Re: [talk-ph] "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

Time perhaps to close this issue. User inactive since yesterday, but I'm
still believe my gut feel the two are the same person (let alone have their
IP addresses checked). Maybe I'm correct I didn't welcome here; they could
have changed, but they still can't be trusted.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

I don't think that's the way to go from my experiences with Open Paint
Maps. Be in contact in them in any way, they'll fire back.

Yes, we should assume good faith in regard to contributions by new users,
but for the case of VJMEJ Planned, they're suspicious. Changing fairly
stable road classifications (especially on major roads), and the awkward
language raises red flags. I can agree to some changes, but they either
should be corrected. For the majority however, they're suspicious; they
just downgraded a major highway that had been long classified trunk to
primary without good reason.

Andy, don't forget the user has been brought to local attention in the OSM
Philippines Telegram channel; Ian has handled some of the suspicious edits.
And there are multiple reports for the user (from me and another user, also
on Telegram); should merge those tickets. I just recently received a
message for my report thru the "Report user" function.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

I just reported their two diary entries.

Back on the issue, do you mean we can't discount VJMEJ Planned and Open
Paint Maps are the same person?
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

Also see OSMPH Telegram. VJMEJ Planned is already on our radar there.

On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 12:13 AM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> Evidence are their their diary entries that are basically harassment;
> those can be easily reported and deleted. Also look at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119747584 for an example of their
> MO of revenge attacks that follow the established MO of Open Paint Maps.
> When I reverted multiple change sets this morning, they came back and
> posted a comment that basically returned back the claims regarding their
> behavior to me. This kind of threatening behavior isn't new to me; I can
> remember one case back in 2017 on Wikipedia over removal of items in "In
> the news" by an IP; I asked administrations to block them, and after that,
> they hounded me with false sock puppet accusations (though the primary
> report is with edit warring and generally disruptive behavior). The user is
> evading a block, and they're returning attack by falsely accusing them of
> the same thing.
>
> Whether the two are the same person is hard to tell, but it's very obvious
> from the ones I've observed. Perhaps DWG should do an IP address check?
> Blocking "VJMEJ Planned" for just a short time, to me, won't deter them;
> whether they'll use the account again or create another after that, they'll
> keep on disrupting the database and threatening anyone who get into their
> way.
>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

Evidence are their their diary entries that are basically harassment; those
can be easily reported and deleted. Also look at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119747584 for an example of their
MO of revenge attacks that follow the established MO of Open Paint Maps.
When I reverted multiple change sets this morning, they came back and
posted a comment that basically returned back the claims regarding their
behavior to me. This kind of threatening behavior isn't new to me; I can
remember one case back in 2017 on Wikipedia over removal of items in "In
the news" by an IP; I asked administrations to block them, and after that,
they hounded me with false sock puppet accusations (though the primary
report is with edit warring and generally disruptive behavior). The user is
evading a block, and they're returning attack by falsely accusing them of
the same thing.

Whether the two are the same person is hard to tell, but it's very obvious
from the ones I've observed. Perhaps DWG should do an IP address check?
Blocking "VJMEJ Planned" for just a short time, to me, won't deter them;
whether they'll use the account again or create another after that, they'll
keep on disrupting the database and threatening anyone who get into their
way.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:40 PM Vincent Veldman  wrote:

> Obviously threatening or harassing fellow mappers is not the way to go.
>
> Screenshots of the threats/harassment or any other rude immortal unethical
> behavior?
>
> If you have proof showing actual threats - you can use my username to
> confirm I would support OSMF to block that user for a temporary period
> initially..
>
> And see if a temporary ban can change behavior...
>
> But before using my name to back the request for OSMF or anyone else
> stepping in - I'd need to see some screenshots as proof - as I'm always
> reluctant to ban/block or generally harsh measuments
>
> As for - the same person with 2 or possibly more accounts - screenshots?
> Or links of possible public conversation/comments?
>
> I'm all for a 2 step approach generally if there's proof a person is
> totally out of line - ... temporary harsh measurements..
> and if that doesn't work - permanent block/ban
>
>
>
>
> * From: * Jherome Miguel 
> * To: * talk-ph 
> * Sent: * 16/04/2022 13:17
> * Subject: * Re: [talk-ph] "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps"
>
> Main issue is with threatening behavior. When they were reverted, they
> fought back by returning back what I said about them. When I ask them to be
> blocked, they use empty threats of block to gain the upper hand. Those are
> Open Paint Maps MO, and I insist my gut feeling is right.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Vincent Veldman 
> wrote:
>
> I can only comment for the area I am living - as I only map what I
> actually can confirm
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871184236
>
> nothing wrong with this I'd say
>
> Also -
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119642907
>
> Nothing seems wrong with this.
>
> All other edits in the PH I don't talk about - as I don't comment nor map
> where I'm not myself to verify
>
>
> So for User Open Paint map - no comment as he doesn't edit here where I
> live
>
> * From: * Jherome Miguel 
> * To: * talk-ph 
> * Sent: * 16/04/2022 9:41
> * Subject: * [talk-ph] "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps"
>
> Anyone agree if these users "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps" are the
> same guy? Their MO is very similar (revenge attacks/harassment on anyone
> who reverts them, disruptive editing). Asked DWG to deal with them (block
> account, revert their edits, delete their comments and diary posts), but
> I'm awaiting a response.
>
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
>
>
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

Main issue is with threatening behavior. When they were reverted, they
fought back by returning back what I said about them. When I ask them to be
blocked, they use empty threats of block to gain the upper hand. Those are
Open Paint Maps MO, and I insist my gut feeling is right.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Vincent Veldman  wrote:

> I can only comment for the area I am living - as I only map what I
> actually can confirm
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871184236
>
> nothing wrong with this I'd say
>
> Also -
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119642907
>
> Nothing seems wrong with this.
>
> All other edits in the PH I don't talk about - as I don't comment nor map
> where I'm not myself to verify
>
>
> So for User Open Paint map - no comment as he doesn't edit here where I
> live
>
> * From: * Jherome Miguel 
> * To: * talk-ph 
> * Sent: * 16/04/2022 9:41
> * Subject: * [talk-ph] "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps"
>
> Anyone agree if these users "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps" are the
> same guy? Their MO is very similar (revenge attacks/harassment on anyone
> who reverts them, disruptive editing). Asked DWG to deal with them (block
> account, revert their edits, delete their comments and diary posts), but
> I'm awaiting a response.
>
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

Anyone agree if these users "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps" are the
same guy? Their MO is very similar (revenge attacks/harassment on anyone
who reverts them, disruptive editing). Asked DWG to deal with them (block
account, revert their edits, delete their comments and diary posts), but
I'm awaiting a response.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Review latest edits by "mapper03"

[Jherome Miguel]

Someone should review the edits by "mapper03" (basically the same as
rjamz26 and haroldjohn). There have been several issues with lots of his
edits:

- Obscure names restored for various highways
- Bypass alignments getting downgraded to primary (some already reverted)
and older routes getting trunk again.
- Quirino and Diego Cera got downgraded (should be trunk as toll-free
alternate to CAVITEX and part of route filling Route 1 gap, even as a quite
narrow road; can downgrade when toll removed somewhere in future).

Also of question is when "National Road/Highway", which are basically
generic labels, can be placed on main name tag. Some roads got renamed to
that (e.g. Route 602 Famy-Pagsanjan) where I had just renamed them to
"Route/Highway [number]" (especially where there's little signage or the
official DPWH name is unwieldy or not practical for navigation). Can leave
the existing name on Route 1 Muntinlupa-Calamba (fairly established name,
also local to that area).
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Issues with "VJMEJ Planned"

[Jherome Miguel]

There is really something fishy about this new user, which just left a
comment on the latest edit I made in Atimonan. Also questionable is one
major downgrade of Route 70 where it's also part of AH26 (Tacloban-Ormoc).
Planning a revert for that (others already handled).
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Esri imagery in Pampanga

[Jherome Miguel]

Just a note, Bing also the same imagery, but enhanced. It's a little off
alignment however, and Esri has better imagery in terms of alignment and
quality.

On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 9:56 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> Just noticed very well-aligned Esri aerial photos around San Fernando and
> Mexico, Pampanga. Checked it against GPS traces, and they're very well
> aligned, and just begin improving NLEX alignment, which is badly off
> between San Fernando exit and Abacan Bridge. Roads and most buildings in
> Angeles match the imagery already, except for a few. Mind beginning
> realigning lots of roads and buildings in Pampanga, especially those added
> as part of PhilAWARE using Maxar imagery, which is unfortunately offset?
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Esri imagery in Pampanga

[Jherome Miguel]

Just noticed very well-aligned Esri aerial photos around San Fernando and
Mexico, Pampanga. Checked it against GPS traces, and they're very well
aligned, and just begin improving NLEX alignment, which is badly off
between San Fernando exit and Abacan Bridge. Roads and most buildings in
Angeles match the imagery already, except for a few. Mind beginning
realigning lots of roads and buildings in Pampanga, especially those added
as part of PhilAWARE using Maxar imagery, which is unfortunately offset?
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Beware of this harassment-only account

[Jherome Miguel]

Please beware of this harassment-only account: Kaplog29. User just gave me
the F-word in a recent edit and reported them immediately to DWG.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Tagging very narrow streets/"eskinitas"

[Jherome Miguel]

This just come to my attention someone has restored the residential tag for
several "eskinitas" in Sampaloc, Manila. I previously have them tagged to
highway=service+service=alley. User involved has a somewhat bad history of
road tagging, and edit comments doesn't provide reason for why to retag
them.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] City node location

[Jherome Miguel]

Possible locations:

- Las Piñas

a.) Poblacion/Heritage Zone
b.) City Hall/Pamplona

- Parañaque
a.) Poblacion/Kabihasnan
b.) City Hall/San Antonio

I can only think of 2 good locations for the two, but I would stick to
Poblacion location.

Also bringing up Manila. Node has just been moved to be around Plaza de
Mexico. Possible good locations:

a.) City Hall (previous location)
b.) Liwasang Bonifacio/Plaza Lawton
c.) Plaza Santa Cruz
d.) Intramuros (at Plaza de Roma)

(For me, would be either B, C or D, but lean toward D, at Plaza Santa Cruz,
as Santa Cruz and Binondo areas are the closest location to a city center)


On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 1:36 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> Just came up after the Las Piñas and Parañaque nodes were moved, where
> should city or municipality nodes be located again? For the two, I'll
> insist on a Poblacion location, as there isn't some better location
> especially in such a heavily suburbanized location.
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] City node location

[Jherome Miguel]

Just came up after the Las Piñas and Parañaque nodes were moved, where
should city or municipality nodes be located again? For the two, I'll
insist on a Poblacion location, as there isn't some better location
especially in such a heavily suburbanized location.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] FW: [Ticket#2022012010000052] "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

All I know is most of his edit comments save "Version [number]" are mostly
hardly understandable garbage. Also, I'm not attempting any communication
with him (and I also asked other mappers not to attempt communication or
name him in edits rolling back his changes) since those threats of block in
what I think to be apparent revenge for reverting or correcting his shady
map edits, and there seems to be competency issues with the mapper. Other
fellow Filipino mappers suspect this could be a sock of long-time
problematic user, but it's a different case after all.

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 8:56 PM Vincent Veldman  wrote:

> “One Way Another May Road Number”
>
> Maybe he means:
> -1) this is a one-way
> -2) another user may add the road number
>
> Maybe addressing him in his native tongue could clarify some issues?
>
>
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] FW: [Ticket#2022012010000052] "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

I'm considering correcting some of the user's changes, but I'm not ready to
take on it, as he might troll me again with frivolous block request if I
do. Maybe from the words he use, I do really question if he could be just
some kid or youngster. Again, I do question his competence since I was
targeted by his childish rant, and I still stand for longer block for my
peace of mind.

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:19 AM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows
>
>
>
> *From: *Jherome Miguel 
> *Sent: *Friday, 21 January 2022 3:26 am
> *To: *Ian Lopez via talk-ph 
> *Subject: *RE: [Ticket#202201201052] [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"
>
>
>
> Maybe a kid or young teen, unfortunately we don’t know. Doesn’t OSM have a
> minimum age requirement for a user?
>
>
>
> Going on, I would also like to note his user descriptions. First, it was
> “U M G”, then it become “Home Countries Map”. Looks child stuff, but better
> beware, he could just be feigning that. And also note his changeset
> comments like “Drawing paint secondary road map blocked SometingElse””
> “One Way Another May Road Number”. I can’t understand those, and I’ll
> readily question his competence.
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows
>
>
>
> *From: *Data Working Group 
> *Sent: *Friday, 21 January 2022 3:14 am
> *To: *Jherome Miguel 
> *Subject: *Re: [Ticket#202201201052] [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"
>
>
>
> > We can’t just trust anyone in the Net.
>
> It's always been like that -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog
> is from 1993 (!)
>
> Based on the reactions and comments from this mapper, my guess is that
> they're still at school.
>
> Best regards
> Andy Townsend
>
> --
> OpenStreetMap Foundation
> Data Working Group - d...@osmfoundation.org
> --
> [Ticket#202201201052]
>
> 20/01/2022 08:48 (Europe/London) - Jherome Miguel wrote:
>
> Maybe sorry if my first response was an overreaction, but I can’t
> understand his changeset comments in the first place and he repeatedly
> trolled me (and also you) with proposed block in changeset comments and in
> diary posts that have been deleted. Maybe he could just be throwing a fit
> after being reverted, but it’s hard to tell what he means behind a screen.
> His English is incomprehensible, and his profile pic is kind of childish
> art, but that’s all I know about him. We can’t just trust anyone in the Net.
>
>
>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] [Ticket#2022012010000052] "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

