> There is also an "unsuitable..." sign at the top end

Is there? Can you link to a picture of it?

There may also be an "unsuitable..." sign at the top end covering way/46588460 and way/46588459 , but when I was last there the only signage was at the southeast.

Indeed - and I have to agree that even to someone (like me!) who tends to map roadside infrastructure as "part of the road", https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.673459200000025&lng=25.272460000000024&z=19.9&pKey=522626237131593&focus=photo&x=0.9962062785249548&y=0.5534350176382107&zoom=0.8075370121130552 definitely looks separate!

> Discussions have been done in mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/admindb/talk-lt years ago

Thanks - do you have a link to the thread?

@Tomas perhaps you could link to the public forum where this discussion has been taking place?

@kkuzmickas Sveiki ir sveiki atvykę į OpenStreetMap!
Kaip ir ar pažymėti „važinėjimo dviračiu šaligatviu“ infrastruktūrą, yra karštai diskutuojama OpenStreetMap tema. Yra dviračių šalininkų, kurie teigia, kad visur, kur tai leidžiama, reikėtų pažymėti atskirai, o yra tokių (kaip Tomas čia), kurie teigia, kad „cycleway:right=oneway“ yra teisingas, o kas daugiau čia klaidingai parodytų dviračių nuomos dydį. Paprastai kalbant, įtariu, kad ankstesnės nuomonės žmonių yra dauguma, o su Tomu sutinkančių – mažuma.
Tačiau tai, kas yra teisinga kiekvienu konkrečiu atveju, priklauso nuo to individualaus atvejo.
Atrodo, kad čia yra gana gera Mapillary aprėptis – žr. pvz. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.674222222222&lng=25.272191666667027&z=17&pKey=505301730893404&focus=photo – ir atrodo, kad tarp ciklo ir kelio juostos, kuri rodo teisingą gatvę/kraštą, yra ir Tomas buvo neteisus.
@Tomas%20Straupis ar turite ką nors pakomentuoti?
Pagarbiai
Andy Townsendas, OSM duomenų darbo grupės vardu.

@kkuzmickas Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
How and whether to map "cycling on the sidewalk" infrastructure is a hotly-debated topic within OpenStreetMap. There are cycling advocates that argue that everywhere it is allowed it should be mapped separately, and there are those (like Tomas here) who argue that "cycleway:right=oneway" is correct, and anything more would misrepresent the amount of cycling provision here. Generally speaking, I suspect that people with the former view are in the majority and people who agree with Tomas the minority.
However, what is correct in any individual case depends on that individual case.
There does seem to be quite good Mapillary coverage here - see e.g. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.674222222222&lng=25.272191666667027&z=17&pKey=505301730893404&focus=photo - and it does look like there's a strip of grass between the cycleway/sidewalk and the road, which would suggest that you were correct and Tomas was incorrect.
@Tomas%20Straupis do you have any comment on that?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
You've changed a number of river names here, and people are wondering what the reason for that change was.
The river in OSM previously reflected the view in other older maps, such as OS OpenData StreetView from 2016 https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#15/51.6462/-1.8847/6 (see the "River Thames or Isis" and "River Churn" labels) and also OS OpenMap Local https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#15/51.6456/-1.8876/2 (again, "River Thames" and "River Churn" labels).
There's a discussion going on about this in the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/possible-vandalism/126188 . Please do explain there what the reason for the change was. If you're unable to do that, we'll have to change the names back.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Kiedy czytam te komentarze w tłumaczeniu, widzę, że unyny napisało „rzeka jest rzeką, a strumień jest strumieniem na całej swojej długości”. Większość osób w OSM nie mapuje rzek i strumieni w ten sposób. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rzeka-czy-strumien/125897/1 wydaje się być dyskusją na ten temat — zasugerowałbym, aby unyny dołączyło do tej dyskusji.
Pozdrawiam,
Andy Townsend (z grupy roboczej ds. danych)

When I read these comments in translation I see that unyny has written "a river is a river, and a stream is a stream along its entire length". This is not how most people in OSM map rivers and streams. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rzeka-czy-strumien/125897/1 seems to be a discussion about this - I would suggest that unyny joins that discussion.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (from the data working group)

Also these two relations:
< -4868091 | Fallagloon
< -4868069 | Bracaghreilly

Thanks!

Hello,
It looks like the update here has created a gap in a couple of boundary relations. relation/12409614#map=19/54.856662/-6.763608 has a gap under the bridge and relation/12403345#map=19/54.856662/-6.763608 also.
The new culvert needs adding to both relations with a role of "outer".
I think that iD will do this automatically unless you redraw it manually.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks!

Did you let any data consumers know that you were going to make the change?
If not, how could they possibly know of it?

What was it that guided you to change these objects?

Hello,
Was this mechanical edit discussed anywhere?
Best Regards,
Andy

I've asked the second question of an active Facebook mapper with similar MO at changeset/162522036 . There the "divide at intersection" makes more sense than here.

Hello,
You've written "#maproulette" in the comment - does that mean that this change was done as a result of a maproulette challenge? If so, where is that?
Best Regards,
Andy

Their last edit was only 9 days ago!
Hopefully somewhat at Facebook is monitoring the email with which @VLD296 was signed up. My experience with osm@fb.com is that sometimes a bit of cage rattling via backchannels to get a response.