Hello,

Why did you tag the highways in this area the way you did? e.g. in way/402672543 you changed your own tagging between versions 6 & 10.

Hello,

I would be very thankful to have water in the destert, but this looks like a potential typo. Are these water tanks really named thank {number}?

Hello,

Why did you add the access=permissive tag to the highways here?

Good go at trying to map the large building here, but always ensure that your edits agree with the latest imagery. Check the bottom right to see what imagery you're looking at when editing. You can see how I mapped it in Changeset: 173740593 I also decided to map it as one building.

Hi, why did you modify the southern most footprint and highway in this changeset?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173549953

Hi, the footpritns you added here do not represent buildings, but rather 'roof furniture' like walls. Cross reference Bing to see the disparity beween the shadow length cast by the buildings and these features on the roof. Read my project comment for more.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173251576

The lanudse here should not include building footprintsm and could be more accurate. Check osm.wiki/Map_features#Common_landuse_key_values_-_rural_and_agricultural_land for reference of exisiting tagging schemes. 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/173238285

Please read about how to use the layer tag here layer=*#Guidelines

Please read about how to use the layer tag here layer=*#Guidelines

Please read about how to use the layer tag here layer=*#Guidelines

Please read about how to use the layer tag here layer=*#Guidelines

I mapped the footprint smaller than the roof, becasue the roof has a unique shape. I though this was due to it overhanging the walls. Perhaps you saw or considered something I had not.

I placed the POI between the two groups of buildings I think form a settlement. Why does it seem incorrect? How would you map it?

I like to explain the why, but I will try to be as brief as possible in future.

I comment on changesets sometimes, becasue they are more specific than tasks. You yourself have commented on others' changesets. Not everyone contributes via a tasking manager, so others already have and possibly will communicate with you via OSM.

Thanks for your reply.

Re imagery: Of course I think that there are inaccuracies when looking at the imagery used for mapping the footprints. I you view my changeset one of the buildings differs by a factor of two, though most are probably a few tens of %.

Re precision: I can only go off of what I know and see, so I wasn't sure you were aware of the concepts I commented about. I am not advocating for mm precision or anything like that, just that the footprints be equal to, or slightly smaller (90-95%) than the roof giving a range sizes I'd consider being as accurate as the imagery allows.

As far as time goes, I figure it shouldn't make a big diference, at worst. At best it may save you time especially in dense areas, or if there's a lot of existing data. Personally this approach saved me some time, becasue in the past I would use the vertecies of roofs to aquire a buildings' shape and size (like shown in the vast majority of tutorials/guides), but that leaves little wiggle room. You may actually find that it saves you time too.

- Best

I agree that the quality of the imagery here is not as good as the changeset I was originally commenting on changeset/171738491, however I see what I think are inaccuracies and am sharing my interpretation to discuss mapping, not "argue" or start an edit war.

I wrote my comments after reviewing your contributions and go off of what I can see. I am not spamming, nor am I a mind reader; I cannot exhaustively know what what you would find bothersome in advance, therefore this is an unreasonable expectation. Ultimately if you make a contribution to OSM, then it is open for discussion by defualt.

Why did you extend the footprint here?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173094936

Hello, I would say you partially improved/updated the residential areas here by including buildings and residential areas in settlements, however a significant proportion of both residential areas includes water from the river which shouldn't generally be done unless the houses are on stilts, or floating, or something like that, which does not appear to be the case here.

Please consider the context, landuse, errosion, vegetation and other features when mapping residential areas. Here much of the Western part of the Northern selltlment is flooded in the most recent imagery, either due to a high water level or river bank errosion.

The shape of the Northern settlement has changed due to this, reference ESRI Clarity. i.e. there are a simmilar number of buildings in total in this settlement, but they are now in the East, so I doubt that the Western part will be rebuilt/resettled. When you see cases like this in future consider the feature you're mapping over a broarder time frame. Pressing ctrl+h will show you the history of selected features in JOSM. You can see how I mapped it in https://osmcha.org/changesets/173154295

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/

Please consider the context, landuse, errosion, vegetation and other features when mapping residential areas. Here much of the Western part of the selltlment is flooded in the most recent imagery, either due to a high water level or river bank errosion.

The shape of the settlement has changed due to this, reference ESRI Clarity. i.e. there are a simmilar number of buildings in total in this settlement, but they are now in the East, so I doubt that the Western part will be rebuilt/resettled. When you see cases like this in future consider the feature you're mapping over a broarder time frame. Pressing ctrl+h will show you the history of selected features in JOSM. You can see how I mapped it in https://osmcha.org/changesets/173154295

Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173094581

Please do not copy and paste features unless they truly have the same shape.

Please don't copy and paste features, unless they truly have the same shape.