Looks like you tried to account for the angle at which the imagery was captured by moving the footprints you mapped here to the base of the buildings. On some occations you did this quite accurately but other footpritns could have been more accurately positioned. In this case since the Western walls are visible and the shadows are cast NW you can use the contrast of the shadow and wall, and ride the corner of footpritns down the edge where two walls of a building meet. You can right click and move features or press m to move selected features without having to hold left click while moving your mouse. ESRI would have been a good secondary source because it is closer to a vertical photo.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170193628

Good choice to use ESRI here because the angle at which it was taken makes it easier to map accurate building footpritns. I recommend you use multiple sources to aid your interpretation. e.g. select Bing then ESRI via the background panel (b). You can then use the shortcut Ctrl+b to toggle between the last selected layer. All but one of footprints here have been appropriately squared. Hope this helps.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170167014

Valid data, place node is in a good location, and the residental area is quite well mapped. 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/170076434

Again these are not isolated dwellings. In this case I decided to delete some of the place nodes and modified another to a value of hamlet to represent them all. See how I mapped this in https://osmcha.org/changesets/170180665 --- 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/170076597

There are too many settlements added in close proximity here than are justifed by the imagery sources used to map them. Sometimes seperate settlements can be close to one another, but usually if someone could walk form one to another in a few minutes then they're likely part of the same settlement. I deleted the excess settlements here. 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/168398412

I agree with your decision to not include the buildings in the SW in the residential area mapped here, but they by definition do not constitute an isolated dwelling becuase they are only ~60 m from a settlement. Likely they are a part of the same settlement or perhaps a farmyard or something like that. If you want to add buildings that don't warrant a resiential area I recommend just mapping their footprints. I deleted the isolated dwelling in Changeset: 170179919. 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/170076858

A valid residential area. Personally I include the yards and likely residential land within residential areas; not just the buildings. You can see my interpretation in https://osmcha.org/changesets/170174027 --- 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/170076887

Most of the footpritns here are oversized and include the building's shadow in the footprint size. The Eastern most footprint only represents only the dark portion of a building's roof. --- 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, 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.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170166508

The buildings you added here represent buildings in imagery but are not always accurate in shape and are not accurately positioned because they need to be moved to the base of the buildings. Watch this video to see how to position building footprints correctly when the imagery looks like this https://youtu.be/JAPiGntG6fs?feature=shared&t=82 --- Do not move POIs if you do not know that you are improving the accuracy of their location. It appears to me that you moved a hospital to a car park. You can filter out map data such as POIs when mapping via the map data panel (u). Don't worry I moved these POIs back to their original locations in https://osmcha.org/changesets/170170448 --- 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/170121470

Thanks for your informative reply. ---
While it's good to resolve data quality issues, JOSM is a tool and the key is to understand it. Warnings simply indicate possible probelms but the program is not omnicient i.e. it cannot always know with certainty if there is in fact a problem, what it's cause is, and whether you are able to resovle it. JOSM does not prevent uploads contating features with errors or warnings for good reasons e.g. its checks are not perfect and you may have simply edited a feature which already had a problem uploaded by someone else like a tagging warning but you wanted to improve/update geometry. Blindly resolving warnings in the ID editor for example leads to contributors adding invalid layer tags instead of addressing poor geometry which caused overlapping data. If you do not know how or cannot resolve an error I recommend leaving it so that any potential issues are more visible to others, making them easier to spot and address. --- Sometimes warnings appear becuase new tagging has been adopted and tools like JOSM haven't been updated to reflect that.

As a first port of call consult the OSM wiki map features page for tagging releated queires osm.wiki/Map_features --- Use ctrl+f then search for key words and the contents page to find what you're looking for.

[ENG] Hi, I do not believe that construction=building is a valid key tag combination for tagging buildings under construction. Either a pair of tags should be used e.g. building=construction & construction=yes , or a lifecycle prefix should be used e.g. construction:building=yes.

building=construction

construction:building=*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170047215

See my resolution in https://osmcha.org/changesets/170083000
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170070199

Hi, these footprints are all valid and appropriately squared but oversized. Cross refernece Bing if it makes it easier to see that this is the case. Press f1 while your cursor is over the select mode icon in JOSM for modification shortcuts. I also recommend installing the extrude tool. --- 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, but mapping their footprints. Generally pitched roofs overhang the walls of a building, so a footprint slightly smaller than the roof is accurate. Take care to make contributions that others can build upon. ---Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170070199

Keep in mind that you are looking from above at roofs and consider the angle that a scene is captured from and how it is lit. I have improved the accuracy of these footprints here --- https://osmcha.org/changesets/170034787 --- I moved the footpritns to the base of the buildings where the walls meet the ground. 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/169902486

Much improved. This is the best group of building footprints you've mapped so far. Generally their size and shape are accurate and they have been appropriately squared. What made the difference? It does not appear that you accounted for off-nadir by dragging the footprint to the base of the buildings: the S & W walls are visible in Bing. I encourage you to use ESRI as a secondary source. 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/170078656

Good job spotting this building. though the footprint you mapped to represent it is oversized and has not been appropriately squared (q). Modify exieting data instead of deleting and re mapping where possible/practicable. Right click for some common editing options. See how I mapped this building here https://osmcha.org/changesets/170034387. I used Bing aligned to ESRI to aid my interpretation. 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/169748893

Hi, welcome to OSM. Both footprints you added here represent buildings visible in the imagery. Good job identifying them as the scene in ESRI is slightly hazy here and the ground nearby is similar to the roof colour. I think these footprints are generally oversized. Consider how the scene is lit and how shadows are cast by objects in it. Do not incude the shadow when obtaining the size and shape of footprints. You can scale selected features using shift+(-/+). See how I mapped these here https://osmcha.org/changesets/170034267 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/169748865

Hi, all footprints you added here represent buildings visible in the imagery and you correctly distinguished between round and square buildings. Good job improving the accuracy of existing footprints; please modify existing data where possible instead of deleting and re mapping. Use shift+(-/+) to scale selected features in ID, right click for other editing options. Building foorptins are oversized; the square one is only minimally so. It looks like you referenced Bing which is good; do you know how to offset/align imagery sources? --- See how I mapped these buildings in https://osmcha.org/changesets/170033976 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/169931671

Overall I think this is a good contribution. I Provided feedback regarding identification of which buildings should be mapped seperately in https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/24129/tasks?search=195
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169479176

Generally you have identified buildings in the imagery but have not appropriately squared them. After mapping buildings, please remember to square their corners. Most buildings have square corners because that's easy to build. Unless the building is clearly a different shape then it's best to assume that the corners should be squared. In the iD Editor, use the `Q` key to square the corners. This [video about squaring features](https://youtu.be/Xs5wX592E1o) has more information and a guide. The footprint I flagged envelopes two buildings.
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/168402687