Maybe a kid or young teen, unfortunately we don’t know. Doesn’t OSM have a minimum age requirement for a user?  Going on, I would also like to note his user descriptions. First, it was “U M G”, then it become “Home Countries Map”. Looks child stuff, but better beware, he could just be feigning that. And also note his changeset comments like “Drawing paint secondary road map blocked SometingElse”” “One Way Another May Road Number”. I can’t understand those, and I’ll readily question his competence. Sent from Mail for Windows From: Data Working GroupSent: Friday, 21 January 2022 3:14 amTo: Jherome MiguelSubject: Re: [Ticket#202201201052] [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps" > We can’t just trust anyone in the Net.It's always been like that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog is from 1993 (!)Based on the reactions and comments from this mapper, my guess is that they're still at school.Best regardsAndy Townsend--OpenStreetMap FoundationData Working Group - d...@osmfoundation.org--[Ticket#202201201052]20/01/2022 08:48 (Europe/London) - Jherome Miguel wrote: Maybe sorry if my first response was an overreaction, but I can’t understand his changeset comments in the first place and he repeatedly trolled me (and also you) with proposed block in changeset comments and in diary posts that have been deleted. Maybe he could just be throwing a fit after being reverted, but it’s hard to tell what he means behind a screen. His English is incomprehensible, and his profile pic is kind of childish art, but that’s all I know about him. We can’t just trust anyone in the Net. Sent from Mail for Windows  From: Andy TownsendSent: Friday, 21 January 2022 2:53 amTo: talk-phSubject: Re: [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"  I think we need to take a bit of a step back here. This is a new account with just over 100 edits, and they're going to make mistakes (I certainly did at that stage).  They may not fully understand what they're editing, or why some things should be mapped as one thing or another. The changeset discussion comments they've received can be seen at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=14817502 . While it's great to get in touch and say what they've done wrong, what would be better would be to explain in a bit more detail why (e.g. with changeset comments link to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments which explains how they help). Rather than "clean your mess" it would help to explain why something is classified as A not B, and to offer to help with other questions that they will surely have. With regard to "Drawing paint secondary road map blocked SometingElse" it's not really "Blackmail"; it's just a comment by someone who's hurting from their first interaction with the OSM community. Maybe it just needs someone in the area (perhaps someone not previously involved) to say "hello and welcome" and ask "how can I help"? Best Regards, Andy  On 21/01/2022 02:29, Jherome Miguel wrote:For everyone who wants to deal with this mapper, be warned! You can be singled out for false accusation of all sorts, and he's now resorting to trolling every user who monitors his edits. He's now blocked, but he's not going to stop until he gets a longer block.  On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:39 PM Jherome Miguel <jheromemig...@gmail.com> wrote:   -- Forwarded message -From: Jherome Miguel <jheromemig...@gmail.com>Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:31 PMSubject: Re: [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"To: Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>, <d...@openstreetmap.org>  He’s back again, and he's now blackmailing you in his latest edit comment (i.e. Drawing paint secondary road map blocked SometingElse). Already warned some local users to be careful. Please consider revert once user is blocked.  On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:41 AM Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:On 16/01/2022 06:41, Jherome Miguel wrote:> Anyone monitoring this new user, "Open Paint Maps"? This one's> suspicious, not only for its username that is obviously deceptively> similar to the OSM name, but this is also messing with roads in> various places. Just undid or fix some of this one's edits.>See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5604 .We'll keep an eye on future edits.Best Regards,Andy (from the DWG)___talk-ph mailing listtalk-ph@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph  

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

Hi, Andy (SomeoneElse) Maybe sorry if my first response was an overreaction, but I can’t understand his changeset comments in the first place and he repeatedly trolled me (and also you) with proposed block in changeset comments and in diary posts that have been deleted. Maybe he could just be throwing a fit after being reverted, but it’s hard to tell what he means behind a screen. His English is incomprehensible, and his profile pic is kind of childish art, but that’s all I know about him. We can’t just trust anyone in the Net. Sent from Mail for Windows From: Andy TownsendSent: Friday, 21 January 2022 2:53 amTo: talk-phSubject: Re: [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps" I think we need to take a bit of a step back here. This is a new account with just over 100 edits, and they're going to make mistakes (I certainly did at that stage).  They may not fully understand what they're editing, or why some things should be mapped as one thing or another. The changeset discussion comments they've received can be seen at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=14817502 . While it's great to get in touch and say what they've done wrong, what would be better would be to explain in a bit more detail why (e.g. with changeset comments link to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments which explains how they help). Rather than "clean your mess" it would help to explain why something is classified as A not B, and to offer to help with other questions that they will surely have. With regard to "Drawing paint secondary road map blocked SometingElse" it's not really "Blackmail"; it's just a comment by someone who's hurting from their first interaction with the OSM community. Maybe it just needs someone in the area (perhaps someone not previously involved) to say "hello and welcome" and ask "how can I help"? Best Regards, Andy  On 21/01/2022 02:29, Jherome Miguel wrote:For everyone who wants to deal with this mapper, be warned! You can be singled out for false accusation of all sorts, and he's now resorting to trolling every user who monitors his edits. He's now blocked, but he's not going to stop until he gets a longer block. On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:39 PM Jherome Miguel <jheromemig...@gmail.com> wrote:  -- Forwarded message -From: Jherome Miguel <jheromemig...@gmail.com>Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:31 PMSubject: Re: [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"To: Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>, <d...@openstreetmap.org> He’s back again, and he's now blackmailing you in his latest edit comment (i.e. Drawing paint secondary road map blocked SometingElse). Already warned some local users to be careful. Please consider revert once user is blocked. On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:41 AM Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:On 16/01/2022 06:41, Jherome Miguel wrote:> Anyone monitoring this new user, "Open Paint Maps"? This one's > suspicious, not only for its username that is obviously deceptively > similar to the OSM name, but this is also messing with roads in > various places. Just undid or fix some of this one's edits.>See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5604 .We'll keep an eye on future edits.Best Regards,Andy (from the DWG)___talk-ph mailing listtalk-ph@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph 

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

For everyone who wants to deal with this mapper, be warned! You can be
singled out for false accusation of all sorts, and he's now resorting to
trolling every user who monitors his edits. He's now blocked, but he's not
going to stop until he gets a longer block.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:39 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Jherome Miguel 
> Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"
> To: Andy Townsend , 
>
>
> He’s back again, and he's now blackmailing you in his latest edit comment
> (i.e. Drawing paint secondary road map blocked SometingElse). Already
> warned some local users to be careful. Please consider revert once user is
> blocked.
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:41 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2022 06:41, Jherome Miguel wrote:
>> > Anyone monitoring this new user, "Open Paint Maps"? This one's
>> > suspicious, not only for its username that is obviously deceptively
>> > similar to the OSM name, but this is also messing with roads in
>> > various places. Just undid or fix some of this one's edits.
>> >
>> See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5604 .
>>
>> We'll keep an eye on future edits.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Andy (from the DWG)
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Fwd: "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

-- Forwarded message -
From: Jherome Miguel 
Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"
To: Andy Townsend , 


He’s back again, and he's now blackmailing you in his latest edit comment
(i.e. Drawing paint secondary road map blocked SometingElse). Already
warned some local users to be careful. Please consider revert once user is
blocked.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:41 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 16/01/2022 06:41, Jherome Miguel wrote:
> > Anyone monitoring this new user, "Open Paint Maps"? This one's
> > suspicious, not only for its username that is obviously deceptively
> > similar to the OSM name, but this is also messing with roads in
> > various places. Just undid or fix some of this one's edits.
> >
> See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5604 .
>
> We'll keep an eye on future edits.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy (from the DWG)
>
>
>
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"

[Jherome Miguel]

Anyone monitoring this new user, "Open Paint Maps"? This one's suspicious,
not only for its username that is obviously deceptively similar to the OSM
name, but this is also messing with roads in various places. Just undid or
fix some of this one's edits.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] New Year road reclassifications

[Jherome Miguel]

Just noticed multiple edits related to road classifications around New Year
and days before that. I have reviewed and undone/modified some contentious
edits regarding these (e.g. Route 51, Andaya Highway), but there are still
unsettled edits:

- Sariaya, Candelaria, and Tiaong bypasses (recently changed to primary;
have been marked trunk as bypass of Maharlika Highway through towns. Edited
by “mapper03”. No reason for change, but appears to relate with the
discussion on Diokno Highway)
- Aguinaldo Highway south of Dasma, Diokno Highway and Route 436
Lemery-Batangas (upgraded to trunk except urban section through Bauan, San
Pascual and Batangas City, discussion ongoing, focusing on possible revert
as the Diokno Highway leg is landslide-prone and not a good trunk
candidate. Edited by "dasmarinas_mapper")
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Grab edits in Batangas City

[Jherome Miguel]

I'm noticing lately around Batangas City that a lot of roads there are no
longer well aligned since the Grab  began adding missing roads there. Lots
of roads were previously well aligned, but now off due to reliance in
aerial imagery not accounting for age or offset from GPX tracks. I'm
thinking of a major revert of all edits owing to these issues, and I'm
dealing with some of these already.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Update on proposed road reclassifications

[Jherome Miguel]

Just completed the changes for Rizal, eastern Laguna and Quezon Province,
practically reducing or eliminating trunks there except Maharlika Highway,
plus tagging of speed, naming fixes (removing spaces around hyphens) and
fixing instances of foot=no in many roads (foot=no in those cases being
used to mean no-crossing/no-jaywalking, with some exceptions around
intersections with footbridges). Originally, Quarry Road at Binangonan
would be upgraded to secondary, but I decided to keep it in its present
classification, having missed the gated, restricted-access segment around
quarry.

For Metro Manila, the trunk network has been reduced as planned, plus
changes in Las Piñas to downgrade main roads inside BF Homes, BF
Resort and Philamlife
Village to tertiary/collector, plus access tagging.

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 2:29 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> I'll be planning a major edit around Metro Manila and suburbs, that will
> reduce the extent of the trunk network to follow the proposal here,
> starting with filling the Route 1 gap, then trunk to primary downgrades in
> Metro Manila, Rizal-Laguna-Quezon Province, and finally, Cavite and western
> Batangas.
>
> So far, the latest change is that the Antipolo-Teresa-Morong route was
> upgraded to trunk. Now, suburban Rizal has this ring of trunk roads with no
> primaries to complement it. There are no roads within that ring that can be
> classified higher than secondary due to their local nature, and except for
> upgrade to Quarry Road, the road network within that ring will be the same.
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Update on proposed road reclassifications

[Jherome Miguel]

I'll be planning a major edit around Metro Manila and suburbs, that will
reduce the extent of the trunk network to follow the proposal here,
starting with filling the Route 1 gap, then trunk to primary downgrades in
Metro Manila, Rizal-Laguna-Quezon Province, and finally, Cavite and western
Batangas.

So far, the latest change is that the Antipolo-Teresa-Morong route was
upgraded to trunk. Now, suburban Rizal has this ring of trunk roads with no
primaries to complement it. There are no roads within that ring that can be
classified higher than secondary due to their local nature, and except for
upgrade to Quarry Road, the road network within that ring will be the same.

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 7:38 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> 1. On Mindoro, I'll be fine limiting the trunk classification to the
> Western Nautical Highway between Calapan and Roxas (and onward to Caticlan
> via RORO) in Oriental Mindoro. For the remainder of the roads circling
> Mindoro (Mindoro West Coastal Road), primary is still best, being the only
> other major road, with much of the other major roads in OccMin being
> secondary.
> 2. On Route 501, I agree; it's much like the situation with Route 452 in
> OccMin. Next question is what gets trunk in the Iloilo area. We currently
> have two trunk routings, the original Route 5 following E. Lopez, Luna and
> Bonifacio, and the wider and better Benigno S. Aquino Avenue. Also to add
> to the changes in the trunk network is the road to Iloilo International
> (Route 512 or the old Iloilo-Capiz Road between Iloilo City and Santa
> Barbara).
> 3. On Route 955, yes, it is now be the main route between Butuan and CDO
> (in between Gingoog and Villanueva), but I think this one should be treatEd
> as an off-route shortcut than a bypass. Another thing is shifting the trunk
> route to Route 955 will break the guideline trunks should generally follow
> the same route number between cities (it's doesn't need to be followed, but
> for this case, this should be followed considering Route 9 is the main link
> between CDO and Butuan). Third, Route 955 around Mount Balatukan does seem
> to be prone to landslides and might often get closed than the older route
> (can someone confirm?)
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 3:25 PM Timeo Gut  wrote:
>
>> Good day,
>>
>> The suggestions for trunk refinement in Manila, Cavite as well as Cebu
>> all sound good to me. In Mindoro I think we could consider having a full
>> circumferential trunk to fix the current classification gap between Calapan
>> and San Jose. In Panay while extending trunk to Caticlan I think we should
>> consider downgrading route 501 Iloilo-Antique Road
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/501+Iloilo-Antique+Road?entry=gmail=g>
>> to primary.
>>
>> As for Cotabato City East Diversion Road it will probably be another 1-2
>> years before the road will start to serve any significant amount of
>> traffic. This section <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/727651616> on
>> Sultan Kudarat side of Rio Grande is currently still impassable for cars
>> during heavy rain and for the final section
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/965331841> construction hasn't even
>> started yet.
>>
>> Another road that I'd like to discuss is trunk between Butuan and CDO.
>> Route 955 seems to have become the de facto trunk for traffic between these
>> two cities because of the significant time savings. The bypassed section of
>> route 9 is now mostly serving traffic to the various coastal
>> municipalities. How does this off-route shortcut differ from other bypass
>> roads?
>>
>> Looking forward to your feedback!
>>
>>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Update on proposed road reclassifications

[Jherome Miguel]

1. On Mindoro, I'll be fine limiting the trunk classification to the
Western Nautical Highway between Calapan and Roxas (and onward to Caticlan
via RORO) in Oriental Mindoro. For the remainder of the roads circling
Mindoro (Mindoro West Coastal Road), primary is still best, being the only
other major road, with much of the other major roads in OccMin being
secondary.
2. On Route 501, I agree; it's much like the situation with Route 452 in
OccMin. Next question is what gets trunk in the Iloilo area. We currently
have two trunk routings, the original Route 5 following E. Lopez, Luna and
Bonifacio, and the wider and better Benigno S. Aquino Avenue. Also to add
to the changes in the trunk network is the road to Iloilo International
(Route 512 or the old Iloilo-Capiz Road between Iloilo City and Santa
Barbara).
3. On Route 955, yes, it is now be the main route between Butuan and CDO
(in between Gingoog and Villanueva), but I think this one should be treatEd
as an off-route shortcut than a bypass. Another thing is shifting the trunk
route to Route 955 will break the guideline trunks should generally follow
the same route number between cities (it's doesn't need to be followed, but
for this case, this should be followed considering Route 9 is the main link
between CDO and Butuan). Third, Route 955 around Mount Balatukan does seem
to be prone to landslides and might often get closed than the older route
(can someone confirm?)

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 3:25 PM Timeo Gut  wrote:

> Good day,
>
> The suggestions for trunk refinement in Manila, Cavite as well as Cebu all
> sound good to me. In Mindoro I think we could consider having a full
> circumferential trunk to fix the current classification gap between Calapan
> and San Jose. In Panay while extending trunk to Caticlan I think we should
> consider downgrading route 501 Iloilo-Antique Road
> 
> to primary.
>
> As for Cotabato City East Diversion Road it will probably be another 1-2
> years before the road will start to serve any significant amount of
> traffic. This section  on
> Sultan Kudarat side of Rio Grande is currently still impassable for cars
> during heavy rain and for the final section
>  construction hasn't even
> started yet.
>
> Another road that I'd like to discuss is trunk between Butuan and CDO.
> Route 955 seems to have become the de facto trunk for traffic between these
> two cities because of the significant time savings. The bypassed section of
> route 9 is now mostly serving traffic to the various coastal
> municipalities. How does this off-route shortcut differ from other bypass
> roads?
>
> Looking forward to your feedback!
>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Update on proposed road reclassifications

[Jherome Miguel]

It's been a week ago since my last post on proposed reclassification work,
this time addressing the case of Metro Manila and suburban Cavite, but I
haven't received any further comment. Anyone mind to look into this? Also
asking for comment what route is trunk around Cotabato City. I have trunk
assigned to CCDR, even if it's currently incomplete, but it's been moved
back to the slower and older route.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Update on proposed trunk and primary networks

[Jherome Miguel]

Hi everyone!

