Hello! node/13074971723/history has bicycle:repair = yes that was added in this edit
service:bicycle:repair is much more common way of expressing the same info as one from bicycle:repair key. Would you be fine with changing this tagging to a more popular version?

I think that in this case difference in key names are minimal, and benefit from easier use of data would be greater

See bicycle:repair=* and service:bicycle:repair=*

Hello! node/11538082797/history has bicycle:repair = yes that was added in this edit
service:bicycle:repair is much more common way of expressing the same info as one from bicycle:repair key. Would you be fine with changing this tagging to a more popular version?

I think that in this case difference in key names are minimal, and benefit from easier use of data would be greater

See bicycle:repair=* and service:bicycle:repair=*

Hello! node/11177573877/history has bicycle:repair = yes that was added in this edit
service:bicycle:repair is much more common way of expressing the same info as one from bicycle:repair key. Would you be fine with changing this tagging to a more popular version?

I think that in this case difference in key names are minimal, and benefit from easier use of data would be greater

See bicycle:repair=* and service:bicycle:repair=*

Hello! node/5150402677/history has bicycle:repair = yes that was added in this edit
service:bicycle:repair is much more common way of expressing the same info as one from bicycle:repair key. Would you be fine with changing this tagging to a more popular version?

I think that in this case difference in key names are minimal, and benefit from easier use of data would be greater

See bicycle:repair=* and service:bicycle:repair=*

Hello! node/10205355086/history has bicycle:repair = yes that was added in this edit
service:bicycle:repair is much more common way of expressing the same info as one from bicycle:repair key. Would you be fine with changing this tagging to a more popular version?

I think that in this case difference in key names are minimal, and benefit from easier use of data would be greater

See bicycle:repair=* and service:bicycle:repair=*

Hello! node/11748319282/history has bicycle:repair = yes that was added in this edit
service:bicycle:repair is much more common way of expressing the same info as one from bicycle:repair key. Would you be fine with changing this tagging to a more popular version?

I think that in this case difference in key names are minimal, and benefit from easier use of data would be greater

See bicycle:repair=* and service:bicycle:repair=*

thanks!

it seems so, but if I find myself completely mistaken I prefer to map something else after reverting myself.

And big thanks for noticing the problem!

> Bankomat is the operator. Please do not remove information you don't know anything about.

well, the problem was that I was unaware that I am missing crucial info. I will be more careful in future.

And big thanks for noticing the problem!

> Bankomat is the operator. Please do not remove information you don't know anything about.

well, the problem was that I was unaware that I am missing crucial info. I will be more careful in future.

Sorry! Should be now fixed and other edits like that also fixed.

In general I am trying to avoid stupid mistakes like that and rather ask people - as explanation "bankomat" is a word in Polish for ATM. I should have researched it better, especially if object was outside Poland.

Sorry! Should be now fixed and other edits like that also fixed.

In general I am trying to avoid stupid mistakes like that and rather ask people - as explanation "bankomat" is a word in Polish for ATM. I should have researched it better, especially if object was outside Poland.

Dzięki!

And thanks for fixing!

thanks! I was guessing that unit conversion may be root cause, but I was only guessing

Hello! way/60950229/history has maxheight = 4.4704 that was added in this edit
this value is unexpectedly long and detailed - is it really correct?

Hello! way/22012575/history has maxweight = 3.628739 that was added in this edit
this value is unexpectedly long and detailed - is it really correct?

welp, this page actually exists now, I forgot to check it and I forgot that I tried to document it (feel free to check its correctness!)

sorry for last sentence being wrong

welp, this page actually exists now, I forgot to check it and I forgot that I tried to document it (feel free to check its correctness!)

sorry for last sentence being wrong

welp, this page actually exists now, I forgot to check it and I forgot that I tried to document it (feel free to check its correctness!)

sorry for last sentence being wrong