If way/335741975 is a public bridleway, then it must head west somewhere? I suspect it isn't and is instead a mapping error (mine), although the signage here is a bit iffy. Also is the western of the two parallel ways (which do really exist BTW!) best described as a bridleway at the southern end? My recollection is that it's wider and "nicer" than the eastern "public bridleway"; it'd be nice to have tags explaining that.

Need to double-check the Rutland Round signage at relation/1438826#map=19/52.70156/-0.62304 - it clearly doesn't fit with the rest of the relation relation/1438826 . I added the relation membership here (along with the Viking Way relation/404079#map=17/52.70128/-0.62288&layers=N), and did think at the time that it was the "normal" Rutland Round, but something's clearly odd.

How does way/338940648#map=17/52.86760/-1.84458 join the road here? Needs a survey.

The town boundaries here such as way/71517232 , way/118172912 and way/118172883 don't actually align properly. Something more accurate from OS OpenData would be a better replacement.

There are no GPS traces to confirm, but presumably the footpath from the north joins the road through the trees? Also the imagery suggests that the footpath from the south joins to the west of the current position. Does the second footpath from the south exist?

As with notes 161044 and 161046 further down, this road doesn't seem to exist either. The imagery just suggests a turn lane on the A158.

There's a node here marked as both a bus stop AND a telephone. I suspect that the node's actually the imported northbound bus stop node, and should be the other side of the road, and there should be a second node to describe the telephone. Needs a survey.