Gregory Peony (2025-11-02 18:35:42+00:00): 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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/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.