All footprints here are valid. The two in the north are quite accurate the two in the south could be more accurate. Check Changeset: 164917634 to see how I mapped these footprints and others nearby.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164178570

Check Changeset: 164916878 to see how I mapped one of these instead.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159483145

All these footprints are valid, but oversized and should be squared (q).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159482709

The footprints you added here envelope multiple buildings. A footprint should represent an individual building. 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/159483145

The footprints you added are all valid and appropriately squared but generally oversized, sometimes becasue they include the shadow in the footprint. Pitched roofs tend to overhang the walls so is more accurate to map them a touch smaller than the roof. If features are very close together this can lead to the not being enough room to fit them all. See how I mapped these in Changeset: 164916703.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164174782

Many of the footprints here are overextracted i.e. they don't represent buildings or they are features which will not be there for long.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160210117

I think that many of these footprints are invalid and you may have mistaken other features for buildings.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160198618

These residential areas are not valid; there aren't enough buildings in close proximity and this is an agricultural area. This also means the the tagging of residential highways is incorrect. In an agricultural area such as this they are likely tracks or paths, and maybe unclassified. 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/164810838

Overall a good contribution. All footpritns are valid, and appropriately shaped, but could be more accurate. --- Footpritns should not share nodes with residential areas; the common beginer mapper mistakes videos on the missing maps youtube chanel will show you how to deal with that. 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/164093530

All footprints here outline an individual building in the imagery except for the one in the West. The footprints however are not accurate and share common nodes. I recommend watching the common mapper mistakes videos on the missing maps youtube chanel.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164091943

The buildings here are valid and appropriately squared they are quite accurate, but include a portion of the shadow they cast. Pitched roofs usually overhang the walls of buildings by some ammount so 'colouring within the lines' leads to more accurate sizing. --- appropriate modification of a residential area. 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/164799579

The vast majority of contributions here have resulted in improvements to map data. e.g. Modifying highways and residential areas to avoid overalps. All footpritns are valid and appropriately shaped. Most are accurate. Beware that landuse and highways should not share nodes (the grey ones). --- made some edits to the data here in Changeset: 164833898. --- 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/164799268

Most footprintd here outline buildings visible in imagery but they are not accurate. I recommend watching the common beginer mapper mistakes videos on the missing maps youtube chanel.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164407463

You're welcome. I think you've understood me correctly, yes. It tends to be better practice to modify existing features than to delete and re add.--- In the case of the large footprint which used to envelope over a dozen buildings here, I could currently argue in favour of either method. For example, the argument could be made that it didn't actually represent any feature which existed/exists, therefore it can be deleted, and re mapping may be easier. On the other hand a feature may be inappropriately tagged, but the geometry accurately represents a feature and it may be beneficial to just change the tagging. --- However if you can tell that data represents existing features, then it is best practice to modify them, as to preserve their history and meta data. --- Features which you are certain do not exist may be deleted. --- I hope this clarifies.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164770871

The footprints you added here are inaccurate and some envelope multiple buildings. I recommend watching the common beginer mapping mistakes videos on the missing maps youtube channel. 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/164407390

The vast majority of footprints here are valid, accurate and apprpriately squared. I flagged the invalid and least accurate ones. Good job moving the highway to make room for valid footprints. I think that in this case it would have been a good idea to move the Western part of it to the centre of the highway, becasue it may have blocked your view of a couple of buildings which you did not map.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164771320

You appropriately modified the residential area to prevent it overlappig with the footprint you added in the south. Your original interpretation of the middle of this changeset was valid and more accurate than the new footprint you replaced the old ones with. The new footprint appears to envelope a tree trunk making it unlikely that a building with that shape is present there. Colour is one of the best ways to identify trees.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164771419

You deleted footpritns which outlined multiple buildings; I think this is fine to do, but if you can identify a the feature that existing data was representing then the best practice is to modify the existing data (as you did for some of these footprints, rather than deleting and re mapping. These footprints are generally accurate but could be a touch smaller (shift + -). Two of the footprints which I flagged outline two buildings each.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164770871

These are likely temporal yurts and should not be mapped
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159692864

The two lsmallest footprints here would more accurately be mapped as one round or rectangular building; zooming out provides a better perspective of shape and orientation.