I just did a major rewrite of the existing proposal on proposed road
classifications, having identified what roads will get the trunk and
primary tags. Some updates to note:

- Existing trunk network nationwide will be largely the same as those under
the 2015 guidelines, but with the addition of some 3-digit (national
secondary) routes to fill major gaps. One such gap is on the Calapan-Iloilo
City corridor, currently trunk in Mindoro, while becoming primary between
Caticlan and Ibajay. Some trunk roads, especially questionable ones, will
go.
- The trunk network in Metro Manila will be limited to Route 1 (EDSA,
MacArthur Highway, National Road from south of Alabang), roads that fill
the Route 1 gap from EDSA-Roxas Boulevard to Alabang, and Route 120 (Roxas
Boulevard, Bonifacio Drive, Del Pan Bridge, Road 10 and C-4). This network
follows what can be considered as the main through routes in the region
that neither follow the expressways (nor their service roads), is far more
ideal that the existing one with routes where trunk classification is
questionable. Other major surface (i.e. non-expressway) roads in the region
get primary.
- In suburban Cavite (i.e. the sprawl stretching from Bacoor to Dasma), the
trunk network will be limited to Aguinaldo Highway (Routes 62 and 419) and
Governor's Drive east of Dasma (Route 65), roughly paralleling the CALAX
route. All other major highways in the province will become primary.
- In the Cebu-Mandaue-Mactan area, trunk will be limited to Route 840.
Current trunk network includes Route 840, Route 8 within the heavily
urbanized area (except bypassed section that lead to Fuente Osmeña), plus
both roads connecting with the bridges to Mactan (the latter being
questionable additions). As Route 840 becomes the sole trunk route in the
area, all the other existing trunks will become primary. Primary network
there will be rationalized in the Cebu City-Mandaue area (there is quite
too much of them in such a dense area).
- The primary network will still largely be the same, mostly including much
of the 3-digit routes where they have the primary function of linking large
towns and other provincial capitals, plus some of the tertiary national
road network where they link large towns.

Your feedback welcome!
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

(Late reply)

Just a heads up, 2020 census figures are now available and the list of
large cities for determining trunk routes needs to be updated.

Some highlights:
- 6 small cities (Tayabas, Tacurong, Masbate City, Balanga, Guihulngan,
Lamitan) the existing list for determining primary roads have become large
cities
- 1 large city (Panabo) has become a small city
- Calaca, pending plebiscite (since postponed to 2022), is added to the
list of small cities
- 15 municipalities (Guiguinto, Pandi, Pulilan, San Rafael in Bulacan,
Carmona, Kawit, Carmen in Bukidnon, Santa Cruz in Davao del Sur, Parang in
Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, Calasiao, Tiaong, T‘boli, Paniqui, Sindangan)
are added to the list of large municipalities used to determine primary
routes

I’m also working on some of the exceptions, particularly in Central Luzon
and CALABARZON. Examples to note the main roads in San Mateo and Rodriguez,
roads to Candaba, and the roads in Bondoc Peninsula in Quezon Province.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Another user possibly illegal copying from GMaps

[Jherome Miguel]

Just noticed them lately after making major edits in Rosario and Padre
Garcia, but this user raises some suspicion: “Maryerick”. Some notes:

-User edited around same area as Ashley, namely, Padre Garcia
-Some POI names provide clues they're possibly copied from GMaps (e.g.
-Takeout added after names)

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:07 AM Erwin Olario  wrote:

> Today's meeting concluded positively. Please review the Paper-Cut-Fix
> ticket for details. If you missed some (or all) parts of the meeting, the
> recording is temporarily available in the ticket [0], and will remain
> available until the ticket is resolved.
>
> To summarize today's meeting:
>
>- Para Apps acknowledged the gaps in their Quality Assurance and
>on-boarding Processes
>- that their mappers (internal, and/or third-parties) utilized
>copyrighted information to add data to OSM
>- they agree to cooperate by providing us with the OSM usernames
>involved in their mapping activities, and we will ask the DWG to help purge
>these edits from OSM.
>
> In the Telegram channel, Timmy made a suggestion: for the OSM-PH community
> to offer to organize a special training session for Para Apps mappers, to
> help improve the quality of their contributions, and ensure that they
> comply with OSM requirements, guidelines, and community expectations.
>
> The following people joined the meeting today (in no particular order):
> Maning, Enock (from OSM Africa), Timmy, Eugene, Ian, Mikko, and myself.
> Thankfully,  the Para Apps team accepted the meeting invitation, and for
> co-operating with the effort.
>
> Thank you, too, to these folks who stayed on top of this concern, and made
> the OSM-PH community aware of these (and other related) issues: Jherome,
> Timmy, and Ian. Kudos!
>
> We're not done yet, but we're getting close.
>
> [0]: https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> » email: erwin@ *n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
> <http://ngnuity.xyz/>
> » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
> » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93
> D56B
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 5:04 AM Jherome Miguel 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone.
>>
>> I would like you to bring to every one’s attention this newly discovered
>> user (
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Jan%20Rei%20Gallardo), which I feel
>> to be illegally copying from GMaps. We have tackled with two major
>> incidents earlier this year (with both users blocked by DWG), but now,
>> we’re facing another problem with another fly-by-night editor mass adding
>> POIs at various locations and with an account that is just a few months
>> old. I’ll try to be in contact in the user and ask them about their sources.
>> ___
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Access tagging around SEZs

[Jherome Miguel]

I’ve been looking into how road access should be tagged around SEZs like
Clark, Subic, FAB, LIMA, etc. but there seems to be no explicit guideline.
The present situation has been:

- access=private around SEZs that are mostly industrial in character (e.g.
most of the large industrial parks south of Metro Manila). Some outliers
are FPIP, which has two hotels, LIMA, which has an premium outlet mall, and
FCIE, which has a mini strip mall.
- access=permissive or no access tags at all around larger SEZs with a
wider range of activities. Prime examples are obviously Clark and Subic,
which also has tourist-oriented activity in addition to industrial
activity. Another case is Poro Point, which has a golf course, resorts,
casino, and oil and gas terminals.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Grab street name edits

[Jherome Miguel]

I’m seeing that as well for M. dela Fuente, being mapped either as M. De La
Fuente, M. dela Fuente, and Dela Fuente, with two segments remaining
unchanged; I’ve since fixed them. There’s also problems with caps, with “de
la/dela” being in caps where they shouldn’t generally be (except at the
beginning of the name).

To make problems worse, there’s also lots of inconsistencies in names
posted in street name signs. In the case for Manila, there’s wide variation
in the street name on official street name signs as older signposts or
signs are often not taken down when new signs are placed; some use complete
names such as those on signposts erected during the Atienza, Lim and Isko
Moreno mayoralties, while some omit suffixes, such as in some signs erected
by some barangays (especially in a way to save costs on signage), and some
from the Erap mayoralty. With such a situation, I would look next into
business addresses, that tend to better agree with the most common form of
the name (though there would be still some inconsistency just as with
signposts).

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 8:56 PM Erwin Olario  wrote:

> I noticed a few weeks back that peculiar behavior by Grab editors
> truncating street names (e.g. "P. Sanchez Street" to "Sanchez", "M. dela
> Fuente Street" to "Dela Fuente Street", etc. ) , but only in certain
> segments of the same street.
>
> I don't think it's corrected to reduce the street name to the short-form
> version, so I created a ticket [0] in the Grab repo to raise the issue.
>
> Also, their changeset sources claim the names were from street sign boards
> found in KartaView, but I haven't actually found any KartaView imagery.
>
> Have you noticed anything similar in your neighborhood?
>
> [0]: https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/97
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> » email: erwin@ *n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
> 
> » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
> » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93
> D56B
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] place:PH vs designation

[Jherome Miguel]

I presently use designation now, but I used use tag with place:PH (also
place:ph, the first form of the key in use before the PH is made all caps,
that being the ISO two-letter country code) back then.

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 9:38 PM Timeo Gut  wrote:

> Good evening Jherome,
>
> Just wondering, do you have any preference for these keys? I'm asking
> because you're the one who wrote the wiki page for place:PH.
>
> Despite lack of documentation many if not most active mappers are still
> using designation instead. This has become even more evident after Eugene
> shared his LGU Proposal
> .
>
> Since JAT86's re-tagging in December there are already more than 2000 new
> uses of designation.
>
> If it's okay with you I will transfer the place:PH documentation to a
> subsection of designation and then propose re-tagging on the mailing list.
>
> Regards,
> Timmy
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Main roads inside BF Homes

[Jherome Miguel]

I’ve been looking at this again and again what to do now with main roads
inside BF. I‘m considering a downgrade of all of these to tertiary, those
roads largely collector in function, feeding to inner subdivision roads,
plus addition of an access tag that accurately reflects a rather very
complex situation (pass-thru allowed if holding a UBFHAI or a Las Piñas
Friendship Route sticker (valid only in parts under Las Piñas LGU),
otherwise access only as visitor of some resident or customer of some
business there and can exit only at the same point of entry. Also, some
roads are restricted to stickers of a certain color).
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

Aw, sorry for my last post. I see now you’ve possibly misread or missed
part of my email that you replied to. I was saying you have the first draft
proposal where the OSM classification of a road is closely tied to the
road’s official designation (i.e. trunk = national road, primary =
provincial road, secondary = city/municipal road, tertiary = barangay
road), which many of us disagree with because official road classifications
has more to do with funding, and won’t create a good road map.

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:37 AM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> Sorry for that, I can’t recall everything in the git ticket. Who actually
> did the second proposal?
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:11 AM Erwin Olario  wrote:
>
>> Correction: I never proposed changing OSM highway classifications with
>> government designations.
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> » email: erwin@ *n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
>> <http://ngnuity.xyz/>
>> » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
>> » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93
>> D56B
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 1:32 PM Jherome Miguel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Continuing on, I would also like to bring up some points back on the
>>> earlier discussion at the git (see
>>> https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/38)
>>>
>>> First, I see problems with Rally’s methodology for determining trunk
>>> roads. Particularly problematic is using the tree-trunk analogy (a.k.a.
>>> “scissors test”) to determine trunk roads. I completely disagree with that
>>> for it would made a lot of roads get upgraded to trunk because it’s being
>>> an critical link for movement of goods in one’s opinion, and led to primary
>>> and below its “branches”. I agree trunk roads are generally vital highway
>>> links, but this time, we need a more reasonable cut-off, that is, the route
>>> should a key road link between major population centers (i.e. large
>>> cities).
>>>
>>> Another problem back in the first discussions on possible reform of the
>>> existing scheme back in 2018 is regarding the designation national road.
>>> Yeah, I agree it’s more of a funding classification, but during that time,
>>> I haven’t mentioned and accounted for its subclasses (national primary,
>>> national secondary, national tertiary) as found in the DPWH department
>>> order I referenced, which has defining functional criteria that is of
>>> relevance in OSM, resulting to the argument to deemphasize official
>>> designation and use informal tests that would only worsen the problem with
>>> the already dense trunk road network. Add to the problem is the presence of
>>> two proposals, one by me (which is based on multiple factors) and one by
>>> Erwin (which ties OSM classification with gov’t designation).
>>>
>>> Beyond that, I just realized after digging into older discussions in the
>>> wiki that the existing road classification schemes documented in the wiki
>>> are more of suggestions by one or few users. I can’t find any discussion
>>> here and in the wiki leading to their adoption as formal guidelines; these
>>> suggestion became guidelines as mappers begin to take them as such. Again,
>>> the prevailing scheme the from 2015 is being more of an amendment to
>>> the pre-existing scheme.
>>>
>>> Until we reach any agreement here, we would be following the existing
>>> classification scheme, but taking note these are more of suggestions or
>>> rough guidelines, we should have a relaxed approach on applying these. I
>>> would also tag the existing scheme documented in the wiki as containing
>>> conflicting, controversial or outdated information.
>>> ___
>>> talk-ph mailing list
>>> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>>
>>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] [Talk-ca] Fwd: Revisiting exits with “names” in Ontario and Quebec

[Jherome Miguel]

The issue with what that clique has been doing with Ontario and Quebec
highway exits is not only tagging for the renderer, but also not following
best tagging practices followed elsewhere. For exits, most of Canada
generally observing the practices documented at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Exit_Info. Also there is a note about
the use of name=* for highway=motorway_junction, which I quote here:


   - name=* for the name of the junction or interchange. Do not
confuse the *name
   of a junction* with the *destination(s) the junction *leads to. In most
   cases worldwide, sign information describes destinations, not the name of
   the junction or interchange itself. If a signpost or indication displays
   destinations exclusively, this data belongs to destination=* tags, *not* the
   name=* of the highway=motorway_junction node.


In this case, the names in the exits are not an innocent mistake, but a
problematic tagging practice perpetuated by a small group of mappers. Add
to the problem is that name=* is rendered at the main map layer, further
encouraging some mappers to tag destinations as “names” just for the render
result.


On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 6:48 PM john whelan  wrote:

> It is normally politeness to ask someone if they are happy if emails sent
> between two people is to be shared more generally.  My comments might have
> been slightly different in view of the different audience.
>
> To recap we have determined that you are not local to Ontario or Quebec.
> The local mappers who have commented are not in agreement with your
> thoughts.
>
> In OSM the authority is the consensus of the local mappers.
>
> and to recap your problem is?
>
> Thanks John
>
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 20:34, Jherome Miguel 
> wrote:
>
>> Ngah, should have replied to all. Not just you.
>>
>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Another user possibly illegal copying from GMaps

[Jherome Miguel]

Hello everyone.

