The flagged features have been mapped with common nodes. Please avoid doing this unless you are sure that the buildigs share a common wall or node, because it makes them harder to edit.

Press q to square corners.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152850936

The flagged feature is mapped as triangular when it should be a quadrilateral. Press q to square corners.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152851123

Please press q when mapping buildings with square corners (most buildings that aren't round.

When mapping in ID editor use the following process;

1. Accurately place area nodes
2. Finish drawing the area
3. Tag it as a building
4. Press q to square the footprint
5. Repeat
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152851405

Please press q when mapping buildings with square corners (most buildings that aren't round.

When mapping in ID editor use the following process;

1. Accurately place area nodes
2. Finish drawing the area
3. Tag it as a building
4. Press q to square the footprint
5. Repeat
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152851611

Please press q when mapping buildings with square corners (most buildings that aren't round.

When mapping in ID editor use the following process;

1. Accurately place area nodes
2. Finish drawing the area
3. Tag it as a building
4. Press q to square the footprint
5. Repeat
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152852049

Please press q when mapping buildings with square corners (most buildings that aren't round.

When mapping in ID editor use the following process;

1. Accurately place area nodes
2. Finish drawing the area
3. Tag it as a building
4. Press q to square the footprint
5. Repeat
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152852243

I could 'see' all of the features that I added as building footprints, so if they aren't, then I think it's more of a question of how the imagery is processed by contributors i.e. I don't think the resolution is too low to be workable, but more quantitative instructions along with some ground view and oblique images of areas compared to the aerial ones would be great to have.

I'll probably write in the project comments about that, and reference this disscussion.

Thanks for writing!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153727014

Hi Frans,

I did cross reference other imagery sources available in JOSM like bing, especially when deleting and replacing buildings that were mapped using other imagery, but I failed to provide them as sources in my change-sets, for example in this task area 153725319 & 153725337.

Certainly a higher resolution imagery would be beneficial, but I think that in this case the reason why I added all those footprints is becuase the instructions stated that some of the buildings are very tiny, so I figured that these may be some tiny shelters quickly built by locals following flooding. The other imageries have limited value as references in many areas, becuase the situation on the ground has changed drastically between their capture dates. Sometimes bing can be useful in locating settlements.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153727014

If you want to show that a feature (in this case a park) abutts a highway, then please map the highway area and have the feature and area share common nodes. That makes it easier for others to edit highways because the highways aren't hidden by other features, and it doesn't result in the oversizing of features. In this case the park is oversized because its boundary envelopes half the width of the highway.

Generally areas don't need to share common nodes with highways, the exceptions are for barriers.

Overall quite a good changeset. Most of the building footprints modified are more accurate than they previously were, and multiple buildings that were represented by one footprint now have their own.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153712979

You didn't modify the footprint, but the buliding just NE of WAY: 1286841096 is T shaped.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153712979

WAY: 1286841096 was more accurate before. The white parts to the East of buildings in this imagery are either paths adjacent to the buildings, and/or the building walls.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153712979

I believe the flagged features are in fact trees.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153712979

I do not believe the features I flagged represent buildings.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153711889

I believe that the footprints I flagged are not building footprints. The ones to the NW becasue they are so close to a river and are likely rocks/boulders and the one footprint south of them becuase I would expect the southernly shadow cast by the tree just north of it to interact with it in a different way.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153712026

WAY: 1286754650 is oversized. Check the changesets in the task area to see my edits.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151840996

Is this Casa del Migrante?

This is not a building, but rather trees or the ground. It's possible to tell because of the irregularity of the shape at its edges. I will delete this feature.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151858384

Building footprints are inaccurate.
Footprints which envelope multiple buildings: WAY: 1286492322, 1286492319, 1286492318, 1286492328, 1286492334, 1286492310, 1286492307, 1286492313, 1286492310.

Others are inaccurate for other reasons.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151796284

Building footprints inaccurate for the same reasons as before.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151860217