I'm not local to the area, so it's difficult to say. I don't think it's related to an education authority, so I'd assume school isn't quite correct - feel free to update to something that seems likely.

I notice as well that the organisation details are currently on the building, while the "school" area is unnamed, so it's probably worth taking the name out of the building and putting it into the area tags.

Spot on, thanks for amending :-)

Hi, there seem to be some issues with the footpath you've added beside the Open University campus: way/1133926856
It crosses a road and a set of steps (without making clear whether they connect or go over/under each other), and it's also attached to the bridge area of the road, possibly inadvertently.

I can't see the route on aerial imagery, so can't make the adjustments myself; perhaps you can update the route with some local knowledge?

Hi,
It's all as it should be - as of writing, the most recent aerial photos are Mapbox premium and Bing and it matches both.

Hi, I didn't create this from scratch - I refined some of the existing mapping based on an approximation of construction plans, as there were sections which did not make sense (see history of way way/350073909/history for some additional history of the original mapping). I didn't make any changes to the status (i.e. under construction, proposed, etc.), as it was already mapped this way. If you have local knowledge of this and it's clear the construction has not begun, it may be best to re-tag all mapped sections as highway=proposed instead (highway=proposed)

Hey Openallhours, thanks for this edit.
Not a criticism, but a tip - when removing roads from use, rather than deleting the way, it's better to update the highway=* tag to disused:highway=* (or demolished:highway=* if you know the road has been entirely removed), rather than deleting the way. This is because aerial imagery still shows that the road exists, and leaving the line in place with this tag clarifies for other editors that the road should not be reinstated on openstreetmap. Roads with the disused: etc tags are not rendered on the openstreetmap.org mapping, or in GPS software, so it just remains as a reminder to editors in case someone comes along, sees the road in imagery and tries to add it back.

See osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix for more information.

After the demolished: ways have been around a while, I tend to only delete them once at least one of the aerial image sets is updated to show that the road is now gone.

Spot on, many thanks :-)

Hi Openallhours,

I see you've changed this section back to motorway link - I had changed it to trunk, because drivers going from N40 (or anywhere on the Dunkettle roundabout at the moment) would not be travelling under any motorway conditions, so this should not be designated a motorway slipway after Link A joins (from N40 roundabout towards N25), otherwise GPS software for users that avoid motorways would not be directed along this route.

Hi Yasslay, sory for my late response. I'm happy to go with consensus on this one then - is there a talk page or record of this somewhere?

Yes, it appears to be disconnected from the tertiary road according to the drive-by video source, but it's unclear. I inserted a "fixme" tag in the adjacent demolished highway.

Sorry for the delay - thanks for your response, that's helpful. Am I right in thinking then that the "loose ends" between exit and legal start of motorway would essentially be trunk road with reference A2, or would they be as present: trunk road labelled with ref M3? (and vice versa on the westbound)

I'm assuming the start/end of the motorway restrictions and distinction should also marry up with the start/end of the named motorway reference.

Hi Falsernet,
With this edit changing the limits of motorway designation - is there a standard approach in use here? I'm interested to know, as I would have a different interpretation of what's on the ground. The eastern edit (westbound carriageway) does in fact have motorway signage before the point you edited (on a gantry at https://goo.gl/maps/3QzP4Nu1PmVUK4AA7), so while the edit is based on the "M3" signage seen just after the junction on the left, this stretch of road already does have motorway signage (at least to my eyes).

Additionally while the road classification has been changed to trunk, the reference number is still set as M3, meaning something of a disparity between road designation and reference.

I suppose I'm also thinking in terms of how GPS navigation would interpret this: as a driver travelling west, I would expect to be told as I pass the exit, "go straight on to join the motorway" (or M3, etc) whereas with the current format, this distinction won't be made until after passing the junction.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Indeed! Bit of a shame that OSM.org doesn't render the edges of meadow like it does for farmland though - it's quite pleasing to see the boundaries after completing an area.

Hi Quainer, thanks for bringing this to my attention - looks like the OSM wiki on farmland and medow has been updated since I last saw it - probably a number of years ago. (Previously farmland was described as both crop and pasture land, and meadow as wild meadow without mention of animal grazing.) My bad! I'll have to update the various places I've tagged over the past few years as well then.... 😟

This was an old changeset, but I've just noticed that the road was realigned without maintaining the administrative boundary in its original position. Any idea whether the townland boundary would have officially moved with the road position? I think it's usually not the case - if not, it looks like the original boundary alignment needs to be reinstated somehow (separate from the "road" way), but I'm not sure how one goes back to get this earlier state.

No that's fine, thanks for double checking :-) I was unaware that it was disused, just mapping the land area as it appeared to be a school from aerial and street level photos. Thanks for fixing!

Ok, that's me done. I see what you mean about the future northbound stretch - I can't remember if there's still another bridge to be built for that too, but I do know from February they'll be using the western half of ST08 for northbound traffic anyway, so it may as well be sitting ready for that changeover for the time being. I marked the old sections of Glanmire Bypass as abandoned too, I expect they'll be demolishing them before too long.

I'll pop in and take a look - I think it may require a slight reshape of the roundabout (which in essence has happened on the ground with the new alignment anyway), but I'd generally go for reusing the ways that are presewnt so that OSM retains the history since its inception. Give me a few minutes :-)

Hi Quainer, I was about to do this but I see you got in ahead of me ;-)

Just a note to say the new stretch of motorway over ST08 should follow the alignement of the more easterly "construction" way (immediately adjacent to the bit you made into a functioning motorway). The bit you've converted is actually the opposite side of the ST08 bridge, which will eventually become a northbound carriageway, but isn't yet opened. Do you mind if I swap these over? Or if the above makes sense, feel free to update yourself.

Just to avoid potential confusion/duplication of ways in the long run :-)

Tony

Judging by the route, the old bridge won't be affected, but the route does appear to overlie a section of the railway bed shortly after crossing the Erne - which is a shame, I'm always a fan of disused railways either reopening or becoming cycling routes 🙂

The web page I posted above had this link posted 3yrs ago, to a computerised flyover video of the route: https://vimeo.com/262413145 - you might find it interesting! And yes I wouldn't doubt there's plenty of potential for archaeology around there, it'll be interesting to see what comes up.