The vast majority of footprints in this changeset are valid. The buildings are appropriately squared and are accurate in both shape and orientation. They could be ever so slightly smaller, but this is a minor point. Just bear in mind that squaring the footprint can mdoify the size of the footprint you traced.--- It looks like you took care when tracing these footprints. This is a high quality contribution. Thank you.--- 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/158789788

About half of these footprints are valid. Check Changeset: 158839570 & 158840072. To see how I mapped this using bing imagery. Please press q to square the corners of buildings after tagging. 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/158738776

About half of these footprints are valid. Check Changeset: 158839570 & 158840072. To see how I mapped this using bing imagery. Please press q to square the corners of buildings after tagging.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158738776

About half of these footprints are valid. Check Changeset: 158839570 & 158840072. To see how I mapped this using bing imagery. Please press q to square the corners of buildings after tagging.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158738776

The tagging of these features is incorrect. Landuse cannot necessarily be determined from aerial imagery. Even if there is a factory building there that doesn't mean that it is currently being used in an industrial capacity. The building footprint should be mapped in either case.--- A building footprint should not be tagged as a pipeline because it is invalid information. 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/153966995

Again, please do not copy and paste unless the footprints are actually the same 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/154446042

WAY: 1331434988 appears to envelope multiple buildings, becasue significant shadows are visible in the centre of this footprint and the roofs are many different colours. The shadows are cast north in bing imagery here. Thanks for contributing, hope this helps.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158827961

Please press q to square your footprints after tagging.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157578213

you added WAY: 1317698387 over an existing years old building. If you are using fillters do so with care, check that you aren't hiding mapping errors if they pop-up diring data upload. Some footprints like WAY: 1317698388 are oversized because they include the (white) eastern wall visible in off nadir imagery. Thank you for your contribution, hope this helps.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157012768

Not all of these footprints are valid. A lot of footprints here are inaccurate. Copy and pasting buildings can be valid in situations where building footprints are the same. While I appreciate the idea, these buildings have different footprints and so the footprints should either be drawn from scratch, or modified after pasting so that the footpritns are accurate. Quality > quantity, contribute what you can. 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/154446526

This footprint is valid and accurate. It would be nice if you stated what you did (and why when appropriate) in your changeset comment. 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/156144987

I believe that this footprints outlines a vehicle. I deleted it in Changeset: 158836337. 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/156144917

The Eastern walls of buildings are visible in the imagery here. See how I mapped this building in Changeset: 158836182. 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/156520242

The footprints here are inaccurate and contain excess nodes. In order to square buildings you must draw them close to squre and then press q. zooming in and out can help when interpreting imagery. 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/156520227

The buildings in this changeset appear to have been appropriately squared. WAY: 1311360980 is an oversized footprint, because it includes the walls of the building visible in off-nadir imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155801564

These footprints should be squared. Please press q after tagguing areas as buildings.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153787754

The vast majority of these footprints are valid, however they should be squared. The features I flagged consist of excess nodes. Press q after tagging areas as 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/153591250

WAY: 1301468375 has an unlikely building shape. I recommend checking alternate imagery sources to get a better appreciation of a building's shape. I mapped this as two buildings in Changeset: 158835410.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154624833

You should check to see what options you have to resolve an overalp. Layer tags are used for when things are above, or below each other. 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/157233504

All building footprints here are valid and appropriately squared. I think that WAY: 1301467973 should actually be a quadrilateral and that it just has a darker section of roof. This appears to be the case when cross referencing ESRI.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153962111