Hallo! Weg way/373438293 in diesem Changeset ist mit "bicycle=x" getaggt. Sollte das ein "y" für yes werden oder hat es eine andere Bedeutung?

Ja, Sinn war klar, aber vielleicht ist ja ein Stück opposite_lane oder so. ;) Danke fürs Korrigieren jedenfalls.

There are some street lamps along Bulwar Filadelfijski in this changeset tagged with "eihgt=5.5". That's supposed to be "height=5.5", isn't it?

This changeset changes a tag for way/116016334 from "height=8" to "eight=8". That's probably a mistake, isn't it?

Hallo! In diesem Changeset wird der Straße Börschgasse das Tag "bicycle=opposite" hinzugefügt. Falls das heißen soll, dass Radfahren hier gegen die Einbahnstraße erlaubt ist, müsste es allerdings "cycleway=opposite" o.ä. heißen (siehe osm.wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#Einbahnstra.C3.9Fe_mit_Erlaubnis_f.C3.BCr_Radfahrer_in_Gegenrichtung). Da ich die Situation vor Ort nicht kenne, möchte ich es allerdings nicht einfach blind ändern. Trotzdem wäre es super, wenn das verbessert wird.

Hallo! In diesem Changeset werden den Straßen Unterm Berg und Trankgasse das Tag "bicycle=opposite" hinzugefügt. Falls das heißen soll, dass Radfahren hier gegen die Einbahnstraße erlaubt ist, müsste es allerdings "cycleway=opposite" o.ä. heißen (siehe osm.wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#Einbahnstra.C3.9Fe_mit_Erlaubnis_f.C3.BCr_Radfahrer_in_Gegenrichtung). Da ich die Situation vor Ort nicht kenne, möchte ich es allerdings nicht einfach blind ändern. Trotzdem wäre es super, wenn das verbessert wird.

This changeset contains two ways tagged with "bicycle=yes; no; yes". What does this mean? Is it "yes" or is it "no"?

Ah, now I understand what you mean. Yes, looks as if the relation is not used anymore. I just asked the original mapper whether it could be deleted. Thanks for spotting.

Can relation/285872 be removed? It is empty now and all its former members are now in relation/338852

I usually contact the mappers if it looks like a systematic failure (i.e. if there is more than one single location to correct). Then they will probably learn for the future and I do not need to spent the time on all the corrections. ;) In this particular case, I didn't assume that a mapper with >7000 changesets has really a misunderstanding with the tags, so I didn't bother him.
(Just out of curiosity - you are systematically checking my bicycle edits? ;) Just drop me a personal message if you are also doing QA on that topic.)

Yes, I sometimes do via various way (although answers are not always helpful: note/387149 :D). In the particular case you pointed to I didn't, because the mapper who set this tag was active seven years ago and the ways surrounding the one with the strange tag had no bicycle restrictions. In addition, there is no usual bicycle tag starting with a "b" (which would be a hint towards a typo), so I assumed it to be safe to remove it without further investigations.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. In relation/285872/history I did indeed delete a tag and not change one, as far as I can see and remember.

Wenn hier, wie im Changeset-Kommentar angegeben, eine Treppe ist, wäre dann nicht "highway=stairs" (ggf. für einen Teil des Wegs) passend? "bicycle=stairs" ist jedenfalls nicht gut, da der Key "bicycle" für Zugangsbeschränkungen (Verbote, Beschilderung, usw.) gedacht ist. Außerdem ist die Frage, ob es da Stufen gibt, nicht nur für Radfahrer interessant, sondern auch für Rollstuhlfahrer.

Way way/308579739 and way/334455468 in this changeset have several tags like "access=sim". What does "sim" mean? Should it be e.g. "yes" instead?

Weg way/265003136 in diesem Changeset ist mit "bicycle=des" getaggt. Ist "yes" oder "designated" gemeint?

Node node/3354499940 in this changeset is tagged with "bicycle=d". What does that mean?

This changeset added "bicycle=shoulder" to some highways, which is used nowhere else. Did you mean "cycleway=shoulder" instead (see cycleway=*#Other_values)?

Relation relation/4215963 in this changeset contains a tag "bicycle=2.2". What does that mean?

Unfortunately, some of your edits in this changeset contain key where the value is just "]". Can you please fix this?

I agree, but that must be decided by someone with local knowledge. However, "ye" was definitely wrong. "yes" might be correct. There are a lot more of these kind of strange combinations in the database. I'm just trying to clean up those with obvious typos.