There's a building within a building - please fix! Thank you and happy mapping.

Building in a building - please fix! Thanks.

There are two buildings on top of each other. Looking a the imagery, this house is also not that big. Pls fix and happy mapping!

Hmmm - odd building shape. Can't see the this in Bing imagery. What is this based on?

This building overlaps with the one right next to it. Pls fix - thank you and happy mapping!

There's a duplicate building here. Please fix and happy mapping!

This building is in the street.

Nevermind, this was a false alarm. I see this is fixed now.

Fixed now, never mind.

Sorry, false alarm. This has been fixed I see.

I see this has been fixed now. Sorry for the false alarm.

This building overlaps with the one next to it. Please fix, thank you!

Hey there - there's a duplicate building at this location. Check it out and pls fix! There are also many other duplicate buildings in the area, please fix them too and happy mapping!

Hey there - there is a duplicated building here and in many other instances in this area. Check it out + please fix!

Hey there - looks like you uploaded a building twice.

Please use JOSM and the JOSM building plugin for better building quality. Few of the buildings are parallel where they should be. With the building plugin, select one building, subsequent building will align automatically in parallel.

See osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/BuildingsTools

The link you're referencing ( https://github.com/mapbox/map-feedback/issues/315 ) was posted mistakenly. It clearly doesn't make sense to share links that can't be accessed by the public.

Feedback on maps appears as a submission form - see here: https://www.mapbox.com/blog/map-feedback/

With such a submission form comes an expectation of privacy that I want to take very, very seriously. For instance, some users submit personally identifiable information, such as their name together with their address. Some feedback is about the app the map is embedded in, or map design rather than OpenStreetMap data.

This is why as a general policy we don't open the feedback note directly to the public - but we're trying to write an as descriptive changeset comment as possible.

It is tempting to change this policy at least for feedback we can "safely deem to be appropriate to publish" and which is applicable to OpenStreetMap. We've started collecting map feedback more systematically just in the beginning of this year. I'd like to get a better sense of what feedback we're receiving before deciding whether or not to adjust this publication policy.

> which is ensure that there is an independent piece of evidence to support the statement in the note

Yeah, let's not add data to OSM that can't be independently verified.

By the way, we are placing all customer feedback as notes on OSM now. We do not pass on any feedback directly as the noise to signal ratio is too high and I am also not 100 % comfortable to post something publicly that people may submit assuming a private channel.

I hope it's useful feedback, we're taking our first steps here.

Accidental comment. Should say "Added service road"