All buildings were within one city and already had building:levels.
I derived height=* using a consistent floor-height assumption.
I understand that applying this method at scale may require prior discussion.
I will pause further edits and open a forum thread to discuss whether this approach is acceptable.
If the community prefers that height values be survey-based only, I’m willing to revert these edits.

Thanks for explaining your concern, and that’s understandable.

To clarify, I didn’t add random values. The heights were calculated from existing 'building:levels' by applying a consistent floor-to-floor height and accounting for visible podiums or roof structures where applicable. That said, I agree these are approximations rather than surveyed data.

I didn’t seek prior community approval for this batch, and I’m open to retagging these as estimated (e.g. source:height=estimated) or reverting the heights if the community considers this inappropriate.

The heights were estimated based on the number of visible floors in aerial imagery, using a typical floor-to-floor height. They are approximate values, not surveyed measurements.

I will definitely consider your advice, sir.

Yes

I will definitely consider. Thank you.

This is the final one.

changeset/176221006

Sure, I will do.

*related to

Thanks for correcting! Next time I'll consult the local community before doing any changes related things naming conventions.

Sure.

I now realised the mistake. Please do revert the changes I made in Hungary then (regarding the name changes)

will definitely consider next time.