These building footprints are valid, but they are not accurate, nor appropriately squared. It is common for buildings to have square corners. Check how this area looks like in OSM or select the OSM carto layer in ID editor to see what it might look like to someone using this map. The areas you draw must be close to square in order fot the function to work. WAY: 1327526789 for example is probably too far from square to be made square by pressing q. WAY: 1327526800 is the best footprint in this set, please map more similar to that in future and remember to square the corners when appropriate. Thank you for your contribution.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158254456

Errors and how to rectify them. All of the building footprints here should be squared becuase that is likely closer to reality, but none of have been. Buildings with square corners are quite common, so, unless you have good evidence to suggest that the angles between walls is different, you should square the footprints. Trace the footprints accurately (enough), tag the area as a building, and press q to square them. You can modify them after you draw them e.g. move & rotate. The imagery you used allows for these footprints to be mapped with greater accuracy e.g. WAY: 1317009395 is not a trapezoid but something you might consider a 'T' shaped building. I recommend using Mapbox in this region. Please try to keep you edits within your task area. Thank you for your contribution.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156886114

POSITIVES: You correctly identified buidlings visible in bing imagery. WAY: 1317009396 is the closest to a good footprint from this set, map more similar to that one in future please. Thank you for your contribution.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156886114

Building footprints are oversized. This seems to have caused further problems like buildings sharing nodes if they are close to one another. Generally: Building footprint <= Building roof, so you can map the footprint slightly smaller than the roof, to give yourself a margin while remaining reasonably accurate.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154295321

The building on the left is appropriately squared and has roughly the correct shape, though it is oversized and the orientation is not accurate. The footprint on the right should also be squared. Thank you for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154294902

The building footprints are inaccurate becasue they are oversized and not squared, though they should be. In order to square buildings the nodes must be placed accurately enough before hand, else they might not square. This is to allow for mapping fo buildings which have some square corners but also others which are not. The imagery allows for you to map these buildings more accurately than this.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154288912

I modified this building and uploaded my changes in Changeset: 158357152 for you to use as a reference/example. I aligned the building to ESRI imagery.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154289009

Negatives: Buildings share nodes with other buildings and features like landuse areas. To avoid this error hold 'Alt' while drawing to prevent your cursor from snapping to existing nodes and features. You can also filter out data that may be getting in your way like the landuse area, so that you do not interact with it. Building footprints are inaccurate and offset with regard to the primary imagery source. Quality > Quantity. Zoom in to accurately place nodes on the corners of buildings, tag them, and press q to square them when appropriate. Since ESRI is the primary source you should offset any suplimentary sources so that the mapping you do is aligned. ID should have displayed warnings alerting you to some of these errors. Explore the suggested options to resolve warnings, and ask for help if you're not sure what to do.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154289807

Positives: You made a good decision to use Mapbox as an imagery source due to its superior resolution. All footprints you added outline buildings visible in imagery. Thank you for your contribution.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154289807

I modified the footprints in this changeset and uploaded them in Changeset: 158356082 hopefuly for you to use as a reference/example.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157280926

Although the footprints do contain buidings within their boundary, they are oversized and the imagery allows for the orientation of the left most building (WAY: 1319464370) to be more accurate. You can reference Mapbox imagery in this area becasue of it's superior resolution. Thank you for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157280926

All but perhaps one or two building footprints outline buildings. All buildings have been squared. The imagery allows for greater accuracy in the orientation of a few of the buildings in this changeset. For instance WAY: 1319465402, WAY: 1319465412 & WAY: 1319465413. There is a sweet spot called the 'native resolution' where 1 pixel of imagery is assigned to 1 pixel on your screen. It allows you to make the most accurate observations regarding orientation and shape. In JOSM you can right click with imagery loaded and choose the option 'zoom to native resolution' to view at this zoom level. Take a note of what you see, (mental or otherwise) then zoom in to accurately draw buildings on the map. Repeat as necessary. Thank you for your contribution!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157281198