I would like you to bring to every one’s attention this newly discovered
user (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Jan%20Rei%20Gallardo), which I feel to
be illegally copying from GMaps. We have tackled with two major incidents
earlier this year (with both users blocked by DWG), but now, we’re facing
another problem with another fly-by-night editor mass adding POIs at
various locations and with an account that is just a few months old. I’ll
try to be in contact in the user and ask them about their sources.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

It’s not clear if we’re getting into a consensus, so I'll be mentioning two
major reasons why the road classification scheme needs major reform:

* Manila-centrism. Existing scheme documented in the wiki works fine in
Metro Manila and surrounding areas, but not most of the country. Definition
of primary is particularly of note; it's fine for major links between Metro
Manila's cities, but not for most roads in the rest of the country. Having
every road to even town tagged as primary is overkill and there are also
connectivity issues arising from this (that’s where importance, tied to the
sizes of major destinations, comes into play)
* Clearer definition of trunk. Trunk is long used for all major roads links
between the largest cities, but a lack of a clear definition and reasonable
cut-off points creates room for misuse. Being a national primary road (or
1- to 2-digit route) is just one factor for trunk, noting official
designations don't match well with OSM’s; being a link between major
population centers (i.e. large cities, NEDA-designated metropolitan areas)
and with minimal shortcuts or alignment jogs (save perhaps turns to connect
with more recently built bypasses) is a more important factor.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 1:42 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> A route would be marked trunk if it serves two large cities (see list on
> proposal page) or metro areas. Some trunk routings with ferry segments
> under the proposal follow Nautical Highway routes. I have marked Route 505
> (Arnaldo Boulevard and Baybay in Roxas City) as trunk in the present and
> future schemes, but if you're suggesting trunk routings with a ferry
> segment should have multiple scheduled trips every day or the ferry leaving
> full, which is not the case here due to long trip length (Batangas-Roxas
> direct being ~17 hours long), then I can drop that in favor of the Mindoro
> and Caticlan routing. Would also like to note this with the Central
> Nautical Highway routing (Legazpi-Pilar-Aroroy-Masbate
> City-Cataingan-Bogo-Cebu City-Tubigon-Jagna-Camiguin-Balingoan). While the
> Cebu-Legazpi legs of this route, currently tagged trunk, provides a
> shortcut to the usual routing between the two cities via Eastern Visayas,
> the Cataingan-Bogo leg has infrequent ferry service, and the Masbate
> segments downgraded to primary (the Cebu-Bogo legs would remain trunk as it
> connects with the Bogo-Palompon ferry that forms the Cebu-Ormoc trunk
> routing); same goes with the Cebu-Bohol-Camiguin-Balingoan legs, which have
> been long tagged primary.
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:45 AM Timeo Gut  wrote:
>
>> I also think that there should be no classification gaps for major
>> routes.
>>
>> But it might be good to define some criteria as for what qualifies as
>> major. I'd like to suggest to only apply this to ferries that have either
>> continuous service (ferry leaves whenever full) or at least multiple
>> scheduled trips every day.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Timmy
>>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] On legally defined LGU boundaries and recent land developments

[Jherome Miguel]

In light of previous incidents where there have been attempts to shoehorn
some land developments (usually subdivisions or planned developments) into
one LGU (usually a city or municipality, or a barangay) where legally it
straddles two or more, e.g. the CCP Complex between Manila and Pasay, The
Glens at Park Spring between San Pedro and Dasmariñas, I would want to
start a discussion about dealing with legally-defined LGU boundaries where
there have been a recent development built above it. I'm noticing there has
been a tendency to place a certain land development across a long-existing
legal boundary within one LGU, and I also admit I had that temptation in
the past as well.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

A route would be marked trunk if it serves two large cities (see list on
proposal page) or metro areas. Some trunk routings with ferry segments
under the proposal follow Nautical Highway routes. I have marked Route 505
(Arnaldo Boulevard and Baybay in Roxas City) as trunk in the present and
future schemes, but if you're suggesting trunk routings with a ferry
segment should have multiple scheduled trips every day or the ferry leaving
full, which is not the case here due to long trip length (Batangas-Roxas
direct being ~17 hours long), then I can drop that in favor of the Mindoro
and Caticlan routing. Would also like to note this with the Central
Nautical Highway routing (Legazpi-Pilar-Aroroy-Masbate
City-Cataingan-Bogo-Cebu City-Tubigon-Jagna-Camiguin-Balingoan). While the
Cebu-Legazpi legs of this route, currently tagged trunk, provides a
shortcut to the usual routing between the two cities via Eastern Visayas,
the Cataingan-Bogo leg has infrequent ferry service, and the Masbate
segments downgraded to primary (the Cebu-Bogo legs would remain trunk as it
connects with the Bogo-Palompon ferry that forms the Cebu-Ormoc trunk
routing); same goes with the Cebu-Bohol-Camiguin-Balingoan legs, which have
been long tagged primary.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:45 AM Timeo Gut  wrote:

> I also think that there should be no classification gaps for major routes.
>
> But it might be good to define some criteria as for what qualifies as
> major. I'd like to suggest to only apply this to ferries that have either
> continuous service (ferry leaves whenever full) or at least multiple
> scheduled trips every day.
>
> Best Regards,
> Timmy
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

Have just completed a major overhaul of the draft guidelines to include
more elaborate descriptions of each classification from motorway to
residential, I also identified what roads would fall under trunk under the
proposal (though most are already tagged as such). This includes most of
the national primary roads (except where bypassed) as well as some
identified national secondary roads, particularly ones connecting with RORO
terminals. There is one special case of trunk, Plaridel Bypass, being a
future expressway (as future Plaridel Toll Road).

There is however a problem with the non-expressway segments of C-5, which
would remain as trunk, but with Routes 59 (Marcos Highway) and 60 (Ortigas
Ave east of EDSA up to Antipolo) downgraded to primary, it would be
isolated from the rest of the trunk network. To provide the best
connectivity, it would mean completely marking all of Congressional Ave
(Route 129) as trunk (with the consideration the opening of NLEX Segment
8.2 will eventually downgrade the Mindanao Ave leg of C-5 to primary)
keeping trunk status on part of Ortigas Ave around Ortigas Center may also
help.

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 2:33 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> Just another point, I think we should be extending major roads to ferry
> terminals so to ensure network connectivity across islands. I've been
> noticing the prevailing practice in the Philippines is to end a major road
> at the port gates, but this breaks connectivity of the road network across
> islands at a closer zoom level. I'm citing examples of major roads
> extending to ferry terminals in places like the US (e.g. US-10 connecting
> with the Maniwotoc-Ludington ferry, roads connecting with ferries across
> the Puget Sound in Washington State) Canada (e.g. the Trans-Canada
> connecting with the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay and Sydney-Port aux Basques
> ferries), Russia (e.g. roads connecting A-376 and A-392 with the
> Vanino-Kolmsk ferry), and Sweden and Finland (e.g. E12 between Umeå and
> Vaasa across the Gulf of Bothnia) to justify this change in practice,
> though elsewhere, especially where OSM classifications matched well with
> official designations often indicated by route number signs with a specific
> numbering scheme and/or color combination, like with most of Europe
> (including the UK), Japan and Indonesia, it’s fine to end major
> classifications outside the port gates and tag the roads inside the ferry
> terminal with lower classifications (usually service, sometimes tertiary
> for the major access roads). In those places, their roads networks are
> connected well even if it's only true at higher zoom, or the scale for a
> printed country or region map.
>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

Just another point, I think we should be extending major roads to ferry
terminals so to ensure network connectivity across islands. I've been
noticing the prevailing practice in the Philippines is to end a major road
at the port gates, but this breaks connectivity of the road network across
islands at a closer zoom level. I'm citing examples of major roads
extending to ferry terminals in places like the US (e.g. US-10 connecting
with the Maniwotoc-Ludington ferry, roads connecting with ferries across
the Puget Sound in Washington State) Canada (e.g. the Trans-Canada
connecting with the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay and Sydney-Port aux Basques
ferries), Russia (e.g. roads connecting A-376 and A-392 with the
Vanino-Kolmsk ferry), and Sweden and Finland (e.g. E12 between Umeå and
Vaasa across the Gulf of Bothnia) to justify this change in practice,
though elsewhere, especially where OSM classifications matched well with
official designations often indicated by route number signs with a specific
numbering scheme and/or color combination, like with most of Europe
(including the UK), Japan and Indonesia, it’s fine to end major
classifications outside the port gates and tag the roads inside the ferry
terminal with lower classifications (usually service, sometimes tertiary
for the major access roads). In those places, their roads networks are
connected well even if it's only true at higher zoom, or the scale for a
printed country or region map.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

On the proposed reclassifications I'm documenting at uMap, I've been trying
to identify trunk and primary routes across sprawling urban areas of places
like Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, Davao and Cagayan de Oro. Those places are
are a different beast from the rest of the country. What route gets trunk
Class needs to be carefully selected especially where they’re part of the
same corridor. Primary should generally be assigned to main thoroughfares,
and for me, best not assigned on any road without a road number, with the
possible exceptions.

Some ideas:

- Metro Manila: keep most of existing trunk network, but with upgrades to
Alabang-Zapote (Route 411, whole including connector to CAVITEX), Quirino
and Diego Cera (Route 62), and section of NAIA Road between Roxas Boulevard
and Quirino to trunk to close Route 1 gap across metro. I'm also inclined
to downgrade the España-Quezon Ave-Commonwealth trio (plus Lerma, Quezon
Boulevard and Padre Burgos) back to primary (as they used to be ~10
years ago); even with their high traffic volumes and physical character
that are similar with EDSA (e.g. wide carriageways, center islands, grade
separations), these needs to be downgraded under the new classification
scheme; again, we need to be more selective on assigning trunk to major
routes across sprawl like Metro Manila and surroundings.
- For suburban Rizal, Laguna and Cavite, I'm thinking about doing away with
most trunks in suburban Cavite and all in Rizal. Can keep trunk for
Aguinaldo Highway (Routes 62 and 419) up to Dasma as well as Governor's
Drive east of Dasma and General Malvar in Biñan (Routes 65 and 651) as
trunk, but downgrade Tirona, Centennial, Antero Soriano, Route 64
Tanza-Trece, Governor's Drive and Aguinaldo Highway to Tagaytay) west of
Dasma (as well as connections to Nasugbu from Tagaytay and Ternate). Should
do away with any trunk in Rizal (including Sumulong Highway, part of the
Antipolo Circumferential Road, Ortigas Ave, Manila East Road and bypasses,
plus connections in eastern Laguna and part of western Quezon Province like
Route 603 all the way to Lucena).
- For Metro Cebu, which currently has two trunks through Talisay, Cebu
City, Mandaue, Consolacion and Liloan, plus dead-end trunks assigned to the
bridges across to Mactan, I'm thinking of moving trunk to the whole of
Route 840 (CSCR, Osmeña, Ouano, Plaridel, Cansaga Bay Bridge, and
Consolacion-Tayud-Liloan), being the best route to Cebu City these days
than the bypassed sections of Natalio Bacalso and Cebu North Road even with
the Consolacion-Liloan segments being recent upgrades from provincial road
(and therefore narrow and lower-standard until some time). Route 8 north
and south of Route 840 can remain as it is (plus cleanup of parts are
messed up by “MonitoringGPS”).
- For Davao City, trunk network is fine. Primaries around Davao City may
need some partial tweaks, especially those linking C.P. Garcia/Diversion
Road with city proper. Should consider downgrade for Libby Road between
Toril and Talomo (would consider this secondary being functionally lower
than MacArthur Highway, plus road being narrow and classified national
tertiary).
- For Cagayan de Oro, trunk network is fine (may move trunk classification
to the bypass formed by the Coastal Roads, San Pedro Street and San Lazaro
Road once the missing link near port opens). Primary network good, but
should consider downgrade to J.R. Borja and the road to Libona and Manolo
Fortich (low speeds, narrow carriageway, less traffic and lower official
classification).

Sorry for the late reply, having another pause from mapping. I've been also
looking up the talk-us archive for the latest discussion on reforming U.S.
road classifications that has been pointed out earlier here.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] On users copying from GMaps

[Jherome Miguel]

Update: I have already reported one user (“JPBaje”) to DWG via the main
site, but progress is slow (and I’ve sent a second report to follow up,
which I received a reply). Someone may help with reverting on affected
areas just before DWG does. Plus, one of the users (“JPBaje”) has since
mapped in Nigeria, and stopped editing (or just rested) after 5,300 edits.
5,000+ edits in a few months are somewhat very suspicious.

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 5:23 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> (Resending, with modifications)
>
> Hi,
>
> It was since January that we discovered certain users mass adding POIs
> from Google Maps. I first brought up this issue on GitHub, where Timmy has
> discovered that one user I mentioned copied from Google Maps using Map
> Compare evidence. Those fly-by-night users (as I described them), having
> done a thousand edits within a week and a month, are suspicious enough to
> be reported and blocked for copyright violations. A mass revert (to be done
> by DWG) would be required, since the POIs were added one by one, with one
> edit involving addition of one POI (it would be easier to revert if the
> POIs were added in large edits, which is not the case). This incident
> reminds of another previous incident in Batangas last December 2019, and we
> shouldn't let something like this slip through the cracks.
>
> Sorry for bringing this issue to your attention late, but since I reverted
> several of those user’s edits around Lipa, along with some fixes from
> previous travels, one of those users (a JPBaje) has returned back after I
> found suspicious edits and POIs in Bocaue. The user has never attempted to
> answer comments about their edits, and I already reported the user pending
> a block and a mass revert. We are also monitoring another user mapping for
> the Para Safe app, also involved in the same issue.
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 1:13 PM Jherome Miguel 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It was since January that we discovered certain users mass adding POIs
>> from Google Maps. I first brought up this issue on GitHub, where Timmy has
>> discovered that one user I mentioned copied from Google Maps using Map
>> Compare evidence. Those fly-by-night users (as I described them), having
>> done a thousand edits within a week and a month, are suspicious enough to
>> be reported and blocked. A mass revert would be required, since the POIs
>> were added in a single changeset (it would be easier to revert if the POIs
>> in one large edit, which is not the case).
>>
>> Sorry for bringing this issue to your attention late, but since I
>> reverted several of those user’s edits around Lipa, along with some fixes
>> from previous travels, one of those users (a JPBaje) has returned back
>> after I found suspicious edits and POIs in Bocaue.
>>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] On users copying from GMaps

[Jherome Miguel]

(Resending, with modifications)

Hi,

It was since January that we discovered certain users mass adding POIs from
Google Maps. I first brought up this issue on GitHub, where Timmy has
discovered that one user I mentioned copied from Google Maps using Map
Compare evidence. Those fly-by-night users (as I described them), having
done a thousand edits within a week and a month, are suspicious enough to
be reported and blocked for copyright violations. A mass revert (to be done
by DWG) would be required, since the POIs were added one by one, with one
edit involving addition of one POI (it would be easier to revert if the
POIs were added in large edits, which is not the case). This incident
reminds of another previous incident in Batangas last December 2019, and we
shouldn't let something like this slip through the cracks.

Sorry for bringing this issue to your attention late, but since I reverted
several of those user’s edits around Lipa, along with some fixes from
previous travels, one of those users (a JPBaje) has returned back after I
found suspicious edits and POIs in Bocaue. The user has never attempted to
answer comments about their edits, and I already reported the user pending
a block and a mass revert. We are also monitoring another user mapping for
the Para Safe app, also involved in the same issue.

