I think you misinterpreted the imagery a little here and mapped a needlessly complex footprint. I flagged the one I'm refering to.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172188412

Hi Tebby,

You identified buildings in the imagery, appropriately tagged and squared them and their overall shapes are generally accurate. The L shaped building is actually just a rectangle but the imagery is taken at an angle. You could make your footprins even more accurate by mapping them smaller than the roof you see in imagery and by excluding the shadow they cast one the ground.

Here's a general comment about mapping building footpritns.

Accurate building footpritns aid population estimates and prevent issues like data overlaps. Zoom in so that you can see the outline of the building and mark the corners carefully. Exclude shadows and yards when tracing the footprint. Keep in mind that you are looking at the [roofs of buildings](roof:shape=*#Roof_shape), but mapping their footprints. Depending on how the scene is lit, pitched roofs may have light and dark sections that belong to one building. Generally pitched roofs overhang the walls of a building, so a footprint slightly smaller than the roof is accurate. You can scale selected features in ID with shift+(-/+), or JOSM with ctrl.+alt+Lclick & drag. Take care to make contributions that others can build upon.

Welcome to OSM! You identified buildings in imagery, tagged them appropriately and generally interpreted the overall shapes of buildings well, however the imagery allows them to be mapped more accurately. Please watch the following two short videos about mapping with the ID editor;

https://youtu.be/Xs5wX592E1o

https://youtu.be/ltn1VOiq5_0

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/

I mapped the T shaped building here as a rectangle. I think the southern part is likely vegetation becasue the shadow is so large in comparison to other buildings.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172186403

Hi, all footpritns you mapped are valid and appropriately shaped, thet could be a touch more accurate. Exclude the shadow a building casts on the ground from its footprint and trace slightly smaller than the roof; this accounts for the overhang and gives you a buffer for any change in shape when squaring. Thank you for your contribution.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172186169

Hi camilaparrad, welcome to OSM!

You correctly identified buildings in imagery, appropriately squared most footpritns and even identified a building under construction. good job trying to map the actual shapes of buildings.

The footprins could be mapped more accurately if they were generally smaller.

You created a shared node between a building and residential area: hold alt to prevent this.

I recommend you save your contributions say every 15 minutes.

The following are some relevant comments about mapping;

When mapping buildings, please trace the shape accurately. Accurate building footpritns aid population estimates and prevent issues like data overlaps. Zoom in so that you can see the outline of the building and mark the corners carefully. Exclude shadows and yards when tracing the footprint. Keep in mind that you are looking at the [roofs of buildings](roof:shape=*#Roof_shape), but mapping their footprints. Depending on how the scene is lit, pitched roofs may have light and dark sections that belong to one building. Generally pitched roofs overhang the walls of a building, so a footprint slightly smaller than the roof is accurate. You can scale selected features in ID with shift+(-/+), or JOSM with ctrl.+alt+Lclick & drag. Take care to make contributions that others can build upon.

Please do not connect the corners of buildings to other buildings or features such as highways or residential areas. In the iD Editor, hold down the `Alt` key to prevent your cursor from snapping to existing data and accidentally creating shared(grey) nodes. This [video about connected nodes](https://youtu.be/ltn1VOiq5_0) has more information and a guide.

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/

Hello, the footprints you have mapped here all represnet buildings, but the imagery allows them to be mapped more accurately. See how I mapped them in https://osmcha.org/changesets/172182439 Thank you for your contribution.

A comment about mapping buildings;

When mapping buildings, please trace the shape accurately. Accurate building footpritns aid population estimates and prevent issues like data overlaps. Zoom in so that you can see the outline of the building and mark the corners carefully. Exclude shadows and yards when tracing the footprint. Keep in mind that you are looking at the [roofs of buildings](roof:shape=*#Roof_shape), but mapping their footprints. Depending on how the scene is lit, pitched roofs may have light and dark sections that belong to one building. Generally pitched roofs overhang the walls of a building, so a footprint slightly smaller than the roof is accurate. You can scale selected features in ID with shift+(-/+), or JOSM with ctrl.+alt+Lclick & drag. Take care to make contributions that others can build upon.

Hi, every footprint you added here represents a building and is correctly shaped. These footprints could have been mapped more accurately. See how I mapped them in https://osmcha.org/changesets/172181039 Thank you for your contribution.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172165368

Well I'm glad that you didn't feel it a waste to reply 😉

Perhaps it was not your intention, but I must say that you comment seemed needlessly hostile. You could have instead writen something like 'You could be more efficient with your feedback by doing a and b, becasue x and z'. I'm just sharing my evaluation of your contribution with you and trying to provide useful feedback.

How is it a waste of time to read the comment another contributor has writen to you? I gave you the TLDR in the first paragraph. Even if it takes a few minutes to read a message which improves your future contributions; I'd say that's worth it. Do you not consider improving your skills progress?

Perhaps I could consider cutting parts of the comment on a case by case basis, but I like to provide an explanation for why something should be done, not just state that it should.

Sorry, but "This is not motivating at all." is not very constructive; I can't really apply that in future. Please elaborate. Why isn't it? How could it be made more so?

