Hello Mona.--- Why did you change the tagging of these highways? They appear to be wide enough to be used by a 4 wheled vehicle; paths in osm.wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa are described as not wide enough to be passed by a 4 vehicle with 4 wheels.--- I think that highway=residential is the best choice for these ways, based on aerial imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163472381

You correctly moved most of the existing footprints to align them.--- Some features I've flagged are footprints where you first deleted an existing footprint before adding a new one in their place. It can be more difficult to edit the existing data but it helps to preserve the meta data of the features. Delete features when you think that those features are invalid and do not represent features which are there in reality; not to delete and redraw them.--- There are a few places where you inaccurately glued nodes: hold alt to prevent your cursor from snapping to existing nodes.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163224816

Buildings rarely share nodes with highways; when they do so they're not ususally on the same level as the highway e.g. the roof fo a fuel station. Hold alt in ID editor to prevent your cursor from snapping to nearby nodes. If you want to unglue nodes select them and press g. ---The issues (yellow triangle) in the bottom right should give you a heads up on some common potential errors. Know that sometimes the best thing to do is to ignore the issues if you don't know how to address them rather than making things worse, but checking what's there before uploading your changes or submitting a task can help you catch some errors you may have made while mapping.--- For my resolution see Changeset: 163225068. 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/162180883

I recommend that you seperate changesets containing highways and buildings becasue highways can be very long features which will make your changesets large and it will become more difficult to view the buildings you've added. Please state in your comment when uploading (saving) if you've modifed a highway. Once you've writen a comment it's easy to reuse it with the drop down selection menu by clicking on/near the comment.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162354648

The northern footpritnt is very good. The southern one should at the least be in the shape of an 'L' and idealy as two seperate adjacent buildings. Reference other imagery sources to better see this.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162241652

This is a good building footprint. It's accurate in shape, size and orientation. It appears to have been appropriately squared or very close to it. 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/162422806

You modified a highway in this changeset. I recommend that you structure your uploads. In a case like this it's best to map and upload (save) your changes to the highway then go on to map the buildings. Try to mention the features you're mapping in your changeset comment upon (saving).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162423019

Buildings appear valid and accurate in orientation. Their corners are likely right angles so press q after tagging to square the corners of your footprints.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162422885

I recommend offseting/aliging any imagery source you use to aid your interpretation it makes it easier to use and if you map anything while viewing another source it'll be aligned with the rest of the map data. Some of the buildings you added in this changeset are valid, but misaligned. --- Other footprints you added here are no longer present in ESRI which is more recent. --- It is a valid technique to map using alternate imagery sources, just remember to scan the area using the newer source before you submit/upload.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162140041

Some of the buildings which I flagged here have odd shapes. check if it's plausable that the building actually has a more standard shape before going with a more unique option. Zoom in and out to aid your interpretation of feature shape.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162139881

You had the right idea with one of the buildings in the SE by estimating its entire footprint even when a tree obscured it. Good job.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162139589

A small tid bit here. Buildings in this area are unlikely to share common walls becasue the roofs are pitched and tend to overhang the building footprint: reference the pictures linked in project instructions.--- Hold alt when mapping to prevent your cursor from snapping to existing nodes.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162139589

Hi, several of the building footpritns you've added here actually represent barriers (like walls or fences) visible in the imagery. Beware that in this region many gardens have surrounding barriers. Use this context info and the shadows to tell them appart from buildings. ---Surrounding walls will generally cast a greater number of shadows than a building becasue they have no roof. ---Shadows in ESRI are being cast SSW. To aid your interpretation I recommend that you align and compare with BING (1.79; -1.79) in this area which is brighter and where shadows are cast NW instead.--- Please view Changeset: 162147962 to see how I mapped the 'property' to in the south of this changeset.--- I hope this helps, Thank you for your contribution.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162139338

Hi, is the boundary tied to the waterway? i.e. should I move the boundary when modifying the geomerty of the waterway?

Hi, in future please explicitly state in your changeset comment whether an admin boundary is legaly defined to change with a waterway, or if it should remain static.--- Also please add the source of the boundary information.--- I am now editing a waterway and it would be convenient to know if the admin boundary should share a common geomerty. Thank you for your contribution.

I think that you've gone a little overboard with the circular buildings you added and have actually mapped some linear buildings as circles. Zooming out can help you to identify building shape and orientation becasue you can view what is effectively a higher resolution image.--- I believe that the circular footpritns you added have been copy pasted. Doing this is useful and saves effort when appropriate. However please take care to modify the footprint afterwards as necessary e.g. rotate and scale so that the footprints you contribute are accurate. In this case a good number of circular footprints appear to be too large--- I encourage you to attend a mapping event; you can find them here https://osmcal.org/ the missing maps mapathons offer live training.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159919942

Well done all of the buildings you added here are valid.--- Please press q to square the footprints after you've mapped them to square them as most building footprints have square corners, but it is difficult to map so precisely.--- I recommend drawing the footprints a liitle smaller than the roofs here becasue the roofs are pitched and likely overhang the walls somewhat.--- I encourage you to attend an event which you can find here https://osmcal.org/ the missing maps mapathons offer live training.--- hope this helps; happy mapping.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161587539

Hello,---

My comment refers to the southern area of this changeset.--- An appreciable number of the 'isolated' dwellings that you added are within a few dozen meters of eachother, some as close as 20 m. In two instances you even enveloped several isolated dwellings within a single residential area.--- In future please consider whether it would be more appropriate to represent several buildings ,or seperate groups of buildings in close proximity, with an individual place node, or perhaps to simply map the building footprints instead.---

politely, Gregory
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161094937

Some of the building footprints here envelope multiple buildings. A building footprint should represent an individual building. If you want to outline groups of buildings then residential areas are a much better way to go.--- you also deleted building footprints which represented buildings visible in the imagery you used. Modify footprints instead of deleting them unless they did not or no longer exist.--- 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/159821228

A building in this changeset has excess nodes. You can press shift+y to simplify ways removing such nodes.