Hello,

After tracing and tagging features which are likely square or round, please remember to square their corners `q`, or circularise them `o`, because it is almost impossible and time consuming to draw shapes so percisely manually. Buildings with metal or pitched roofs tend to have square corners; round buildings are identifiable by the distinctive cresent shaped shadow they cast.

Unless the building is clearly a different shape then it's best to assume that it should be rounded or its corners should be squared. In the ID Editor, you can `right click` for access to editing functions.

Since roofs tend to overhang walls trace the initial shape slightly smaller to allow a buffer for any change in size which may occur. In JOSM use the [buildingstools plugin](osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/BuildingsTools). In ID you must draw the shape accurately enough if you want every corner to be squared. This [video about squaring features in ID](https://youtu.be/Xs5wX592E1o) has more information and a demo.

Hold `alt` to prevent the creation of shared nodes. Check out this page https://www.youtube.com/@TheMissingMaps/videos . 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/174415615

Hello, though you made some mistakes, I can certainly see improvement in your mapping e.g. you identified and mapped 3 valid buildings in the North. --- Unlike the previous project you were contributing to barriers are beyond the scope of this one, so you are not required to map them. The things you mapped as hedges are in fact trees. You changed a tag of a multipolygon to building=yes resulting in overlapping buildings and highways on the map. If you're unsure about feature tagging consult osm.wiki/Map_features . You may be able to see how that looks on the map by visiting changeset/174435612#map=18/6.941923/126.258137 . You can see the changes I made to your mapping in https://osmcha.org/changesets/174435612 . Watch this short video about mapping buildings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNJiIL_qTIM . --- 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/

And another thing I just noticed. comment hashtags are used for tracking statistics you're free to use whatever hashtags you like in addition to those for an organised project, but you can also just write your changeset comment in plain text. Thank you for writing one!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173642493

I think you appropriately deleted a building footprint which enveloped multiple buildings here. 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/173796255

Hi, my intention is to help you improve your understanding. The outer buildings look okay here but I think the middle one should in fact be mapped as two. Not all buildings are square or round, but consider simpler options before representing a building with such a complex shape. See how I mapped this in https://osmcha.org/changesets/174402273 Thank you for contributing!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173642493

Hi the NE building is accurately shaped but not positioned quite right. Map the individual buildings in compounds and not the entire thing. Why did you apply the building=house tags here?

You can see how I mapped the eastern part in https://osmcha.org/changesets/174402273
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173794462

Welcome to OSM and thank you for your contribution!

None of the footprints you've added thus far represent buildings, so I've reverted your changesets.

Each footprint should represent a building. Please watch [this video about imagery interpretation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ-vUwtS3A8). Sometimes buildings may appear to share a common wall, but this is sometimes an illusion; only map them with shared nodes if you have reason to believe that they really do touch.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174390305

Hello, it looks like you identified highways in the imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174323063

Hello, my interpretation is to improve your understanding. Many of these footprints do not represent buildings and you duplicated existing data. Refer to osm.wiki/Good_practice#One_feature,_one_OSM_element 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/174322187

Hello, my intention is to improve your understanding. Many of the footprints you mapped here (especially those in the North) do not represent 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/174315460

Hello, my intention is to improve your understanding. You appropriately disconnected the highway and building and some buildings have an accurate shape. However, beware that the Nothern walls are visible in the imagery you used. It should not be included in the size of footprints and they should be moved to the base of building to prevent data overlaps. Enter this url in to the custom imagery offset by 0,2.32 https://wayback.maptiles.arcgis.com/arcgis/rest/services/world_imagery/wmts/1.0.0/default028mm/mapserver/tile/20337/{zoom}/{y}/{x} I hope this helps.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/173814560

Hello, my intention is to improve your understanding. The Western building is likely too thin and has not been positioned at the base of the building. The Eastern one is too long, becasue it includes the wall in its length. Both overlap a potrion of the highway on their Southern side. Please cross reference https://wayback.maptiles.arcgis.com/arcgis/rest/services/world_imagery/wmts/1.0.0/default028mm/mapserver/tile/20337/{zoom}/{y}/{x} offset 0;2.32 by adding it as a tms layer in JOSM. I hope this helps. Thanks for contributing.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174335739

PLease move footprints you map to the base of buildings after tagging them.

I think you may have mapped a field as a building way/1444065514

Hi, you may want to check out https://osmcha.org/changesets/174315920 to see my interpretation of the imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171346952

Roofs can have light and dark sections which make the appear like seperate buildings.

Hi, when mapping complex footprints like some you did here, consider if the footprint may not in fact be a simpler shape and may just appear to be more complex in the imagery.

Thank you for your informative response!

I'm going to explain some ways in which I think you could improve your approach, though mine is certainly not ideal either: we're doing our best.

If this is a difficult question to answer, then I would say that your current approach to changeset comments makes it difficult to virtually impossible for other contributors to understand and discuss your changes, given that even you did not know why you did something within 24 hours of this changeset being closed.

If you intend to validate many tasks of a particular project (especially when the default comment is not good), then please put in the extra effort up fornt to write good comments when uploading your initial changesets. To save time, you can then reuse them as appropriate for any actions you repeatedly perform by selecting them from the comment history, rather than rewriting them everytime you upload.

Consider your workflow and how you structure your uploads, so that the comments remain valid, informative, and idealy comprehensive. It's best when the comment can explain your rationale, mindset, or the context e.g. if you are not carefully checking each feature or making a mass edit. This allows others to more easily make informed decisions regarding your contributions.

As an example I recently removed many invalid layer tags from building footprints, but didn't filter out building=roof. This resulted in the removal of 1 valid tag. I spotted this mistake and corrected it, but if I hadn't, then a good comment could have made it easier for someone else to spot and rectify that mistake, rather than thinking something like 'did that contributor know/see something I don't?'. https://osmcha.org/changesets/173908491

You can view my changesets to get some inspiration for good cahngeset comments, check the history of the way I linked, and I'll also refer you to osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments . Hopefully this will allow you to experience how much of a difference a good comment can make.

As for the building footprint and highway I was asking about. I put in a fair ammount of care and effort when mapping the footprint, and made some deliberate dicisions while doing so. Given the context I think I mapped it fairly well (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1437067893). Based on all imagery of it I have seen I do not believe it is entirely square i.e. not all walls are parallel or perpendicular, and by making it so you've reduced its accuracy, requiring the modification of the adjacent highway, in turn reducing its accuracy to avoid data overlap. For these reasons I have reverted the features specified in https://osmcha.org/changesets/174110756

I am aware that my mapping is not perfect: I spot and correct some of my own mistakes (which you can even see in the history of this footprint), and it is not possible to know everything without comprehensive sources.

I know that often contributors do not square the features they map when appropriate, however not all buildings are in fact square, or circular for that matter. Sometimes they have more complex designs, and/or are making the most of the available space, so please treat any unsquare building indications (and validator warnings) as just that. Please make an effort to understand what you're dealing with, then decide the best course of action.

I hope that you find this useful and take it into consideration going forward.

Kindly.

Hello,

You identifed buildings in imagery, and I can understand why you merged the nodes of these building footprints, however this tends to make them more difficult to modify later. You can hold alt to prevent the snapping of nodes. Check out the roof modeling page of the OSM wiki to see the process for mapping buildings with different heights.