A small tid bit here. Buildings in this area are unlikely to share common walls becasue the roofs are pitched and tend to overhang the building footprint: reference the pictures linked in project instructions.--- Hold alt when mapping to prevent your cursor from snapping to existing nodes.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162139589

Hi, several of the building footpritns you've added here actually represent barriers (like walls or fences) visible in the imagery. Beware that in this region many gardens have surrounding barriers. Use this context info and the shadows to tell them appart from buildings. ---Surrounding walls will generally cast a greater number of shadows than a building becasue they have no roof. ---Shadows in ESRI are being cast SSW. To aid your interpretation I recommend that you align and compare with BING (1.79; -1.79) in this area which is brighter and where shadows are cast NW instead.--- Please view Changeset: 162147962 to see how I mapped the 'property' to in the south of this changeset.--- I hope this helps, Thank you for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162139338

Hi, is the boundary tied to the waterway? i.e. should I move the boundary when modifying the geomerty of the waterway?

Hi, in future please explicitly state in your changeset comment whether an admin boundary is legaly defined to change with a waterway, or if it should remain static.--- Also please add the source of the boundary information.--- I am now editing a waterway and it would be convenient to know if the admin boundary should share a common geomerty. Thank you for your contribution.

I think that you've gone a little overboard with the circular buildings you added and have actually mapped some linear buildings as circles. Zooming out can help you to identify building shape and orientation becasue you can view what is effectively a higher resolution image.--- I believe that the circular footpritns you added have been copy pasted. Doing this is useful and saves effort when appropriate. However please take care to modify the footprint afterwards as necessary e.g. rotate and scale so that the footprints you contribute are accurate. In this case a good number of circular footprints appear to be too large--- I encourage you to attend a mapping event; you can find them here https://osmcal.org/ the missing maps mapathons offer live training.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159919942

Well done all of the buildings you added here are valid.--- Please press q to square the footprints after you've mapped them to square them as most building footprints have square corners, but it is difficult to map so precisely.--- I recommend drawing the footprints a liitle smaller than the roofs here becasue the roofs are pitched and likely overhang the walls somewhat.--- I encourage you to attend an event which you can find here https://osmcal.org/ the missing maps mapathons offer live training.--- hope this helps; happy mapping.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161587539

Hello,---

My comment refers to the southern area of this changeset.--- An appreciable number of the 'isolated' dwellings that you added are within a few dozen meters of eachother, some as close as 20 m. In two instances you even enveloped several isolated dwellings within a single residential area.--- In future please consider whether it would be more appropriate to represent several buildings ,or seperate groups of buildings in close proximity, with an individual place node, or perhaps to simply map the building footprints instead.---

politely, Gregory
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161094937

Some of the building footprints here envelope multiple buildings. A building footprint should represent an individual building. If you want to outline groups of buildings then residential areas are a much better way to go.--- you also deleted building footprints which represented buildings visible in the imagery you used. Modify footprints instead of deleting them unless they did not or no longer exist.--- Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159821228

A building in this changeset has excess nodes. You can press shift+y to simplify ways removing such nodes.

A building in this changeset is comprised of excess nodes. You can press shift+y in JOSM to quickly simplify ways removing such nodes.

Some of the shadow is included in the footprint, also.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141768030

The building I flagged is slightly oversized, becasue it seems that you included part of the wall in the footprint. Mapbox in this region shows the South and Eastern walls of buildings. Take care to idenetify if and how the imagery is off-nadir to aid/improve your interpretation. I hope this helps thank you for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141768030

Well done you correctly identified a building visible in the imagery. In future please press q to square footprints after tagging them. Check Changeset: 159784507 to see my modifications.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159649454

WAY: 1336959789 has an inaccurate orientation. It should be rotated ~45 degrees CCW like the footprints you deleted WAY: 1318104353. When viewing low resolution imagery it helps to zoom in and out to determine building shape and orientation.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159476445

These buildings were added using outdated imagery. In this case the imagery capture date is Sep 22, 2010. You can check this here https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=10&mapCenter=161.28107%2C-10.23859%2C17. I rectified this in Changeset: 159464621. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159441418

It looks like you enveloped two buildings with this footprint. A quadrilateral on the left and an L shaped building on the right. The building on the right may appear odd because it appears that not all of its corners are square looking at the adjacent highways can help you to determine this. Zooming in and out helps also. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159386115

Most of the building footprints you have added are valid. Please press q to appropriately square the corners of building footprints after tagging them. --- Building footprints should not share common nodes with landuse areas. Hold alt to prevent your cursor from snapping to existing data or filter out data that you do not want to interact with using the map data panel on the RHS of ID Editor. ---Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159295686

To get you thinking about good changesets lest look at WAY: 103138423. Previously it was tagged as a building; you changed it to a roof. Why? Did you see something in the imagery to confirm it? Have you actually seen it yourself? If it was previously mapped as a building, then it's possible that a future contributor will map it as such again. If they look at the history and find a good explanation for why it has been mapped that way then they'll be less likely to change it. If they do change it (and it is in fact a roof) then it'll be easier to rectify and maintain. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155794282

Going forward please start logically structuring your uploads/changesets and submit USEFUL comments with them. A useful comment tells other users what you did, and why you did it. This is important because it makes working with your changesets significantly easier and saves contributors time. If a changeset is well structured and has a good comment I may not have to view it visually to understand it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155794282

WAY: 451577827 and nearby highways added by you in this changeset (and possibly others) appear to be fictional. They seemed to overlap and now overlap more features vidible in imagery. To be as generous as possible I'll assume that you did this to 'improve' router functionality. Now these highways are in the way and hinder mapping. In future, please structure your uploads such that fictional edits or guesses are segregated from valid data; that way anything you're unsure about will be significanlty easier to address. Be sure to state what you're doing in your changeset comment to make this obvious.