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 1:13 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It was since January that we discovered certain users mass adding POIs
> from Google Maps. I first brought up this issue on GitHub, where Timmy has
> discovered that one user I mentioned copied from Google Maps using Map
> Compare evidence. Those fly-by-night users (as I described them), having
> done a thousand edits within a week and a month, are suspicious enough to
> be reported and blocked. A mass revert would be required, since the POIs
> were added in a single changeset (it would be easier to revert if the POIs
> in one large edit, which is not the case).
>
> Sorry for bringing this issue to your attention late, but since I reverted
> several of those user’s edits around Lipa, along with some fixes from
> previous travels, one of those users (a JPBaje) has returned back after I
> found suspicious edits and POIs in Bocaue.
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] RFC - Proposed mapping guidelines for roads (classifications, names)

[Jherome Miguel]

Here is the map for the proposed reclassifications:
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/philippines-proposed-road-classifications_570794
. Map is still being worked on; I have completed mapping the rationalized
trunk road network for North Luzon, including some ongoing bypass road
projects and some primary and secondary roads. All cities and large
municipalities (with populations of 100,000+) have been pinpointed for the
purpose of determining the best classification.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 8:50 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> I see your argument, considering the expressways are a separate network
> from national roads, nevertheless we should better rationalize the trunk
> road network in Cavite.
>
> So, continuing on, we still have the gap on Route 1 gap through Metro
> Manila. Route 1 abruptly ends at EDSA-Roxas Boulevard and begins again at
> Alabang, and it remains to be seen how will DPWH bridge it. What would you
> suggest to upgrade to trunk?
>
> - Option 1: (continuing from Roxas Boulevard) MIA Road (Route 194, Seaside
> Drive-Quirino Ave), Quirino and Diego Cera avenues (Route 62), and
> Alabang-Zapote Road (Route 411, Zapote-Alabang)
> - Option 2: (continuing from toll-free Osmeña Highway) East and West
> Service Roads
> - Option 3: (continuing from Roxas Boulevard) MIA Road (Route 194, Seaside
> Drive-Ninoy Aquino), Ninoy Aquino Avenue (Route 195), Dr. A. Santos
> Avenue/Sucat Road (Route 63), East Service Road
>
> If we’re to go with bridging the Route 1 gap, I would think it’s Option 1,
> considering that’s the historical route out of Manila before the
> expressways opened, though the roads are somewhat narrow and are mostly
> local streets.
>
> I’m currently creating a web map of the proposed classification using
> UMap, though I’m still in the process of pinpointing the cities and
> municipalities.
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 4:21 PM Eugene Alvin Villar 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't see the logic of downgrading trunk roads merely because there is
>> a parallel expressway. Our expressways are toll=yes roads and if these
>> expressways did not exist, then these trunk roads would correctly be tagged
>> as highway=trunk. I think that we disregard the existence of
>> highway=motorway roads for the purposes of classifying the rest of the road
>> network. Many people for various reasons want to avoid going through toll
>> roads and having highway=trunk roads as an indicator of suitable alternate
>> routes is important.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 4:51 AM Jherome Miguel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Continuing on, I raised this unanswered question about downgrading
>>> trunks where significantly bypassed by a parallel expressway (unless it has
>>> a significant section resembling an expressway as in proposal). I thinking
>>> of doing that for these road segments currently tagged trunk.
>>>
>>> - National Highway/Maharlika Highway/Manila South Road (Route 1,
>>> Muntinlupa
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Manila+South+Road+(Route+1,+Muntinlupa?entry=gmail=g>-Calamba-STAR
>>> Santo Tomas exit) — bypassed by SLEX
>>> - JP Laurel Highway/Manila-Batangas Road (Route 4, Santo Tomas-Batangas
>>> City) — bypassed by STAR Tollway
>>> - MacArthur Highway (Route 1, Caloocan-Tabang, Guiguinto) — bypassed by
>>> NLEX
>>> - Osmeña Highway (Route 145
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Osme%C3%B1a+Highway+(Route+145?entry=gmail=g>)
>>> and Quirino Avenue (Route 140, Roxas Boulevard
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Quirino+Avenue+(Route+140,+Roxas+Boulevard?entry=gmail=g>-Osmeña
>>> Highway) — bypassed by Skyway
>>> — Olongapo-San Fernando-Gapan Road/Jose Abad Santos Avenue (Route 3,
>>> Dinalupihan
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Jose+Abad+Santos+Avenue+(Route+3,+Dinalupihan?entry=gmail=g>
>>> Junction-Olongapo) — bypassed by SCTEX
>>> — Manila North Road (Route 2
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Manila+North+Road+(Route+2?entry=gmail=g>,
>>> TPLEX Urdaneta exit-Kennon Road)
>>>
>>> (for future downgrades, once new parallel expressway under construction
>>> opens. Might need some discussion)
>>>
>>> — Aguinaldo Highway (Route 62/419, Bacoor
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Aguinaldo+Highway+(Route+62%2F419,+Bacoor?entry=gmail=g>-Dasma-Tagaytay)
>>> — to be bypassed by CALAX. Will also downgrade all the remaining trunks in
>>> Cavite.
>>> — Antero Soriano Highway/Centennial Road/Tanza-Trece Martires Road
>>> (Route 64
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Tanza-Trece+

[talk-ph] RFC - Proposed mapping guidelines for roads (classifications, names)

[Jherome Miguel]

Hi all,

After somewhat slow progress to gather ideas and feedback for a new road
classification scheme, I finally decided to write the final version of the
new tagging scheme at:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads
(see “Classification” section)

The proposal is planned to replace those at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions (sections,
“Roads”, “Names”)

*Why? *The existing road classification scheme since 2015 needs a major
rewrite since I’m seeing major problems with the tree analogy used to
justify the existing scheme. Why use primary for every road to each
municipality regardless of its population size (just because they’re a
branch or an alternate to a trunk)? Shouldn’t we use trunks only on the
most important highway links between the largest cities beside the
expressways? Many of our provinces lack secondaries in the rural area but
do have lots of tertiaries surrounded by trunk and primary roads (and a
total lack of secondary roads). Lots of Philippines mappers (including me)
ignore that bad scheme, which just came to effect without discussion or
consultation. It’s also time for us to take community population sizes as
well as designations in account when classifying roads.

Also, guidelines about road names are to be affected as well (following
latest discussion). This includes changes in the existing guideline to
prefer full names as used in addresses (since names posted in street signs
can be inconsistent). One open question is on how to name many of the major
rural roads without posted names (national roads aside, whose names, unless
the locally verifiable posted name is different, can be found from the DPWH
road database) until their actual names are verified. For me, it’s in the
form “- Road”, though I
also experimented with adding noname=yes instead of adding placeholder
names using the format mentioned above.

Any comments/suggestion/feedback on this are welcome here or on the
article’s talk page.

Thanks,
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Road name suffixes again

[Jherome Miguel]

Hi,

Since the discussion at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98219661, I
think we should review our existing convention on naming streets,
especially those with the "Street" suffix, and and handling of street with
official signs that omit the suffixes. Common OSM practice on street names
is to use full names, but existing PH convention somewhat encourages
dropping of suffixes regardless of what signs say, especially for inner
streets, just like some other road maps in the Philippines (and even signs)
 do.

Some important arguments are:

- OSM is also a database and not just a mere road map (and complete data is
important). Road maps may use common short forms of full road names for
easy recognition, but OSM is far more than those. Maps that use OSM data
have many choices on how to handle road names: use the full name, use
abbreviations, or just use the bare name. By eliminating it, important info
is lost.
- Using bare road names looks plain weird, especially for addresses (unless
we're one of the countries where omitting affixes on most street names is
the norm in maps, signs, and addresses). Ads, business signs, and things
should also be considered as sources, not just the sign at the street
corner. Official road signs may not be consistent in how the name is
written, and the name posted in business addresses may be far better in
telling the name of the road in question.
- The temptation by some mappers to abbreviate suffixes is not a sufficient
reason to eliminate these info from road names.

--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Restarting discussion on road classifications (part 2)

[Jherome Miguel]

(Continuing my previous post since it got stuck)

Some important concerns we need to address are:

- The definition of trunk. It is intended for the primary highway network
(those with 1-2 digit highway numbers) plus roads that close the gaps, but
it also has been adopted to mean the likes of Commonwealth, C-5, and CSCR,
and it also has been used to mean critical highway links between provinces,
basing on the tree trunk analogy
-There is the need to narrow the definition of primary and extend the
meaning of secondary in rural/provincial contexts. Existing definition of
primary is any road linking all other towns outside the trunk network, but
that led to its overuse, and so, the existing definition is increasingly
being ignored especially if the road in question links small towns, or it's
an unnumbered highway or provincial road with lower traffic volumes (and
both factors). My proposed redefinitions again for those classifications
are:
--- primary: major highways with regions or provinces. Common indicators:
3-digit highway number, at least 2 lanes with shoulders, major destinations
being large towns and small cities
--- secondary: other highways connecting cities and towns without
traversing primary or trunk roads. Common indicators: unnumbered national
road or provincial road, lower traffic volumes, primary destinations being
a small town or a large rural barangay along the way, unpaved or no
shoulders.
-The tagging of narrow residential streets, alleyways/"eskinita".

I'm thinking also of creating a newbies' guide on tagging roads, which will
be based on any further discussion here.


--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Restarting discussion on road classifications

[Jherome Miguel]

In light of some suspicious edits by a "tongkho" who have been upgrading
road classes without providing reasons (usually in edits with the comment
"Modified"), I think we should continue discussions on classifying PH roads
once again and come up with a consensus.

Again, here is my proposed definitions of each road class, since the last
discussions plus my additional suggestions:

-Motorway: expressway
-Trunk: highways between cities with population of 100,000+, usually 1 to
2-digit national roads; major roads resembling expressways (with U-turns,
overpasses/underpasses at major junctions, intersection closures, or
service roads for business/residential/local access)
-Primary: highways between small cities and large towns, usually 3-digit
national roads; major arteries
-Secondary: highways between smaller towns, usually being unnumbered
national roads and provincial roads; minor arteries
-Tertiary: roads between barangays; collector roads
-Unclassified: minor non-residential local roads
-Residential: residential streets
-Service: driveways, drive-thru lanes, parking lot roads, eskinitas/alleys/
residential streets with width <2.5 m.
-Footway: walkways, sidewalks, "eskinita" not passable to cars or tricycles
-Path: most unpaved trails (hiking trails, mixed-use trails in rural areas)

In this proposal, living_street is to be deprecated. It was adapted in
2015, but contentions have been raised on its use in developing-world
contexts.

In the 2015 scheme, trunk was intended to be used on 1 to 2-dight national
roads (i.e. the North-South Backbone or Rte 1 (N1), East-West Laterals, and
Other Roads of Strategic Importance) but some mappers use it for roads that
resemble expressways to some degree (e.g. Commonwealth Ave, C5, CSCR) or
any roads seen as major highways popularly even where it should be tagged
lower. The alternative definition of "expressway-like road" is included in
the proposal, but may or may not be included in the final definition.

--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Access tags again

[Jherome Miguel]

I'm slowly getting the hang of this, but I think we better discuss when to
use access=private or destination. I'm planning to change the access
section of our mapping conventions, including removing schadow1's personal
(and now-dated and undiscussed) recommendation to add access tags only on
barrier nodes and not on ways due to routes unable to used them.

Having read the def of access=private, I see that roads where a sticker,
pass, or other form of authorization is required for access (like in gated
subdivisions, military/police camps), falls under that definition, but I
still have open questions, listed below.

*What about deliveries? Visitors?
*What if road has entrances for those not holding stickers/vehicle passes
and those who have (e.g. large gated subdivisions, PEZA-registered
industrial parks)? I'm thinking about access=destination or
access=permissive especially for the latter, since some have
mall/commercial area/hotel within them, e.g. Carmelray 2, FPIP, LIMA.
*Overlapping access restrictions (e.g. gated subdivision accessible only
from larger subdivision/industrial park)
*Toll for outside vehicles/access allowed for outside vehicles with
conditions:  access=permissive (plus known conditions) or toll=yes, or both?


--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Draw the line between primary and secondary road classes for rural areas.

[Jherome Miguel]

I'm creating a simple map of the major highways in Pangasinan, which also
have colored nodes representing each city and municipal center by
population size (red for large cities with population of 100+K, blue for
large municipalities with 100+K, yellow for medium-sized municipalities of
50K-100K, and green for smaller municipalities with <50K). It's kind of
slow, and I'm yet to complete that, but I'm seeing proof from that map that
should be convincing that we need to rework the road classification system.

Have you ever have any concern about the previous definition of primary
(per Rally), as a road linking every municipality regardless of their
population size? I find Rally's proposal, as well as the 2007 version which
it modifies, having an more or less apparent bias towards urban road
networks (something to do with it being originally designed for Metro
Manila roads as I see on a previous discussion on OSM Wiki).

I find it hard to translate this from Tagalog to English in my head, but I
think primaries should be visible in the same zoom as trunk roads, and
normally serve a city with a population of <=100K and medium or large
municipalities with 50+K (figures from the latest census). If their main
destination is a municipality with less than 50K residents, they can get
dowgraded to secondary. If the road currently classified as primary is
designated a provincial road, then it's assumed to be less traveled
(national road designation often indicates a heavily traveled route to many
of us), and they better fit a lower class that is, usually, secondary.

--TagaSanPedroAko

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 1:29 AM Eugene Alvin Villar,  wrote:

> Hi Jherome,
>
> I think the problem with discussing the road classifications in the
> Philippines is that the proposals you are suggesting are too abstract.
>
> Here's a suggestion: Why not create a simple map using uMap[1] showing how
> your proposed changes would affect the road network in a few selected
> provinces in the country. Let's select, say, Guimaras, Negros Oriental, and
> Pangasinan as those provinces. Then once we are able to visualize how your
> proposed road networks look like then we can have a more concrete
> discussion about your proposed changes.
>
> [1] https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/
>
> ~Eugene
>
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:37 AM Jherome Miguel 
> wrote:
>
>> It 's been months since we went through this whole conversation to revamp
>> our road classification which haven 't changed to take in account other
>> possible factors, but to completely draw the line between primary and
>> secondary class roads in rural areas (which other mappers haven't
>> completely accepted), I'm presenting again the new definitions by context
>> as I originally elaborated, except for additions from further observation.:
>>
>> * Primary
>> -- Urban: Non-trunk major arterials, usually a numbered national road.
>> Serves as a major route across town. Just for guidance, usually
>> three-digit highways under DPWH. Can consider upgrade to trunk if road is
>> like an expressway between at least two major intersections, with
>> overpasses/flyovers or underpasses over congested crossings, and most
>> smaller intersections closed and replaced with a U-turn slot somewhere
>> nearby.
>> --Rural/regional: Major non-trunk highways that connect to all other
>> cities as well as large towns. Lower in importance than trunk, but still
>> the main way around a region or province. Just for guidance, usually
>> three-digit highways under DPWH.
>> * Secondary
>> --Urban: Minor arterials, connecting at least 3 barangays or districts,
>> not necessarily within the same city/municipality. Not heavily traveled as
>> the primary or trunk routes, but still important routes within an urban
>> area. Can be a "promoted" tertiary (collector) road, with higher quality
>> and more traffic. Just for guidance, are mostly unnumbered roads under DPWH
>> ("national tertiary roads"), and city/municipal roads.
>> -- Rural - Smaller highways that connects [a] small town centers[s] or
>> serves as an alternate route to a major numbered route it parallels. Lower
>> travel speeds (40-60 kph), and often used by traffic headed to barangays
>> along it or the town centers it serves. Just for guidance (but can
>> influence classification), usually a unnumbered national road or provincial
>> road.
>>
>>
>> --TagaSanPedroAko
>> ___
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Revised network tags for road route relations

[Jherome Miguel]

I'm considering replacing our existing network tags we use on road route
relations (ph:nhn) with the standardized basic format ''[ISO-3166 country
code]:[network type], which will also remove the need to add "nhn:class''
tags. This will result into:

*Expressways: network=ph:nhn + nhn:class=expressway -> network=PH:E
*Primary national roads: network=ph:nhn + nhn:class=primary/secondary ->
network=PH:N
*Tertiary (unnumbered) national roads: network=ph:nhn + nhn:class=tertiary
-> network=PH:N:tertiary
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Street or road name suffixes

[Jherome Miguel]

Our present convention on street/road name suffixes, contributed by Rally
since 2015, is to better not include them on the name if they could just
create unnecessary clutter, but since there are already map renderers that
can automatically abbreviate them, I think we should be changing this view.
We should preferably stick on the on-the-ground rule on road/street names:
if the signs (official road signs or shop signs) show a suffix, we should
be including them rather than dropping them because there are no software
that can handle such "map clutter" yet.

-TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Follow-up on possible LGU-led mapping in Batangas

[Jherome Miguel]

I deleted most of the of suspicious POIs in question, on changesets where I
also made major edits to improve building and road alignment with existing
imagery, adding/remapping municipal and barangay boundaries to include
barangays mapped as part of the Taal Volcano eruption response. I think
those can be remapped on an future mapping party.


--TagaSanPedroAko

On Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:04 AM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> I'm getting more suspicious about the mapping activity when I noticed some
> of the POIs added seems to have been copied wholesale from Google Maps,
> especially around Taal. Not only that, some duplicate those already mapped
> and many also are on odd places (such as the bunch of POIs along the
> Diversion Road at barangays Halang and Latag), quite typical of GMaps
> coverage in the Philippines.
>
> --TagaSanPedroAko
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:05 AM Jherome Miguel 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm agree it's possibly not the right time to contact the LGUs in
>> question for the meantime, but what I don't know is whether any of you
>> attempted communication with them since I opened the papercut_fix ticket
>> last December. I repeatedly posted updates and pinged you on the GitHub
>> ticket, but there has been no response as well. Pardon me, but I'm aware
>> you might be too busy for Christmas that we haven't gave this urgent issue
>> much attention, and only this time I escalated this matter since attempts
>> to  communicate with some of the users involved in the suspicious organized
>> editing activity failed.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:54 PM maning sambale <
>> emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> TagaSanPedroAko,
>>>
>>> > and asked GOwin and maning on GitHub to contact directly any of the
>>> LGUs involved, but there has been no response since then.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what else I can do here, you mentioned that you already
>>> contacted 3 users and there was no response.
>>> Secondly, these LGUs are likely swamped with work due to the Taal
>>> response, asking about this issue at this time seems inappropriate.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:35 AM Jherome Miguel 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > It has been a month ago since I raised quality issues on map data
>>> added on a possible local government-led mapping project in some
>>> municipalities in Batangas near Taal Volcano. Last December, we have seen a
>>> spike in mapping activity around the municipalities of Taal, Lemery, San
>>> Luis, San Nicolas, and Santa Teresita in Batangas, and involves around 24+
>>> users, many mapping using accounts with their real names. I opened a
>>> papercut_fix ticket (https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/56),
>>> partially cleaned up the questionable edits, sent private emails to some of
>>> the users involved, and asked GOwin and maning on GitHub to contact
>>> directly any of the LGUs involved, but there has been no response since
>>> then. Since the 2020 eruption of Taal Volcano, I have thought of a
>>> possibility the organized mapping project has something to do with disaster
>>> preparedness (taking in account the location of those municipalities around
>>> Taal Volcano), though it also equally possible the editing is also for land
>>> use planning (for Comprehensive Land Use Plan maps) and other purposes. Can
>>> someone follow up attempts to contact the LGUs, especially through their
>>> disaster risk reduction/management or planning/development offices (though
>>> this may not be possible due to the lockdown on the volcano danger zone),
>>> or bring up any previous attempts to contact them?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --TagaSanPedroAko
>>> > ___
>>> > talk-ph mailing list
>>> > talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> cheers,
>>> maning
>>> --
>>> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
>>> https://github.com/maning
>>> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
>>> --
>>>
>>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] RFC: Revised road classification scheme (round 2)

[Jherome Miguel]

We may be fine adopting this new scheme. So far, the last revision to the
classification scheme is in 2015, but there hasn't been any discussion in
the mailing list, and this could be the only major revision that has been
discussed since we wrote the guidelines back in ~2007.

--TagaSanPedroAko

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 1:45 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> In addition, just to repeat and back up my contentions about the present
> definition of primary under the present guidelines, I won't think something
> called a "Camino real" (some kind of obsolete term for a main street of a
> city or town) be tagged a primary at most cases.
>
> Getting back, about the present definition of trunk, I agree with the
> existing definition of "National transportation backbones" (except for some
> additions to accommodate major roads resembling expressways), but I don't
> agree with the "tree chop" method as suggested by Rally to to determine
> trunk routes in OSM. I agree trunk roads are non-expressway highways that
> connect large cities (with populations of 100,000+) and of national
> strategic importance, but I don't think frequent closures and the presence
> of equally important alternate routes make them fail trunk classification.
> Most of what the national government has been designating as "national
> primary roads" (with 1 or 2-digit route numbers) fit that criteria, but not
> those within densely populated areas (e.g. Metro Manila and environs, Metro
> Cebu).
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:29 PM Nick Brown  wrote:
>
>> Dear Jherome,
>> Seems reasonable to me. Your support documenting the results of the
>> conversation will be very helpful and valuable to us as we'll be working
>> with thousands of mappers this year and need quality guidance on things
>> like this.
>>
>> I've looped in Feye, HOT Ph's Technical & GIS Specialist, to continue the
>> discussion and give her thoughts.
>>
>> Best,
>> Nick
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:31 AM Jherome Miguel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Moving on, I am also considering special exceptions for roads in small
>>> islands or island provinces (e.g. Marinduque, Romblon, Catanduanes,
>>> Siquijor) where the networks may have nothing else higher than secondary as
>>> many roads there connects municipalities with a population usually below
>>> 100,000 (whole area, not just the town proper), which does not fit the
>>> criteria for primary. I'm also considering writing guides for road
>>> classifications in each province or region (with specifics whenever
>>> possible) to supplement the general guidelines.
>>>
>>> Returning back to the proposal, I think we must narrow down the
>>> definition of primary from "roads providing access to all town centers" to
>>> "roads connecting small cities (population <100,000) and large
>>> municipalities (population >=100,000)" as the former is too broad. The
>>> international OSM definition of a highway=primary is a "road that connects
>>> large towns", and under our present definition of primary, we got short
>>> sections of a local street connecting the highway with the "poblacion",
>>> downtown, or city/town proper (or bypassed and downgraded alignments of
>>> older national highways) and rural highways linking small municipalities
>>> arbitrarily tagged as such even where they can be classified lower based on
>>> the road network topology and other possible criteria (official
>>> classification, purpose, physical characteristics, traffic usage).
>>>
>>> For secondary, it's an improvement to provide a second definition for
>>> those in rural areas, as this would be the better fit for many of the rural
>>> roads linking a small town and is presently tagged as primary. In many
>>> countries, the OSM secondary classification usually goes to the
>>> roads/highways between small towns, and our present guidelines only specify
>>> it on roads in urban areas (though in practice, there are already some
>>> rural roads tagged as secondary, especially those mapped as part of HOT
>>> mapping projects using the guidelines designed for African countries).
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:55 PM Nick Brown 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This makes complete sense to me. As it is a highway tag, I just think
>>>> it's definition should be clarified and codified in the wiki, especially as
>>>> you're bringing up the discussion on road classifications. Erwin defined it
>>>> for me as " travel route bet

[talk-ph] Follow-up on possible LGU-led mapping in Batangas

[Jherome Miguel]

It has been a month ago since I raised quality issues on map data added on
a possible local government-led mapping project in some municipalities in
Batangas near Taal Volcano. Last December, we have seen a spike in mapping
activity around the municipalities of Taal, Lemery, San Luis, San Nicolas,
and Santa Teresita in Batangas, and involves around 24+ users, many mapping
using accounts with their real names. I opened a papercut_fix ticket (
https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/56), partially cleaned up the
questionable edits, sent private emails to some of the users involved, and
asked GOwin and maning on GitHub to contact directly any of the LGUs
involved, but there has been no response since then. Since the 2020
eruption of Taal Volcano, I have thought of a possibility the organized
mapping project has something to do with disaster preparedness (taking in
account the location of those municipalities around Taal Volcano), though
it also equally possible the editing is also for land use planning (for
Comprehensive Land Use Plan maps) and other purposes. Can someone follow up
attempts to contact the LGUs, especially through their disaster risk
reduction/management or planning/development offices (though this may not
be possible due to the lockdown on the volcano danger zone), or bring up
any previous attempts to contact them?


--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Tagging of barangays and sitios/puroks

[Jherome Miguel]

I am already seeing retagging of barangays in urban areas (e.g. Metro
Manila) from place=village to place=quarter. Our present guidelines for
tagging local government unit (LGU) says barangays always get tagged as
village regardless if it's in an urban or rural area, but the
recommendation to tag urban barangays to quarter hasn't been documented yet
nor discussed (though I agree with it as they better reflect the situation
in urban areas and the general tagging recommendations).

Our current guidelines on mapping sitios/puroks is to tag them as
place=neighbourhood, even if it's on a rural or isolated area. I tag them
as place=hamlet instead, as they better reflect how they are in reality
(those are usually clusters of homes with populations of ~100-200, though
those are just approximates as they are not covered in censuses) and best
follows general tagging recommendations. I'm also considering having this
scheme for sitios/puroks depending on their location:

* Urban - place=neighbourhood
* Rural - place=hamlet
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] RFC: Revised road classification scheme (round 2)

[Jherome Miguel]

It has been 2-3 months since we shared ideas and opinions on a refined and
revised road classification scheme, but discussions have stalled.

So far, my proposal has been like this (for a detailed proposal, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads):

-Motorway - controlled-access expressway. Access via ramps only, and no
entry for pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles with engine displacement below
400cc, tricycles, and animal-drawn vehicles.
-Trunk - highway between major cities (with population 100,000+), and
forming the national road transportation backbone; expressways that do not
have control of access; major roads resembling expressways (with ramps,
U-turns replacing left turns across median, and
flyovers/overpasses/underpasses at high-traffic intersections) but with
intersections and property accesses.
-Primary - (rural) highway between small cities and large town centers;
(urban) major thoroughfares, usually avenues or boulevards
-Secondary - (rural) roads between small town centers; (urban) minor
arteries, usually one connecting 3+ barangays or city districts
-Tertiary - (rural) roads between barangays (urban), collector roads,
usually one within a barangay or city district.
-Unclassified - (rural) other smaller local roads, usually one connecting
house clusters, or sitios/puroks; (urban) non-residential local streets
-Residential - Residential streets, regardless of width
-Service - property access roads, alleys, drive-thrus, driveways
-Track - farm tracks, roads only passable to 4x4/4WD vehicles, golf course
roads used only by golf carts.
-Pedestrian - streets closed to motor vehicles, or pedestrian squares

Have been mapping in Canada for 2 years and finding the road classification
scheme there better and ideal (with a good distinction between urban and
rural roads), I am considering using them as a base for a new road
classification scheme for the Philippines, but with some modifications.

I previously considered retaining the living_street classification as there
is some consensus to keep it for any street with width below 3 m or passage
hindered by obstructions. However, since the successful roadside clearing
operations in 2019 have changed the situation on the ground, there is no
legally defined concept that equals to "living street" in the Philippine
traffic code (RA 4136) or accompanying laws, and objections have been
raised on the incorrect use of the tag to mark very narrow streets in
developing countries aside from the Philippines, I strongly agree dropping
it completely at all.

There has been no consensus on handling highway bypasses or diversion
roads, so the classification should be based on their overall usage or
characteristics. My thoughts is to move the higher classification to the
bypass or diversion if most through traffic take that when traveling
through around the city or town proper (downtown or "poblacion" area),
otherwise, tag both routes with the same classification and tag the
implicit default speeds for routing engines to use.

--TagaSanPedroAko
--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Problems with "haroldjohn"

[Jherome Miguel]

Can anyone look at this user, "haroldjohn" (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/haroldjohn)? This user seems to be just
the same as the previously blocked "rjamz26", and have the same editing
comments (e.g. area in XXX) and behavior. I just undid some edits that
changed more recognizable road names for the highway through Muntinlupa and
San Pedro, Laguna, and I tried to contact the user, but as far as I know, I
think he would refuse to reply.

---TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Tagging of implied speed limits

[Jherome Miguel]

While there haven't been a decision on revising the existing
classifications
for roads, I am also considering discussing a tagging scheme for implied
speed limits (those not indicated by a sign). I have been experimenting
with tagging of those unsigned speed limits on some of my last edits, but
I'm also thinking of a standard for the country.



The default speed limits for the Philippines (as codified in the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code or Republic Act 4136) are as follows

80 kph (50 for heavy trucks and buses) - "open country" roads
40 kph (30 for trucks and buses) - "through" roads within built-up area
30 kph - "non-through" roads within built-up areas
20 kph - crowded streets

In addition, many major rural roads may have lower implied limits (e.g. 40
kph) due to factors such as pedestrians walking on the road, and some major
urban roads may have a higher limit (e.g. 60 for multi-lane roads or other
roads where pedestrians don't frequently cross or walk alongside vehicles).

Expressways are not covered by RA 4136, but there seems to be these
defaults (almost all of these explicitly marked by standard circular signs):

100 (80 for heavy trucks and buses) - rural
80 - urban
60 - minimum



These defaults, in turn, corresponds to these possible values for OSM
(along with the corresponding numeric value:

- PH:rural - 80
- PH:urban - 30 (minor through roads within cities/municipalities,
generally those classified tertiary), 40 (all other major roads), 60
(higher-quality roads, generally multi-lane)
-PH:living_street - 20 (note: includes anything classified unclassified,
residential and service, not only those classified living_street)

Important questions are:

1.) How should we handle the RA 4136 categories: source:maxspeed= or
maxspeed:type=?
2.) Is this already a fine proposal, or this may need some tweaking?

--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Suggesting removing names from expressway ramps (but keep on junction nodes)

[Jherome Miguel]

I am suggesting removing exit/interchange names from expressway ramps
(highway=motorway_link), so that the underlying destination info can be
used for routing, while the common exit name (without the
"Exit/Interchange" suffix) will be retained in the exit location node
(highway=motorway_junction). This mapping will allow retaining the exit
name on the map (as with the norm in the Philippines), while allowing
destination info to be used for the router.

