It's preferred to map as building=detached, assuming these are single-family. It is more specific than building=house. Thanks for adding these!

Oh dear, seems I copied the same link twice. The building I meant to link to in my third link was just to the west of the second one.

These are just the worst examples. There are plenty of buildings that are just not aligned, or have oversimplified shapes. Sometimes it is better to ignore the Bing building and do it by hand instead.

It would be good to review these buildings carefully instead of adding them blindly. For example, way/1150289618 is actually two buildings. The garage is separate, the roof just happens to overlap with the house's porch. And another example, though not in this changeset: way/1150289947. This shape is totally wrong. It should be a simple rectangle, but here you've mapped it with a bit jutting out. A neighboring building, way/1150289647, is no better. You've mapped a detached garage as part of the house.

It is clear by the RapiD (pun intended) pace at which you're uploading these changesets that these buildings are not being properly reviewed, and thus this constitutes an undocumented import.

I believe if you revert all the changesets at once, and just choose to resolve any conflicts toward what's on the server (assume edits made after the import make the building now usable) you can correct most of the damage.

May be good to ask for help in the OSM Slack. There are definitely some experts there. And it's likely that the DWG would work to revert these edits as well.

The unreviewed Bing import that got this user blocked for 10 years is bad? Guess you have to revert it...

Very clever dogwhistle! Surely DWG won't take action against this sort of changeset comment.

The building named "House" that is clearly a detached house didn't raise any flags?

Make sure to square buildings after drawing them by selecting them and pressing Q.

It it really an old name? In my experience, the TIGER names often exist, but are on the wrong road. Whatever the case, it seems unlikely that this ever had a name.

Might be good to come back and square these now that we have better editing tools.

Oh hey, that's my building!

It's not showing in my edit history on Bing Map builder yet and I haven't received an email.

It seems more likely to be a bollard than a gate, presumably blocking an emergency access. Do you have any street-level imagery to confirm?

Then your intentionally poor edits will be referred to the DWG.

This is not an answer. Please fix the obvious issues with your edits.

This is not an appropriate attitude. It is not our responsibility to decipher what you're trying to do. This is a collaborative platform.

Nope, just SEO spam. This is a private residence.

These would probably more accurately be mapped as building parts. From the looks of the roof (totally seamless between many of the roofs) they are likely just rooms.

Hello, this entry is located at a private residence. If a physical storefront is not present, that is accessible to any visitor, the feature is not suitable for inclusion on OpenStreetMap. Based on the information present on the linked website, this is not the case. I have removed the entry. Please let me know if this is in error.

Was it disincorporated?

And if the population is zero, shouldn't the node be retagged to place=locality?

Uh... don't do it again, I guess? And it would be good to fix existing edits.