Factual record. No finding of causation or responsibility is made here.
What the dates show
The dates do not yet produce a verified works date. They show a collision on 24 April, a family photograph set on 1 May, a seven-day calendar interval, and a separate inconclusive estimate of approximately five days of visible grass growth.
The calendar interval
The collision date is 24 April 2025. The family photographs used for this roadworks question are dated 1 May 2025. Seven calendar days separate those dates. That arithmetic must not be confused with the family’s separate estimate that the visible grass represented approximately five days of growth.
The rainfall window
The nearby Cahir (Toureen) gauge recorded 21.5 mm in the Met Éireann window labelled 24 April. The window runs from 09:00 UTC on 24 April to 09:00 UTC on 25 April and therefore includes hours after the collision. The number is cumulative for the gauge window, not a pre-crash total and not a rainfall-intensity reading at the bridge.
Moore Park’s held hourly rows show rain around the relevant evening at a station approximately 34.3 km away. That is timing context only. It cannot establish the amount at the bridge.
The unanswered date question
The public article and photographs support asking whether the disturbance pre-dated 24 April. They do not verify that it happened on 24 April or that it was underway at the time of the collision. The answer requires the original dated works trail and, if available, contemporaneous scene evidence.
The distinction matters because several records concern different days and different kinds of evidence. A daily rain total is not an hourly rate; a later photograph is not a work order; a route-table status is not an as-built record; and an inspection field about signage is not proof of the later works-site arrangement.
A careful chronology can therefore be useful without becoming a reconstruction. It states the dates, preserves the uncertainty and identifies the record that would close each gap.