.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2024/07/Gal_Co_Co_Ballygar_Heritage_Report_A4_140PP_SEPT_2022.pdf
- Galway's Forged Gates (2023), p.2, 4, 13, 14
https://dpdgay9x1sxad.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/04/Galways-Forged-Gates-Project-Booklet.pdf
- Galway's Forged Gates Project (2022), p. 12
https://field-monuments.galwaycommunityheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2023/05/Galway_Co_Co_Galway_Gates_Project_Pull_Ups_X15_OCT_2022_12-1-1.pdf

This has since been resolved in
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=102212248

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