All the buildings in the surrounding area are just squares where the plot of the building is, with building parts on top of it:
That’s not correct is it?
Very much looks like landuse=residential and the building:part items needing changing to buildings=* and that for a lot of these plots.
This will also resolve the warnings of buildings crossing highways
Whilst the user has replied to some changeset comments here it is clear that they haven’t really got the message I’d drop the DWG a mail so that they can follow up previous efforts.
– Andy (from the DWG)
I’ve come across something similar more than once.
@SomeoneElse is ‘Changeset comments’ {Discussion} the proper / standard way to address these challenges? I do not want to discourage a user from future contributions.
In the first instance yes - although in this particular example communication has not always occurred.
When writing changeset discussion comments, especially to new mappers, try and be helpful (e.g. don’t just say “this is wrong”). Try and ask questions that prompt a reply, and try and be friendly, as your comment is likely the first time the person has any contact from anyone in OSM. Often just saying something like “if you have any other questions please ask” helps too.
1 Like
No. I sent them a message that they had to read before continuing to edit. The DWG got an email about that, but the content of that email suggests they haven’t quite taken on board the criticism (it contained the text “!!! that’s redicolous !!!”). 
However, the current series of edits (still maproulette, but fixing HOT-added building overlaps) is surely helpful. If they do more “obviously wrong” mapping then please do mention it on a changeset comment and (assuming communication does not occur) to the DWG so that we can pick it up again.