enhancment: Building Outline Oppacity, Translation & Look

[Pseudorandom-Pseudonym]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently when working on validate type tasks, if a building is significantly offset, it is difficult to tell if a building footprint has accurate geometry. At present you just have to guess and that is not very accurate or precise. This problem correlates with the complexity of features, and the magnitude of the offset.

Currently you can only toggle the opacity of the footprint between opaque, and translucent. At times the outline obscures the imagery and makes it impossible to tell if it is correct e.g. in situations where it could be one building, or two close to one another. Seeing a shadow or gap between them would enable you to determine.

Is there a good reason why the footprint colour is different than in the mobile version? I found the black and white colour scheme to be quite striking, and it has good contrast against background imagery. I think it is a good colour scheme for various features. How would blue fair in a project validating water features?

Describe the solution you'd like

1. Provide the ability to move the building footprint, using a click and drag function. The footprint should snap back to its original position, when you leg go of the left click.
2. Provide the option to entirely hide the footprint in order to look at the imagery directly (like you can in the mobile application). The default toggle when using a shortcut should be between 0% opacity, and some other value i.e. 0%/50% or 0%/100%. Not 50%/100%.
3. Change the colour scheme to that of the mobile version, or allow users to choose the colour of the outline.

Describe alternatives you've considered
The option to allow users to choose the colour of the outline as mentioned before.

You can go back to previous outlines, and hope that another is in the same area as the one you're currently evaluating. Then go back to the one you're actually trying to evaluate, and select the correct option. I hope that the ridiculousness of such a method is self evident.

I have not thought of any good alternatives which can properly address the other problems.