Regarding your mapping of buildings, I'll Echo my first comment, since I see you mapped them simillarly in a more recent [changeset](changeset/172165368#map=19/-4.993917/21.407769). Generally the building footpritns are somewhat oversized, becasue they either include the shadow a building casts in the footprint, do not account for roof overhang, or extend beyond the roof/shadow visible in the imagery.

Note the direction in which shadows are cast and use them to inform the size of features you map. Footprints of pitched roofs can be mapped smaller than the corners of the roof in imagery to account for overhang, so err' on the smaller side. I recommend viewing street level imagery to get a better undestanding of this; it can help a lot when mapping in dense areas. I think the follwing pages are quite useful roof:shape=* osm.wiki/Roof_modelling

Every footprint you mapped here represents a building, and the majority of them are very accurately mapped. Thank you for your contribution, keep it up!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172172978

I understand. I can be difficult to map when other data is obscuring your view.

Thank you for thinking about how you could restore the map's existing data. Copy and pasting was a interesting idea and can be really useful when you're mapping features that have the exact same shape, though there are some draw backs to this method and better ways of achieving your objective.

You can press `w` to toggle wireframe mode. This will reduce the visibility of areas (the highlight/fill).

You can filter out data that's either in your way or you don't want to edit via the map panel on right. Press `u` to open map data, then scroll down and toggle the check boxes to select what data you want to see and be able to interact with. Warnings about hidden data will still appear.

Hope this helps. You can check out osm.wiki/ID

Hi, the footpritns you mapped here represent buildings. You correctly excluded what appear to be (white) tarps from some building footprints.

For my feedback I will focus on https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1430792920 .

You outlined both the roof and walls of this building resulting in it being oversized: 192 square meters compared to 150 the way I mapped it. Here the North and Eastern walls are visible and shadows are cast NW. Please read osm.wiki/Roof_modelling and watch https://youtu.be/JAPiGntG6fs

As I mentioned before in my comment on Changeset: 171090518 you should proceed with caution when using the Japan GSI seamless layer, because the angle it is captured at changes frequently, making it more difficult to know when you're looking at a building's walls. I recommend cross referencing other sources to aid your interpretation. Idealy one taken from a different angle and with shadows cast in a different direction.

I'm assuming we have permission to use Japan GSI standard Map when contributing to OSM. It looks really useful especially for toponomy, but please compare it with the imagery; to me the footprints do not always appear accurate. For example I see no evidence in imagery to map the footprint I've been discussing as anything other than a rectangle.

https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1430792915 is positioned a few meters away from being in alignment with features in its vicinity. Try to improve it. If you choose to do so, then please send me a link to the changeset.

I hope this is helpful. Thank you for your contributions!

Here is a good example of footprints that likely represent multiple buildings. It appears that the way the Eastern two were mapped previously was more accurate. 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/172086850

You did very well improving footpritns and deleting likely non-buildings. Some of the footprints you mapped are mapped as well as the imagery allows so I did not modify them during validation. --- On a few occasions you mapped some complex footprints which I think generally envelope multiple adjacent buildings. Try to see if a simple shape accurately represents the feature you want to map and if not then try more complex options. Consider if there is any distortion/illusion making it appear more complex than it really is. See osm.wiki/Roof_modelling#Typical_errors_in_the_interpretation_of_roof_geometry_from_aerial_images and roof:shape=*#Roof_shape --- 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/172086495

The pentagonal footprint here is likely square and it just looks like it's not in the imagery becasue it was taken at an angle. I cross referenced mapbox and it looks square there. Please see osm.wiki/Roof_modelling#Typical_errors_in_the_interpretation_of_roof_geometry_from_aerial_images --- It is possible to delete tags from features without deleting the geometry. If tags are consistently applied; it's simple to modify or remove them using JOSM.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172082128

You improved the accuracy of some footprints here. Generally try to modify features instead of deleting and re mapping. In this case there's not much loss because there was not much history. Did you check it before making the deletions?
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172081801

Buildings with silver/grey roofs tend to be square.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/172081166

It looks like you mapped some non-buildings here. 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/172080592

Hi, the footprint you mapped here represents a building and seems fairly well sized, but it should have been squared and contains an excess node. Use backspace to undo the placement of nodes.

After tracing and tagging features which are likely square or round, please remember to square their corners (q), or circularise them (o), because it is almost impossible and time consuming to draw shapes so percisely by hand. Buildings with metal or pitched roofs tend to have square corners; round buildings are identifiable by the distinctive cresent shaped shadow they cast. Unless the building is clearly a different shape then it's best to assume that it should be rounded or its corners should be squared. In the iD Editor, you can right click for access to editing functions. Since roofs tend to overhang walls trace the initial shape slightly smaller to allow a buffer for any change in size that may occur. In JOSM use the [buildingstools plugin](osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/BuildingsTools). In ID you must draw the shape accurately enough else shapes will not completely square. This [video about squaring features in ID](https://youtu.be/Xs5wX592E1o) has more information and a demo.

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/

The oversizing of footprints seems to have resulted in you being unable to map one of the footpritns here with its actual shape. 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/172014119