Hi VictorIE, thanks for spotting - that looks like a mistake on my part, while updating some of the junction refs and destinations. Thanks for fixing!

Updated now.

Yes, they can be made no exit - the only reason I hadn't was that they might be rejoined to the new road at some point later in construction (next year or later) so I wasn't sure of the permanence of a "no exit" designation.

+1 - this is the cascade, but it is not intended for walking on. I noticed it was missing. Perhaps a stream way in the direction of flow? With a waterfall tag?

Many thanks - error fixed.

No problem, feel free to revert my edit then.

I had noticed this error of the railway appearing above the footbridge: https://topo.openmap.lt/#t/15.6/54.89567/23.97093/0/0
The above link is an OSM-based map site recently publicised on weeklyOSM.

I figured perhaps the error was because of multiple ways crossing over and under each other, underneath the footbridge. Thus perhaps increasing the layer number of the bridge would fix this. However I may be wrong, and it might just be that topo.openmap.lt has a bug and is rendering the data incorrectly.

Hi VictorIE, no a ford wouldn't be appropriate here as it is a tidal body of water, so the crossing can only be made at low tide. The highway is covered at any other time. A ford is only where a waterway i.e. flowing river is to be crossed, so the highway would be passable in all but flood conditions.

I forget exactly what's in this specific changeset, but the tracks and fences are from the Bing imagery in iD, sinkholes and names (and confirmation that all the above exists in these locations) are from local knowledge. Sinkholes and names are also available in the book The Caves of Fermanagh and Cavan, Ed2 (Fogg, Burns et al 1997) but I didn't use this reference as I've been to these locations and know them myself.