In accordance with Step 6 / item 4 of the imports checklist, the import
and QA is now completed.
Thanks to Microsoft for making building and height data available and
multiplying the efforts of a few local mappers!
On 3/14/2018 10:21 PM, Mike N wrote:
> FYI, this is proceeding with 2 people, on dedicated accounts
> Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_1 and Greenville_SC_City_MSImport_2
> On 1/24/2018 8:28 PM, Mike N wrote:
>> The OSM Upstate SC group is planning an import of Microsoft building
>> shapes for the city of Greenville, SC. The candidate wiki page is at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Greenville_SC_Building_Import >>
>> The actual import won't take place for 1-2 months yet to allow time
>> to review the plans.
> Talk-us mailing list
> [hidden email] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
I think that you have made the same mistake as they made with the Tampa/Clearwater, FL Microsoft building data import: The height is given in feet and inches, but you used metre scheme (x.y) instead of x'y". An example:
There is some question about the overall accuracy of the height data in
this import, but I think the units are correct in meters. For example,
the Landmark Building  is a known height of 305 feet / 92 meters. 
Mapillary view (from a distance)  .
Microsoft measured it at 101 meters / 331 feet; an error of 26 feet.
Since the building is on a slope, it's not known what reference was
used as the base in the Microsoft height measurement. A measure of 101
feet would be 1/3 of the actual height and not what I would expect.
Hopefully the units weren't mixed by using different units for
different buildings. I couldn't see any indication of this in the
original shape file.