Do anyone are okay about this? Further questions or comments?
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Request for comment: revised Philippine road classifications (was at: Revisiting road classifications)

[Jherome Miguel]

After around 3 weeks of some discussion in GitHub about redefining road
classifications for the Philippines, I came by a polished proposal, which
can be summarized as:

   - Motorway - expressways. Implies legal traffic restrictions under the
   Limited Access Highway Act. Implied speeds: 100 (maximum), 80 (maximum for
   trucks and buses), 60 (minimum)
   - Trunk - major national transportation backbone routes connecting key
   cities; expressway segments where not grade-separated, implied legal
   traffic restrictions do not apply (e.g. motorcycles below 400cc explicitly
   permitted). Typical speeds: 80 (rural), 60 (urban)
   - Primary - (rural) roads of regional importance, connecting large
   municipalities and other cities with each other and the trunk network.
   Usually a secondary national road, or 3-digit route; (urban) major
   arteries, usually secondary national roads. Typical speeds: 80 (rural), 60
   (urban divided or multilane undivided), 40 (urban two-lane)
   - Secondary - (rural) roads that connect smaller municipalities with
   each other and the primary network, or roads that connects cities and
   municipalities with each other without traversing the primary or trunk
   networks: (urban) minor arteries, usually those that connects 3+ barangays
   or city districts. Typical speeds: 60 (rural), 40 (urban)
   - Tertiary - (rural) roads that connects other barangays with each other
   and the secondary roads; (urban) collector roads or major local streets,
   usually within 1 or between 2 barangays or city districts. Typical speeds:
   40 (rural), 30 (urban). Usually follows more winding alignments and have
   traffic calming measures to discourage through traffic.
   - Unclassified - (rural) minor roads which neither fit any of the
   classes above and residential; (urban) minor mixed-use or non-residential
   road. Speed: 30 (rural), 20 (urban)
   - Residential - roads specifically used to access houses. Speeds: 20, 30
   (in some places where streets have sidewalks. must be indicated by signage)
   - Service - unnamed access roads around buildings or private property,
   parking lot roads, long private driveways, drive-thru lanes. Typical
   speeds: 10-20 km/h
   - Living street (considered for dropping, but there is some consensus to
   keep it, however with a narrower definition that better reflects the
   reality since the road clearing operations that make a redefinition
   necessary) - narrow streets where two-way traffic cannot pass smoothly, and
   vehicles must travel very slowly, approximately at the same speed as
   pedestrians.

The proposal largely borrows some of the principles that are used on the
road classification guidelines for Canada and Australia, such as functional
types, but with adaptations to the Philippine context.

The main goals of the revised road classifications are to distinguish
between urban and rural roads (which the existing classification system
have failed to do due to its apparent bias toward urban roads), improve
routing by creating a general road hierarchy, and at a lesser extent,
reflect the official road classification (which now includes functional
info since around 2014, but for OpenStreetMap purposes, just one criterion
to consider the correct classification of some roads). In the previous
guideline, I see the definition of the primary classification as too broad,
and in regards to towns served, a primary should better serve the largest
ones, usually a regional economic or tourist center.

Since some roads lie in a gray area in OSM's road classification system,
there is a set of criteria that are useful when to consider a change in
classification of a certain road or road section. In general, the
functional type is the most important determinant of the OSM road
classification, but some other criteria can also influence it.:

* Functional type (controlled-access highway/major transportation
backbone/regional highway/major artery/local highway/minor
artery/collector/local road) - can be determined through usual traffic
patterns
* Official classification (Expressway/National Primary Road/National
Secondary Road/National Tertiary Road/Provincial Road/others)
* Size (two-lane undivided, multilane undivided, divided)
* Speed (higher speeds = consider upgrading, lower speeds = consider
downgrading. Generally useful when to distinguish between secondary and
tertiary, or tertiary or unclassified/residential.)

Since the most important details of the proposal are provided, it is time
now for anyone to provide any further comments and discussion just before
this can be published on the Philippine mapping guidelines at the wiki.

--TagaSanPedroAko--
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting road classifications

[Jherome Miguel]

I agree that the official classifications by the DPWH does not correspond
very well with those of OSM's. This is also true for some countries as
well. But I still see trunk class matches with national primary (with some
exceptions) and primary class with national secondary (with a handful of
exceptions). And so far, in local usage, a road generically called
"National Road/Highway" means a major route, but we still have to rely on
how the road is actually used by traffic, so, we can still say we should
not rely too much on the official classification.

For me, trunk class should be a long-distance highway route that is not an
expressway, and as I look on the existing road network, we've got too many
of this, especially around CALABARZON. We should be reducing this to the
backbone routes which carry traffic between regions and major cities. I
think the definitive criteria is this for a trunk road is:

*Usually a national primary (1 or 2-digit) route
*Continuous for hundreds of kilometers.
*Connects key cities and regional centers.

I still agree that primary must be restricted to those maintained by the
DPWH. I don't agree the main road to a city or town center should be all
primary (especially when it's no longer maintained by the DPWH, is not
numbered, or the existing highway route has been moved to bypass it), so
are other roads that connect all town centers (it's vague, and we've got so
many lower-level roads tagged as primary, which is not reflective either of
their actual importance). We can better explain primary can include most of
the secondary national roads, with exceptions we can discuss later, but we
can maintain the definition they are the roads that complement the trunk or
backbone network.


On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:28 AM Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not convinced that we should take DPWH's road classifications with
> great weight in refining OSMPH's road classification. Note that "National
> Road" does not mean that the road is functionally important but rather it
> only means that DPWH is the government agency in charge of maintaining such
> roads as opposed to LGUs.
>
> I also understand that DPWH classifies National Roads as either
> expressway, primary, secondary, or tertiary, but looking at the following
> map of National Roads in Metro Manila, I do not quite agree with DPWH's
> classifications at least with respect to OSM:
> http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/2018%20DPWH%20ATLAS/Road%20Data%202016/NCR.jpg
>
> ~Eugene
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 3:13 PM Jherome Miguel 
> wrote:
>
>> With the Department of Public Works and Highways introducing route
>> numbers and reworking the road classifications since 2014, it seems the
>> road classifications also need to be revamped.
>>
>> The 2014 DPWH classifications are:
>>
>> *Expressway
>> *National road
>> ** National primary road (1-2 digit routes)
>> ** National secondary road (3-digit routes)
>> ** National tertiary road
>> *Provincial road
>> *City/municipal road
>> *Barangay road
>>
>> while the older classifications are:
>>
>> *Expressway
>> *National roads
>> **North-South Backbone
>> **East-West Laterals
>> **Other Roads of Strategic Importance
>> *Provincial roads
>> *City/municipal road
>> *Barangay road
>>
>> The introduction of route numbers and more specific national road classes
>> also meant reconsidering how we should use classifications. I agree trunk
>> would include the major national roads that form critical links between
>> cities and provinces, but I disagree with the present usage of primary.
>> There are many usages of the primary tag on roads classified as provincial
>> and below, which is not reflective of actual traffic patterns. It was
>> previously proposed in 2009 that primary should be restricted to the
>> national roads (see
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2010-January/001693.html),
>> but the plan seems to have stalled.
>>
>> The proposal I have considered, which largely adapted from the
>> conventions in Canada and Australia, is:
>>
>> *Trunk - major national roads that connect major cities (population
>> 100k+), and forms the national transportation backbone. Usually 1 to
>> 2-digit routes, or the primary national roads.
>> *Primary - all other national roads that connect other cities and
>> municipalities not served by the national road network,  In urban areas,
>> they form the other major cross-town routes. Usually 3-digit routes, or
>> secondary national roads.
>> *Secondary - In rural areas, roads that link municipalities to the
>> primary network. In urban areas, they are minor arteries, which are not
>&g

[talk-ph] Redefining Philippines road classifications [was: Revisiting road classifications]

[Jherome Miguel]

About a week since I presented the first version of the proposed road
classifications and their correspondences, I looked back on the DPWH
documents that defines the road classifications for the Philippines, and
the previous road classes are rather like this:

*Expressway
*National primary road
**North-South Backbone
**East-West Laterals
**Other Roads of Strategic Importance
*National secondary road
*National tertiary road
*Provincial road
*City/municipal road
*Barangay road

Actually, the new classifications are fundamentally the same, except that
the subcategories of national primary roads have been reduced to two, based
on number allocation:

*Main routes (N1-N49)
*Other primary routes (N50-99)

Given that, I see that the present classification we have been using really
works fine, except that we need to better describe some classifications,
for these reasons:

* The primary category needs to be better defined, as it seems to have been
overused, and we should restrict this to some primary national roads, and
all secondary routes (perhaps except for N120, as part of AH26). We have
discussions back in 2009 to restrict the primary classification to national
roads, but it seems to have stalled.
* We might need to cut down the routes tagged as trunk, and I am
considering to have it used only on the primary routes (1-2) digits, with a
handful of exceptions

>From those points I made, I get into this modified proposal:

Rural:
*Motorway - expressways
*Trunk - major primary national roads (1-2 digit routes), that connect
major cities and of strategic importance.
*Primary - less important national roads, secondary national roads (3-digit
routes)
*Secondary - provincial roads, and minor arterial roads in municipalities
*Tertiary - other roads that connect barangays with each other and the
secondary network
*Unclassified - other non-residential rural roads, such as those serving as
the only connection to an isolated sitio/purok or barangay
*Residential - residential streets

Urban:
*Motorway - expressways
*Trunk - major through route through a city or metropolitan area, usually a
primary national road (e.g. EDSA), all of Route 120 (as western alternate
alignment of AH26 through Metro Manila)
*Primary - other major urban routes, usually a secondary national road.
*Secondary - minor urban arteries, connects 3 or more barangays or
districts, and not a numbered national road
*Tertiary -
**collector roads inside barangays or districts, usually narrow and with
traffic calming features (meandering alignments, humps, low speeds)
**other roads connecting barangays and districts with each other and the
secondary network. Usually non-contiguous, and has the same characteristics
as mentioned above.
*Unclassified - non-residential street that does not fit the tertiary
classification.
*Residential - residential streets wide enough for cars

In addition, we should remove the living street classification, as
Philippine traffic law has no equivalent to it, and better retag those
according to the mapper's judgment.

We haven't began any discussions about this since I presented the first
proposal, so we need to get through this.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Revisiting road classifications

[Jherome Miguel]

With the Department of Public Works and Highways introducing route numbers
and reworking the road classifications since 2014, it seems the road
classifications also need to be revamped.

The 2014 DPWH classifications are:

*Expressway
*National road
** National primary road (1-2 digit routes)
** National secondary road (3-digit routes)
** National tertiary road
*Provincial road
*City/municipal road
*Barangay road

while the older classifications are:

*Expressway
*National roads
**North-South Backbone
**East-West Laterals
**Other Roads of Strategic Importance
*Provincial roads
*City/municipal road
*Barangay road

The introduction of route numbers and more specific national road classes
also meant reconsidering how we should use classifications. I agree trunk
would include the major national roads that form critical links between
cities and provinces, but I disagree with the present usage of primary.
There are many usages of the primary tag on roads classified as provincial
and below, which is not reflective of actual traffic patterns. It was
previously proposed in 2009 that primary should be restricted to the
national roads (see
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2010-January/001693.html),
but the plan seems to have stalled.

The proposal I have considered, which largely adapted from the conventions
in Canada and Australia, is:

*Trunk - major national roads that connect major cities (population 100k+),
and forms the national transportation backbone. Usually 1 to 2-digit
routes, or the primary national roads.
*Primary - all other national roads that connect other cities and
municipalities not served by the national road network,  In urban areas,
they form the other major cross-town routes. Usually 3-digit routes, or
secondary national roads.
*Secondary - In rural areas, roads that link municipalities to the primary
network. In urban areas, they are minor arteries, which are not numbered
national roads nor barangay roads, and, connects barangays/districts to the
primary network.
*Tertiary - In rural areas, roads that connect barangays into the secondary
roads and higher. In urban areas, collector roads that are generally at the
heart of a barangay or district.
* Unclassified - All other roads that do not fit tertiary or residential.

The system is largely based on usage over official designation, as matching
OSM's road classes with the Philippine government road designations is far
illogical, as they do not clearly convey their main traffic usage. Our
previous two guidelines basically follow the same principle, but are quite
flawed.

I am also considering eliminating the "living street" classification from
the existing guidelines, but I have my second thoughts, especially for
narrow ones that a typical motorcycle can enter.

Some open questions:

1. How should we classify roads like Daang Hari, C-6/Laguna Lakeshore
Highway, and C-5 Extension, which are major intercity routes but not
national roads?

2. How should bypasses and diversion routes of national roads be classified?
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] [Ticket#2017111310000066] Disruptive data deletions by "mandyboy" in the Philippines

[Jherome Miguel]

Thank you for your response.

--TagaSanPedroAko

On Nov 16, 2017 5:37 AM, "Data Working Group" <d...@otrs.openstreetmap.org>
wrote:

> Dear Jherome Miguel,
>
>thank you for writing to Data Working Group. We are handling the case.
> I saw that the user has not replied yet to any of the comments. I would
> suggest to wait a few more days because as you said it looks like a fresh
> user. I will also monitor if the user does other changests on removing data
> to understand if he is doing this with intention.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Best regards
> Sidorela Uku
>
> --
> OpenStreetMap Foundation
> Data Working Group - d...@osmfoundation.org
> --
> [Ticket#201711131066]
>
> 11/13/2017 16:25 - Jherome Miguel wrote:
> This user, "mandyboy" (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mandyboy), can
> be considered disruptive for removing lots of important data (especially
> polygons of residential areas, commercial areas, parks, schools, etc.), and
> his edits can be considered vandalism already. Though a fresh user
> (although registered since 2012), this is already disruptive in the way
> that he deleted many important features (mapped as polygons) around the
> cities of Bacoor, Imus, and Las Piñas, in the Philippines. I have just
> reverted several deletions of some important features he deleted (e.g. St.
> Jerome Emiliani Institute, Summer Pointe Residences, De La Salle Zobel
> Vermosa, around Bacoor and Imus), and started a OpenStreetMap Philippines
> "papercut_fix" project issue on GitHub (see https://github.com/OSMPH/
> papercut_fix/issues/32). The user is using vague comments that says
> "UPDATE" (or "Updated"), usually with a date, which hides the user's
> behavior of deleting a lot of data from the map for no valid reason. I
> consider blocking this user for at least a week or two, so, he can learn
> about the effects of those map deletions to users of OSM map data. Several
> mass deletions of POIs by this user (especially the case of St. Jerome
> Emiliani Institute) have already surfaced on MAPS.ME on the latest
> update, and after investigating edits he made on the last month, I started
> to believe that those deletions has something to do with them disappearing
> from the latest map data in the last update.
>
> --TagaSanPedroAko (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TagaSanPedroAko)
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Disruptive data deletions by "mandyboy" in the Philippines

[Jherome Miguel]

This user, "mandyboy" (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mandyboy), can be
considered disruptive for removing lots of important data (especially
polygons of residential areas, commercial areas, parks, schools, etc.), and
his edits can be considered vandalism already. Though a fresh user
(although registered since 2012), this is already disruptive in the way
that he deleted many important features (mapped as polygons) around the
cities of Bacoor, Imus, and Las Piñas, in the Philippines. I have just
reverted several deletions of some important features he deleted (e.g. St.
Jerome Emiliani Institute, Summer Pointe Residences, De La Salle Zobel
Vermosa, around Bacoor and Imus), and started a OpenStreetMap Philippines
"papercut_fix" project issue on GitHub (see
https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/32). The user is using vague
comments that says "UPDATE" (or "Updated"), usually with a date, which
hides the user's behavior of deleting a lot of data from the map for no
valid reason. I consider blocking this user for at least a week or two, so,
he can learn about the effects of those map deletions to users of OSM map
data. Several mass deletions of POIs by this user (especially the case of St.
Jerome Emiliani Institute) have already surfaced on MAPS.ME on the latest
update, and after investigating edits he made on the last month, I started
to believe that those deletions has something to do with them disappearing
from the latest map data in the last update.