Well done! All of the building footprints you've added outline builldings in the imagery and have appropriately squared building footprints. The orientation and size of some buildings could be more accurate. When it comes to determining orientation and shape there is a zoom level sweet spot where one pixel of the imagery correcponds with one pixel on your screen (in this case it's zoom level 17). Some of the building footprints you've added appear too large. Generally: Building Footprint Size<= Roof Size. So without information to the contrary the footprint should be equal to or smaller than the roof. When squaring the area you've drawn in ID editor the shape will most likely change somewhat; you can draw footprints ~95% of the roof size to give yourself a margin. This is especially important to keep in mind when working in densely populated areas where buildings can be very close to one another to avoid footprint overlaps. Thank you for your contribution!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157543028

Well done! Both of these building footprints are valid and for the most part accurate and have been appropriately squared. The orientation of the building to the south is not quite accurate. Though it does appear as though the building is oriented East to West when you zoom in, this is an illusion caused by the low resolution. When you zoom in one pixel from the original imagery may be represented by many on your screen. If you're zoomed out really far then an entire building may be represented by just one pixel. Features will trend toward looking like they are either North/South or East/West when at very high or very low zoom. There's a sweet spot that'll give you the greatest resolution, this helps with determining building shape and orientation. Then zoom in to accurately map while keeping what you've seen in mind. Thank you for your contribution!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157826283

Well done! Both of these building footprints are valid the one on the right is quite accurate, but the one on the left has not been squared when it should and is slightly too large. I modified these footprints and uploaded my changes for you to see. Click on a feature and open it in ID editor to see what I've done. Thank you for your contribution!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157914023

Well done! The building footprint you've added here is valid and mostly accurate, it's just a little bit too large. Building footprints are generally either the same size as the roof, or smaller. If squaring the footprint causes it to become too large, then you can map ~95% the size of the roof before squaring. I shrank the footprint and uploade so you have an example. Click on the feature in this changeset and open it in ID editor to see it then toggle OSM data via the map data panel. Thank you for your contribution!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157964767

Well done! All of the building footprints you've added in this changeset are valid (visible in the imagery you used to trace them), and most are accurate and appropriately squared. The accuracy of some however, could be improved. All of these footprints in this case should have been squared. Imagery is not perfect and it may sometimes distort the true shape of a building, you should interpret the imagery and add what you believe to be the case on the ground. For example the feature I flagged should be square, it seems that trees are obscuring part of the building, but in reality it is most likely square. I recommend zooming out to determine shape and orientation, then zooming in to accurately map. It is also possible to edit a feature once added e.g. move & rotate Check the shortcuts in the help panel of the ID editor. Thank you for your contribution!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158185394

I think that this footprint actually outlines two buildings because the orientation of the footprint you've added does not match the imagery, the color is different on either side and there is a dark line (shadow) seperating the different colours. The shadows are cast Sout West in ESRI imagery in this area. I mapped the two buildings I see in place of this one, and uploaded them so that you can see my interpretation of the imagery (click on this feature and open it in ID editor, then toggle the OSM data via the map data panel). I hope this helps. Thank you for your contribution!
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158240752

All of the footprints you've added are valid. Their shape however, could be more accurate. Please place nodes in the corners of buildings accurately (enough), tag the area as a building, then press 'q' to square the footprint. The resolution of ESRI in this area is not the greatest but, these buildings appear to have 'square' footprints in reality. I recommend that you use Mapbox imagery in this area to help determine the shapes of buildings where possible and to zoom out to better see the shape of features before zooming in to accurately draw them. Thank you for your contribution!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158240891

Just for fun I uploaded a guess of these building footprints based on ESRI imagery alone, they may not be as accurate as if I had used Mapbox, but I wanted to give you an example of what to do in these situations. You can find the changesets via the top right of the task menu in the tasking manager (under task data), or near the bottom of the project main page (changesets in OSMCha).
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158316372