footprints correctly identified and well mapped, but they should not share nodes with landuse areas nor highways. Hold alt to prevent your cursor from snapping to existing data. See my resolution in Changeset: 168815108
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168403209

You correctly identified buildings in the imagery but they are generally slightly oversized. Roofs that you see in aerial imagery tend to overhang the walls of buildings somewhat.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168403009

A generall improvement of map data but some footpritns are still not as accurate as the imagery allows them to be. You correctly deleted footpritns which represented temporal yurts.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164324949

You improved the accuracy of all building footprints here and added valid and accurate footprints. Well done! 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/164325125

A valid but oversized footprint. Please see my project comment about accurate footprint mapping. See Changeset: 168814513 for how I mapped it.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168403533

Looks like you improved these footprints by squaring them but they share nodes with other features. Please watch the missing maps beginer mistakes videos for demos on how to resolve such issues.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166858686

You correctly identified round buildings from the correct imagery source, however they are generally oversized. Please see my project comments to see how to scale features to make them an accurate size.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168402809

You correctly identified buildings but the footprints you digitise are inaccurate. 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/164094794

Well done you imprvoed the accuracy of these footprints by appropriately squaring them. They could still be more accurate. Generally the footprint can be a bit smaller than the roof.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164178720

Good changeset comment, size and theme. In future where practicable please state the sources of the information. Aerial imagery was probably used to identify the roads and align map them but the speed limit signs are not directly visible in the aerial imagery. It would be better to state e.g. source=survey if you have seen the signs yourself or perhaps add a link to licence compatible street level imagery where the signs are directly visible. This makes it easier to verify the information you're uploading and make it more likely to stick around on OSM. Thanks you for your contribution hope this helps.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144096320

I flagged a few footprints that look like they envelope multiple buildings. I mapped some of these in chageset 168805126 so you can see my interpretation. ---Take care to not include the walls of buildings in the size and shape of the footprint in Bing the NE walls of some buildings are visible. aquire the footprint by tracing the roof and move it to the base of the buildings. It's generally more accurate to map footprints slightly smaller than the roof of buildings where it likley extends beyond the walls. Hope this helpful.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168485385

Hi Fabien, why have you joined the waterways you tagged as canals here to the water=river area of the river, and not to the river way itself? Most waterways in OSM start life as open ways with some never recieving a water=river area so based on my understanding it is important for the open ways to be connected to each other, then seperately the areas can be connected. Joining the open ways to the areas only may hinder connectivity analysis. Please reference the rivers OSM wiki page. --- I flagged a bridge that I modified to be mapped as a culvert, and changed the tagging of the waterway after the culvert to drain due to its reduced width.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166112952

Hi Fabien, why have you joined the waterways you tagged as canals here to the water=river area of the river, and not to the river way itself? Most waterways in OSM start life as open ways with some never recieving a water=river area so based on my understanding it is important for the open ways to be connected to each other, then seperately the areas can be connected. Joining the open ways to the areas only may hinder connectivity analysis. Please reference the rivers OSM wiki page. --- I flagged a bridge that I modified to be mapped as a culvert, and changed the tagging of the waterway after the culvert to drain due to its reduced width.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166112952

Hi Fabien, why have you joined the waterways you tagged as canals here to the water=river area of the river, and not to the river way itself? Most waterways in OSM start life as open ways with some never recieving a water=river area so based on my understanding it is important for the open ways to be connected to each other, then seperately the areas can be connected. Joining the open ways to the areas only may hinder connectivity analysis. Please reference the rivers OSM wiki page. --- I flagged a bridge that I modified to be mapped as a culvert, and changed the tagging of the waterway after the culvert to drain due to its reduced width.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166112952

You digitised what is likely a hedge. There is a building surrounded be the hedge on the Easter side. 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/168404858

I rated this changeset as bad becasue the end result is still not great, but I have to say very good effort in improving the existing building footprint data. I flagged an accurate footprint mapped by you. 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/168404948

I also just saw that you added these footpritns. They are oversized but there are round buildings there in the imagery.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168404994

You deleted what appear mostly to be valid footprints. Don't worry I brought them back.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168404994

Try to see if a regular shape will accurately represent the building before going for more complex geometry. I flagged a couple of buildings that stand out to me as well mapped. Thank you!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166861178

well done. You improved the geometry of building footprnits, though they're not as accurate as they could be. Please map them a little smaller than the roof.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166864435