It got so big becasue the service highways that you added did not connect to pre-existing and unmodified nodes belonging to Pipariya Road thereby modifying it. Changeset bounding boxes envelope the entire area occupied by an element so the size is now based on the length of that segment of Pipariya Road. Consider how you structure you contributions to OSM. Bear this in mind for your future contributions and thank you for what you've contributed thus far.

The footprints here are valid, but they could be more accurate.--- Firstly, they are oversized, low resolution imagery can make features appear bigger than they are and squaring can change the size somewhat. I recommend that you give yourself a margin for squaring when drawing.--- Secondly the southern footprint's orientation is inaccurate; it should be rotated clockwise ~ 45 degrees. There's a zoom sweet spot where one pixel of imagery coresponds to one pixel on your screen. This is the zoom at which you will see the most accurate orientation of features. Check against mapbox imagery in this area to confirm this. I modified these footprints and uploaded them in Changeset: 158482028. 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/156147899

This footprint is valid, though it should be squared. Press q arter tagging to square the corners of rectilinear features. I modified this footprint and uploaded it using Changeset: 158481640 for you to have as a reference. There is a zoom sweet spot in imagery where one pixel in imagery is mapped onto one pixel on your screen. Using this sweet spot helped me to determine the building's shape. 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/157078839

All of these footprints outline buildings, but they could be more accurate. The features I flagged envelope several 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/157079035

The changeset comment you have provided is missleading. It mentions mapping buildings but you mapped highways. This can make changesets more cumbersome to work with for other mappers. Please check that the default comment is appropriate before you upload your changes. 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/154724725

These footprints are valid and appropriately squared, but they are oversized. Accurate footprinst are important, because they are used for population estimates. Oversized buildings will also likely lead ot overmapps and common nodes in dense areas. map ~95% of the roof sized to give yourself margin when squaring. 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/154296675

All buildings in this changeset are valid and mostly accurate. The footprints are appropriatelly squared.--- The orientation of WAY: 1315437619 could be adjusted slightly clockwise, but this is minor. Overall a good changeset. ---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_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156594149

While most of the building footprints in this changeset are valid, some are not, and many are inaccurate.--- For instance WAY: 1328224624 is oversized and the actual building has a footprint more complex than a rectangle. WAY: 1328224660 is actually a C shaped building. WAY: 1328224686 appears to represent a courtyard.--- Accuracy is improtant, because building footprints are used for population estimates, and accurate building shapes help those using the map to identify 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/158352043

Most of the building footprints you added are valid, and you also mapped buildings wih more complex shapes however, the footprints are composed of excess nodes. You only need to click on the corners of buildings. You made a good decision to use Mapbox as an imagery source in this area, but check the primary source before saving your changes, becasue you added buildings that are no longer there. Please press q to square the corners of rectilinear buildings after tagging the area you draw. 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/154290326

Well done! You certainly improved the accuracy of existing footprints in the area and added valid footprins that have been appropriately squared. You have made some errors however; Most buildings are somewhat oversized. Map around 95% of the roof size to give yourself some margin for squaring. you represented two buildings with one footprint WAY: 1304110355. You can tell because of the different roof colours. WAY: 1231355982 was added using older imagery and no longer exists so it should be deleted, not modified. Thank you for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154492366

These building footprints are inaccurate. The accuracy of your mapping is important for those using the map and the data. A lot of these buildings are oversized and may skew population estimates. The accurate shape of buildings is important for identification. Would you be able to tell which building was which if you were using a map in this area? Thank you for your contribution. I encourage you to attend a mapathon. check https://osmcal.org/ to find one.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156886301

It seems that you used the nearby river to align your imagery to before mapping. Although the instructions do state to align with existing data, once you start to offset imagery by tens of meters you should consider the strength of the evidence you're basing that decision on. For instance, this river was added in 2017 and does not appear to be mapped in great detail. The course of rivers can be dynamic and change significantly over time, which is why I would generally not recommend using them to align imagery. Idealy you should use 'static' features at ground level to align imagery to. I also could not find any nearby GPS traces to justify this significant offset. For these reasons I will mark this changeset as bad. The data you've added and modified could have confused future users. Don't worry; it doesn't appear to have, and I'll shift the mapping to align with the imagery. Just consider this feedback in your future mapping. Thank you for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157762362

The footprints you added here are valid and appropriately squared, however the offset you've applied to the imagery is very large and ammounts to a shift of ~32.5 m. Visit this url https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=56102&mapCenter=162.01070%2C-10.56521%2C17 and click near to this settlement. The metadata of this imagery claims to be accurate within 5 m of the true location of objects. This is far smaller than the 32 m you offset the imagery by.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157762362

I modified these footprints and uploaded them using Changeset: 158390102, so that you can see how I interpret the imagery. I hope this helps.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158186244

The Western footprint is too large. You can draw the building footprint area ~95% of the roof size initially, so that you have a margin for any change of shape that occurs when you square the footprint. The orientation of the Eastern building is inaccurate. There is a sweet spot of zoom where 1 pixel of the imagery maps onto 1 pixel of your screen. This will allow you to better determine the shape and orientation of buildings, because it is effectively the highest resolution image you can see. Thank you for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158186244

The building footprints that you added are valid and appropriately squared. You made an error when mapping the crucifix shaped building WAY: 1327091573. This resulted in the landuse area and building sharing common nodes and this seems to have also 'knocked' the building footprint out of square. Hold Alt to prevent your cursor from snapping to other features. You can also filter out data via the map data panel. Landuse areas should not share common nodes with buildings. Thank you for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158186125

The buildings in this changeset have not been appropriately squared. When working with low resolution imagery zoom in and out to get the best chance of determining the shape and orientation of features. If this does not help then you should assume that buildings are either square or round if the reolution is so low that you cannot distinguish more complex shapes, because those are common building shapes. Thank you for your contribution.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158254203

A mixed bag, some of the buildnig footprints here are accurate and have been appropriately squared. WAY: 1303252139, WAY: 1303252140 & WAY: 1303252130 are examples of such footprints, please map more like this in future. One of the main errors you have made here seems to stem from trees partially obscuring buildings in the imagery. Do your best to draw the most likely full footprint of buildings partially obscured by trees. Thank you for your contribution.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154301169

Not all of the buildings you added have been appropriately squared and some are invalid, because they are definitely no longer present in more recent (ESRI) imagery. The cluster of 3 buildings next to WAY: 1317009758 is an example of this. I have deleted these footprints because they represent a feature that no longer exists, more may also need to be deleted. Please remeber to take care when using imagery sources other than the primary source when contributing. Check the primary source to see if a feature is still present, or if you may have missed features that are visible in the primary source, before uploading (saving your work) . Thank you for your conribution!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156886199

I'm going to base this comment mostly on bing imagery becuase it appears that you used that imagery exclusively to map this. Some of the buildings you added added here are very well traced, and you managed to accurately trace some more complex shapes which is not the easiest thing to do in ID editor, for example WAY: 1317009744.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156886199