Take a look at Changeset: 158832400 to see how I mapped it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155802142

The building represented by WAY: 1303918492 has a shape which is more complex than a quadrilateral. You certainly improved this footprint. Please try to make the shapes of footprints accurate. It is possible to see the wall of this building in the imagery and it should not be included in the footprint becasue that'll make it oversized.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155802142

Most of the building footprints here appear to be valid but they are not very accurate. Most of these features should have been squared. Please press q after tagging areas as buildings.--- WAY: 1303918490 is not a building. You can tell because it does not cast a similar shadow to nearby buildings. I mapped this as a sports pitch. WAY: 1303918492 does not outline a 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/154446594

All footprints are valid and appropriately squared. Overall a good contribution.--- I think that WAY: 1304555865 is too long. Right clicking the background imagery and selecting 'zoom to native resolution' can help in determining the shape, size and orientation of features, because it is the highest resolution image it is possible to see. You can view my edits in Changeset: 158827506---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/154585445

All of these building footprints are valid. Please remember to square the footprnit when appropriate. Know that the roof colour of building can be darker. I recommend zooming out to spot the buildings before zooming in to trace them.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158793684

WAY: 1254994765 does not appear to be present in the source image, (where the shadows are cast south). The footprint you've added is on the road.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147947170

Please see changesets 158760888 and 158760984 to see my resolution/ how I mapped it.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158596241

A good effort given the cloud cover in this imagery. All of these footprints outline buildings, are appropriately squared and are accurate in orientation. They are however generally oversized this can cause some problems when buildings are very close together.---WAY: 1329712789 should be mapped as two seperate building footprints and shares a node with a residential area which it should not do. Hold alt to prevent you cursor snapping to exisitng data and use filters to avoid accidentally editing elements beyond the scope of the project. (access via map data panel).---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/158596241

Welcome to OSM! You are correct to have deleted this POI, if it indeed no longer exists. Groundtruthed contributions are very valuable and so for that reason, and because I have seen it be mistakenly used before, I want to ensure that you understand the difference between the local knowledge and survey tag.--- I'm not suggesting that you haven't checked this before contributing, but the names can make it a little confusing. The source 'survey' is a stronger claim, becuase a user is claiming to have seen something firsthand. The source local knowledge could mean that the user is claiming to have seen it firsthand, but it could also mean that the user who claims it, made the contribution after they heard that 'boots closed' when asking for directions, for example.--- Thank you for your contribution, and providing a useful source and comment.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158718010

The gabled roofed buildings in this changeset are inaccurate. Depending on how they're lit gabled roofs may have a light and dark side; both should be used when mapping the footprint. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Look at Changeset: 158684248 to see how I mapped it. Hope this helps.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151842222

A good number of footprints here envelope multiple buildings.---WAY: 1286492972 is inaccurate, becasue you've only mapped the light side of the gabbled roof reference:roof:shape=gabled. When a light source (sun) is perpendicular to the cord line of a gabled roof one side will be darker than the other; both should be used to draw the footprint.--- 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/151796559

All of these footprints are valid but oversized. Take a look at Changeset: 158683128 to see how I mapped them. I hope this helps. Thank you for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151854983

The mapping of buildings in this changeset is certainly a significant improvement over what was here before. Buildings have more accurate shapes and you preserved the metadata of existing mapping. 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/154570884

I believe that the northern footpritns envelope vegetation. The southern footprint is valid.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153711225

You also extended (modified) a highway in this changeset. Please check that your comment is accurate when uploading.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153230421

You also modified a highway in this changeset. Please check that your comment is accurate when uploading.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154570884

The vast majority of footprints here are valid, appropriately squared and are quite accurate in their orientation. Some however are oversized for instance WAY: 1304486921 envelopes the shadow that the building casts and WAY: 1304486920 is extended too far to the NW.--- Please take a look at Changeset: 158642006 (open it in you editor) first through bing imagery where the building is being constructed then in ESRI when the roof is present and see how in that case the roof compares to the footprint I drew. If you encounter odd situations, and perhaps imagery distortions it is usually the safer bet to map the footprint slightly smaller, becasue generally: building footprint <= building roof.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154570233

Most of the footprints in this changeset are invalid, becasue they are within the the banks of a river. They likely envelope things like boulders and tree trunks.--- WAY: 1300054051 & WAY: 1300054050 are good footprints. ---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/153711088

I believe that WAY: 1304480052 is not a building becasue I cannot find evidence for it in other imagery sources and it looks like vegetation. I think that WAY: 1304480051 is also not a building becasue it looks like vegetation, casts a shadow on the building represented by WAY: 1286849643 and it overlapped with the footprint that I drew for WAY: 1286849643. I recommend that you flick through some of the other imagery options if you come accross a feature that may or may not exist in one of the sources, and if you're not sure then either don't add it, or add it with a fix me tag.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154568237

You're welcome.