Hello, my intention is to improve your understanding. Many of the footprints you mapped here (especially those in the North) do not represent buildings. 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/174315460

Hello, my intention is to improve your understanding. You appropriately disconnected the highway and building and some buildings have an accurate shape. However, beware that the Nothern walls are visible in the imagery you used. It should not be included in the size of footprints and they should be moved to the base of building to prevent data overlaps. Enter this url in to the custom imagery offset by 0,2.32 https://wayback.maptiles.arcgis.com/arcgis/rest/services/world_imagery/wmts/1.0.0/default028mm/mapserver/tile/20337/{zoom}/{y}/{x} I hope this helps.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173814560

Hello, my intention is to improve your understanding. The Western building is likely too thin and has not been positioned at the base of the building. The Eastern one is too long, becasue it includes the wall in its length. Both overlap a potrion of the highway on their Southern side. Please cross reference https://wayback.maptiles.arcgis.com/arcgis/rest/services/world_imagery/wmts/1.0.0/default028mm/mapserver/tile/20337/{zoom}/{y}/{x} offset 0;2.32 by adding it as a tms layer in JOSM. I hope this helps. Thanks for contributing.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174335739

PLease move footprints you map to the base of buildings after tagging them.

I think you may have mapped a field as a building way/1444065514

Hi, you may want to check out https://osmcha.org/changesets/174315920 to see my interpretation of the imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171346952

Roofs can have light and dark sections which make the appear like seperate buildings.

Hi, when mapping complex footprints like some you did here, consider if the footprint may not in fact be a simpler shape and may just appear to be more complex in the imagery.

Thank you for your informative response!

I'm going to explain some ways in which I think you could improve your approach, though mine is certainly not ideal either: we're doing our best.

If this is a difficult question to answer, then I would say that your current approach to changeset comments makes it difficult to virtually impossible for other contributors to understand and discuss your changes, given that even you did not know why you did something within 24 hours of this changeset being closed.

If you intend to validate many tasks of a particular project (especially when the default comment is not good), then please put in the extra effort up fornt to write good comments when uploading your initial changesets. To save time, you can then reuse them as appropriate for any actions you repeatedly perform by selecting them from the comment history, rather than rewriting them everytime you upload.

Consider your workflow and how you structure your uploads, so that the comments remain valid, informative, and idealy comprehensive. It's best when the comment can explain your rationale, mindset, or the context e.g. if you are not carefully checking each feature or making a mass edit. This allows others to more easily make informed decisions regarding your contributions.

As an example I recently removed many invalid layer tags from building footprints, but didn't filter out building=roof. This resulted in the removal of 1 valid tag. I spotted this mistake and corrected it, but if I hadn't, then a good comment could have made it easier for someone else to spot and rectify that mistake, rather than thinking something like 'did that contributor know/see something I don't?'. https://osmcha.org/changesets/173908491

You can view my changesets to get some inspiration for good cahngeset comments, check the history of the way I linked, and I'll also refer you to osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments . Hopefully this will allow you to experience how much of a difference a good comment can make.

As for the building footprint and highway I was asking about. I put in a fair ammount of care and effort when mapping the footprint, and made some deliberate dicisions while doing so. Given the context I think I mapped it fairly well (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1437067893). Based on all imagery of it I have seen I do not believe it is entirely square i.e. not all walls are parallel or perpendicular, and by making it so you've reduced its accuracy, requiring the modification of the adjacent highway, in turn reducing its accuracy to avoid data overlap. For these reasons I have reverted the features specified in https://osmcha.org/changesets/174110756

I am aware that my mapping is not perfect: I spot and correct some of my own mistakes (which you can even see in the history of this footprint), and it is not possible to know everything without comprehensive sources.

I know that often contributors do not square the features they map when appropriate, however not all buildings are in fact square, or circular for that matter. Sometimes they have more complex designs, and/or are making the most of the available space, so please treat any unsquare building indications (and validator warnings) as just that. Please make an effort to understand what you're dealing with, then decide the best course of action.

I hope that you find this useful and take it into consideration going forward.

Kindly.

Hello,

You identifed buildings in imagery, and I can understand why you merged the nodes of these building footprints, however this tends to make them more difficult to modify later. You can hold alt to prevent the snapping of nodes. Check out the roof modeling page of the OSM wiki to see the process for mapping buildings with different heights.

Hello, if you're using more specific tags than building=yes then please clearly state the source of that information. It is at times possible to spot e.g. some religious buildings from aerial imagery becasue they are visually distinct, but how do you know that a certain building was built as a house?

Hello, It was unnecessary to map the building as a multipolygon, the outer footprint would have sufficed. I think the dark spot in the middle is caused by a feature on the roof casting a shadow. In some places you mapped solar panels as buildings. Move footpritns to the base of buildings; in this case you shortened a valid highway, becasue you ran out of room to fit all the features which exist at the ground level. Hope this helps. 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/171524878

Beware that roofs may have items in them which may trick you into thinking there are multiple buildings where there is perhaps only one.

Hello, The living street here is more or less straight and you'll only have enough room to fit everything if you move the building footprints to the base of buildings.

Hi, it looks like you added an invalid layer tag here. Please read layer=* to better understand its use. If there's some reason why you think this is a valid use of the tag please let me know.

Hi, it looks like you added an invalid layer tag here. Please read layer=* to better understand its use. If there's some reason why you think this is a valid use of the tag please let me know.

Hi, it looks like you added an invalid layer tag here. Please read layer=* to better understand its use. If there's some reason why you think this is a valid use of the tag please let me know.

When mapping building footprints consider that you are looking at the roofs which may have stains making it appear as thogh their shape is different.

Hi, it looks like you added and invalid layer tag here. Pleas read layer=* to better understand its use.

Hi, it looks like you added and invalid layer tag here. Pleas read layer=* to better understand its use.