It appears that you deleted a node which represented the same school that you added in this change-set. Elements should be deleted if they no longer or never existed. If the feature is already represented by an element, then it is good practice to modify it instead, because that preserves the metadata and history of the element. A positive is that I can tell which buildings in the imagery the nodes represent. The church looks like it's tagged correctly, other than the address.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154005332

Changeset tags: This and other changesets you've uploaded seem to be made with information sourced from either a survey or local knowledge. When uploading your changesets please add the relevant source tags (found below the comment when saving), becuase it will make it easier to find these changesets and the information is less likely to be incorrectly deleted/modified. In this case, for example, I was unable to see the petrol station in any of the default imagery sources, nor when checking the mapillary street view imagery available. If the petrol station does in fact exist, then you are ahead of the imagery; that's excellent! The comment you provided with this changeset is also good, because it provided me with a reason why the petrol station may not be visible in the imagery sources I checked. Adding a source tag just makes it that much easier for other mappers to properly handle the data you've contributed.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154001466

A positive I see is that it seems like you checked the OSM wiki page(s) related to fuel stations before adding this feature, although there are some errors in this changeset. I'll mention the errors in further comments on this changeset with each comment relating to a specific part of the changeset.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154001466

I believe that the footprints represented by WAY: 1306868118 & WAY: 1306868117 (flagged) should be smaller and circular; not 'tic tacs'. The shadows cast by these buildings do appear to originate from the edges of the footprints you added, there is a colour difference between the east and west part of the features, and the imagery is off-nadir making the north and east walls of buildings visible in the imagery used to digitize them. If you wish to view my modifications you can do so via the way's history. I hope this is helpful.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155063792

In future, if you want to change the geometry of a feature already in the database, then please modify it or use the replace geometry plugin, so that its history is preserved. In this case you deleted a building footprint which was added in 2014, and masked its deletion by adding a footprint in its stead. Don't feel too bad about it; I undeleted the footprint to preserve its history.

osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/utilsplugin2#Replace_geometry_(Ctrl+Shift+G)
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155031020

WAY: 1286394684 is an accurate building footprint: map more like this in future, please.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151787726

I don't think that there is enough evidence in aerial imagery to justify adding this footprint. I deleted it.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151847277

This outlines a vegetation; not a building. I deleted the footprint.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151847379

The vast majority of building footprints in this changeset are inaccurate. WAY: 1286229296 & WAY: 1286229294 are quite accurately mapped; please map building footprints to their standard in the future.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151765076

WAY: 1286759355 includes a little bit of the building's shadow to the south, but is otherwise accurate. Don't include shadows in footprints, becuase building footprints will be over sized. If the shadow were not included, it would be an accurate footprint. Please map like this in future. It is one of the most accurate footprints in this changeset.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151841775

If you want more feed back, then get in touch. You could also check these out; If you want to experience the OSM community I encourage you to attend a mapathon [here's](https://www.tickettailor.com/events/missingmapslondon?) one that occurs regularly.

You can find other events [here](https://osmcal.org/)

Learning resources and links can be found [here](osm.wiki/Beginners%27_guide)
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151783267

WAY: 1286346152 is probably the most accurate footprint of the ones you added and I've seen. Alignment to imagery still seems poor, but the size, shape and orientation are certainly significanlty better than others.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151781483

Generally these building footprints are inaccurate and not well aligned to bing imagery. The following buildings should not be mapped as quadrilaterals based on only aerial imagery; WAY: 1286347784, WAY: 1286347761, WAY: 1286347756, WAY: 1286347779, WAY: 1286347763. The following ways envelope multiple buildings; WAY: 1286347784, WAY: 1286347775, WAY: 1286347766, WAY: 1286347759, WAY: 1286347787.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151781661

I think that WAY: 1286482007 is two adjacent buildings. The Eastern building is significantly larger than this footprint would suggest. Using alternate imagery can sometimes allow you to see the complete size and shape of obscured buildings. In this case the building is visible in ESRI with a silver roof. Using bing as the base (lower) layer with 100% opacity you can add ESRI, then reduce its opacity to x<50% and align it to bing. You can open this changeset in josm by pressing "J" in OSMCha. Check the homepage for more shortcuts.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154484987

Hello, do you know what is causing the features I flagged to have excess nodes? Otherwise, the imagery allows for buidling footprints to be more accurate, sometimes multiple buildings are enveloped by one footprint, and buildings are oversized because the wall (which is visible in off nadir imagery) has been included in them.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151764176

WAY: 1286492384's orientation is not accurate. It can be easier to identify the orientation at lower zoom levels, because the image is less distorted. Then zoom in toplace the nodes accurately, while keeping in mind the orientation you obtined at the lower zoom level.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151796341

I modified the buildings so they'll be ascociated with the correct project now anyway. That's as close to resolved as can get I think.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151804281

This changeset references the incorrect project and location; this made it more difficult to find when validating. Please check the comments you're submitting with your changesets.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151804281

WAY: 1286842953 is not a building. You can tell becasue it does not cast a shadow like nearby definite buildings; this is consistent across imagery sources.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151858762

I recommend using fast draw for the residential areas.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154175676