--TagaSanPedroAko (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TagaSanPedroAko)
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Name of Festival Alabang

[Jherome Miguel]

The name of Festival Alabang is continually being changed repeatedly by
"rjamz" to an anachronistic name, Festival Supermall Alabang, and my
frequent reverts may end in edit war If not addressed (unless I will report
this to the DWG). I strongly agree that Festival Alabang is the correct
name, as it is the one used now on signage, and the old signage using
"Festival Supermall" are now removed, so, using it as the name is already
old-fashioned. Are there users who agree that Festival Alabang is the
correct name now?
--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] About user "MembersOnly"

[Jherome Miguel]

This new user has been making many edits on the past days, but I notice
something strange with this one. This user is adding false data to the map,
and this looks like it is connected to "bryanpiczon", because of the style
of comments. We should monitor that user's edits and revert additions of
fake data once sighted.

--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Cagayan de Oro roads and streets need reclassification

[Jherome Miguel]

The mapping of roads and streets in Cagayan de Oro are a mess again this
time. I have fixed the classification of the majority, but it was reverted
back to the messed-up classifications. As I saw, some roads I reclassified
(highway =trunk or primary->lower classification) are reverted back to the
wrong classifications. There are too many roads classified as "trunk" and
"primary", even when those are not travelled very much.

Mukhang ang gulo na naman uli nung pagkakamapa ng karamihan ng mga
kalsada't kalye sa Cagayan de Oro. Una, inayos ko na yung klasipikasyon ng
karamihan, ngunit ibinalik na naman sa mas gulong klasipikasyon ng mga
kalsada. Pagkakita ko, ilang kalsadang pinalitan ko ng klasipikasyon
(highway="trunk" o "primary"->mas mababang klasipikasyon) ay ibinalik sa
maling klasipikasyon. Ang sobrang dami uli ng mga lansangang may
klasipikasyon ng "trunk" at "primary", kahit hindi naman talaga silang
gaanong dinadaanan ng napakaraming mga sasakyan.

Daw ang kasamok mao nga ang pag-usab sa pagmapa sa kadaghanan sa kadalanan
sa Cagayan de Oro. Una, gisusi ko ang kadaghanan sa mga klasipikasyon, apan
mibalik sa mas makahasol nga klasipikasyon sa mga kadalanan. Sumala sa
akong nakita, ang pipila sa mga dalan nga akong gipulihan sa klasipikasyon
(highway = "trunk" o "primary" -> ubos nga klasipikasyon) gibalik ngadto sa
sayop nga klasipikasyon. Ang sobra nga gidaghanon sa mga punoan sa punoan
ug punoan, bisan pa nga wala kaayo sila maglakaw sa daghang mga sakyanan.



--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Philippine multilingual place names (English/native language)

[Jherome Miguel]

It already looks important to have place names under the name= tag be
bilingual or multilingual, not just in English, especially when taking
regard speakers of native languages (Tagalog, Cebuano, Hiligaynon,
Kapampangan, Ilocano, etc.), and use of native. I am proposing a scheme
where the name under the place tag would have English as first name, and
second name in the Tagalog (usually formal), and the third name in the
native language (on places other than those in Tagalog speaking areas)

This may look like this, on populated places,

Manila - Manila/Maynila (English/Tagalog)
Caloocan - Caloocan/Kalookan (English/Tagalog)
Quezon City - Quezon City/Lungsod Quezon (English/Tagalog)
Batangas City - Batangas City/Lungsod ng Batangas (English/Tagalog)
Cavite City - Cavite City/Lungsod ng Kabite/Ciudad de Cavite
 (English/Tagalog/Chavacano)
Cebu City - Cebu City/Lungsod ng Cebu/Dakbanwa sa Sugbu (English/Tagalog or
Filipino/Cebuano)
Zamboanga - Zamboanga City/Lungsod ng Zamboanga/Ciudad de Zamboanga
(English/Tagalog or Filipino/Cebuano)

on select places where a native name is used along with an English and/or
Filipino name

Bonifacio Shrine - Bonifacio Shrine/Liwasang Bonifacio

and on other geographical features

Pasig River - Pasig River/Ilog Pasig
Mount Makiling - Mount Makiling/Bundok Makiling
Verde Island - Verde Island/Isla Verde
Mount Mayon - Mount Mayon/Bulkang Mayon/Bulkang Magayon

But where the native name is primarily used, the English name (translation,
may or may not be signed) comes second.

Though use of bilingual or multilingual names may only apply where a known
native name is used, this may help to those who are not accustomed to
English when browsing. But not all names are to use the
bilingual/multilingual ones. Only where a known native name is used
(whether spoken or signed) where a bilingual or multilingual name is to be
used.

Any comments with the proposal welcome.
--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Determining school names by school identification number ("School ID")

[Jherome Miguel]

While there are no follow-up discussion yet about the proposed DepEd public
school data import, determining the name of the school by school IDs (if
tagged) looks like a good idea. But what about a website to find the name
of a school by its school ID? While we can find the Philippine Standard
Geographic Code for each region, province, city/municipality, and barangay
through this page (http://nap.psa.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/), why not try
determining school names by school ID? School IDs can be found on roofs of
buildings in many schools, especially rural ones, as seen in aerial imagery
(if clearly visible), and we can tag it with the ref= tag, while the name
is not yet known.

--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] When to use"Saint" or "St." in place names

[Jherome Miguel]

After reading this OSM Help thread (
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/19609/saint-or-st-is-there-an-official-osm-policy),
this has raised this question for place names in the Philippines starting
with "Saint" and "St.". While there is consensus on OSMPH to use "San" over
"Sn." and "Santa" over "Sta.", the case of "Saint" and "St." is unclear. I
have tended to spell out "St." on place names (including street names)
using them in the beginning to "Saint" with this lack of consensus, but,
after reading the linked OSM Help thread, I am made aware about the use
"Saint" or "St." in place names which start with those. If the sign uses
"Saint", then use it, and that is the same case for "St.", but this may be
troublesome for names which may be spelled out with "Saint" or "St."
(something I encountered with the name of Basilica of St. Martin of Tours,
where it can be written with "St." or "Saint"). Can that be used when
choosing to use "Saint" or "St."?
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Mapbox Satellite imagery updates (May 2017)

[Jherome Miguel]

Finally, the long wait for more recent and detailed imagery for tracing in
OpenStreetMap, especially in Metro Manila and Calabarzon, has come.

Mapbox Satellite has released new imagery of Metro Manila, Bulacan,
Pampanga, Cavite,  Batangas, Laguna, and Quezon for tracing in
OpenStreetMap. The newly released imagery replaced cloudy imagery on
southern Metro Manila, Cavite, part of Laguna, Batangas and Rizal, and
imagery possibly taken between 2010, 2011, or 2012 (and also used by Bing)
in areas in Cavite and Laguna. Most areas of Batangas not previously
covered by Mapbox Satellite, like the rest of Lipa, Cuenca, Alitagtag, San
Jose, Batangas City, Ibaan, Lobo, and Taysan, have finally received more
recent imagery, possibly taken in early or mid-2016. This allowed more
detailed mapping and mapping the latest developments on areas in Batangas
where Bing has older coverage (e.g. western Batangas, eastern Lipa, Padre
Garcia, Rosario, and part of San Juan, which has imagery dated April 2010
or April 2013), cloudy imagery (e.g. parts of San Jose and Ibaan) or no
imagery (e.g. western Rosario, rest of Taysan and San Juan, and some
barangays of Batangas City, near the boundary with Taysan). I took some
time to map missing features (e.g. streets of the poblacion of Taysan, some
buildings and the San Jose Cockfighting Arena in barangays Calansayan and
Aguila, San Jose, a creek near barangay Lapu-Lapu in Ibaan, an NGCP 69 kV
line near barangay Malainin, Ibaan, and the Puyat Steel Plant in barangay
Masaya, Rosario) and recent developments (Camella Solamente and San Gabriel
Power Plant in Batangas City), using the latest imagery.

Aside from Batangas, Quezon (western areas), Bulacan, Pampanga, Bataan, and
parts of Tarlac and Nueva Ecija received new imagery. The latest imagery in
Quezon replaces the blurry imagery that once covered the areas from Tiaong
to Atimonan, including Lucena. The new imagery in Rizal included the area
from Tanay to the boundary with Laguna in Pililia, and the 54 MW Pililia
Wind Farm is shown in detail. Bulacan, which is also covered by the past
update has newer coverage, which also includes Pampanga, Bataan, Zambales
(Olongapo, including parts of Subic Bay Freeport Zone), Tarlac (up to
Tarlac City anc La Paz), and Nueva Ecija (up to Zaragoza, Jaen, and western
part of Santa Rosa)

Happy mapping.

--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Tagging of air conditioning repair/servicing centers

[Jherome Miguel]

I have encountered a mistagged air conditioning service center around
Batangas City, added via MAPS.ME, and I retagged it with craft=hvac and
shop=trade. But the Philippines tagging conventions (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions) has no
recommended tagging for such establishment. Air conditioning
repair/servicing centers are common and mostly accept repair/servicing of
air conditioning units of any or select brands, as authorized by the
producers when seen on signage (e.g. Carrier/Condura Authorized Service
Center) and when mapping those, there are no clear tags recommended for
such business. How about possible tags, aside from the one I used here (
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4360912990)?

(This is a Philippines tagging-specific issue, so I better sent this
message to the talk-ph mailing list.)

--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Bridges mapped as link roads or ramps

[Jherome Miguel]

There are a lot of bridges in Samar that are still mapped as link roads or
ramps and this brought misleading directions when I got directions between
Manila and Tacloban, and it is also the problem when routing on Cagayan
Valley Road in Bulacan and Nueva Ecija, for example, when getting
directions from Manila to Tuguegarao or any point in Nueva Ecija, Aurora,
Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, Isabela, or Cagayan. Having bridges mapped as link
roads makes routers say that you take the ramp, or other instructions. I do
not know who made such mapping, but it is in the past years and no one have
floated that mapping by any user[s], that should have been fixed earlier
before it can affect directions.

--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Burgos Wind Farm still missing in OSM

[Jherome Miguel]

While Bangui Wind Farm is already mapped, no one has mapped Burgos Wind
Farm in OpenStreetMap since it started operations in 2013. Pililla Wind
Farm also is now mapped in detail, despite lack of high resolution imagery.
While existing imagery still do not show Burgos Wind Farm, even during its
construction, someone should go on a survey and map the windmills, 115 kV
transmission line and switchyard, and tourist facilities. It is only the
nearby Kapurpurawan Rock Formation and its access road that is mapped, but
the Burgos Wind Farm is still not on OpenStreetMap. Someone to go on a
survey trip to map it in OSM, or waiting for new Bing (updates of aerial
imagery announced in January 2017, and new imagery expected to be rolled
out in the following months) and Mapbox Satellite imagery (can be
requested) is the only way to map the wind farm and associated facilities
 (windmills, viewing areas, tourist information center, 115 kV transmission
line and switchyard, etc).

--TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Batangas City data cleanup

[Jherome Miguel]

Batangas City needs to be cleaned up, as the data there is becoming
affected (some POI's are being affected). Most edits are being done on
weekdays (except holidays), and most of the users are possibly city
government employees, which have not disclosed their editing background. I
messaged those users or commented on several changesets they did, but they
still do not reply. There are too many data already edited for one user to
cleanup, and other mappers should do.

Here are tasks for Batangas City:

1. Monitor latest edits by local users. Please keep a monitor on changesets
around Batangas City, and closely inspect map data being edited, then do
the appropriate action (clean-up tags, message user, revert to a previous
version, or leave it alone). Priority is edits by "imeeperezveedor" (
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imeeperezveedor), that I have a hard time
to deal with that user's edits, as it repeatedly touched several POI's, and
renamed them to "commercial". A few POIs and named buildings affected by
that user's changesets include Jollibee (Kumintang Ilaya branch), BPI
(Batangas City Jose P Laurel Highway branch), BDO (Batangas Rizal Avenue
branch), STI Academic Center Batangas, Nuciti Central, Boy Scouts of the
Philippines Batangas City Council, Imperial Appliance Plaza, N.J. Dimaano
Building, Recto and Ofelia Buildings A and B, Junction Commercial Complex,
Dayton Hotel, and Reyes Haircutters.

2. Cleanup data touched in previous changesets. Cleanup possible redundant
tags or replace them with an appropriate tag. Revert name changes to
existing POI's occupying buildings, and named buildings (mostly done by
"imeeperezveedor".)

Thanks,
TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Retagging the abandoned PNR Batangas Line

[Jherome Miguel]

I made a series of edits to change portions of the PNR (Philippine National
Railways) Batangas Line from abandoned to proposed, as part of the planned
North-South Railway project. But, I have uncertainty that these should
remain as abandoned railways, however, there are official plans to
reconstruct the PNR Batangas Line as part of the North-South Railway Phase
2 on several online news articles. The so-called North-South Railway, which
will extend the PNR South Main Line from Legaspi to Matnog, and rebuild the
branch line (mentioned above) to Batangas City, is one of Rodrigo Duterte's
plans on the transport sector, along with decongesting roads in Metro
Manila and other planned railway construction projects, like the
Subic-Clark Railway Line, and I made edits to reflect those current plans.
I am also expecting that someone may follow up those retagging work on the
remaining portions of the PNR Batangas Line (including portions now part of
barangay roads), which will change them from abandoned to proposed, and add
related tags for the proposed railway.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Retagging all Plantersbank branches to China Bank Savings branches

[Jherome Miguel]

Follow-up:

Here are also Overpass API queries:
1. Overpass API query for Plantersbank branches named "Plantersbank"
<http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/kWw>
2. Overpass API query for Plantersbank branches named "Planters Bank"
<http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/kWv>

The latter is, however, has most instances, excluding instances named
"United Coconut Planters Bank", that which I will look upon for all
instances to be renamed "UCPB", per current branding, that is evident in
signage.

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Jherome Miguel <jheromemig...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Last day, I sent a message
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/message/read/610958> to ianlopez1115
> regarding a proposal to retag all remaining Plantersbank branches to China
> Bank Savings branches, making "Plantersbank" the old_name=* tag. As
> mentioned in an announcement by Chinabank
> <http://chinabank.ph/personal.aspx/news.aspx?title=BSP+okays+CBS+Plantersbank+merger>,
> Plantersbank started its merger with China Bank Savings (CBS), a Chinabank
> subsidiary. I already made some retagging of Plantersbank branches in Metro
> Manila (in this changese
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44783311>t and the following one
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44783452>), but for most edits,
> they will to be done as mechanical edits by ianlopez1115, using a dedicated
> account.
>
> While I started the first edits in JOSM, using Overpass API queries, I
> will not do every edit here. Ianlopez1115 will handle the rest of the
> retagging edits, but it will be discussed here on talk-ph first, and
> documented on this page on the OpenStreetMap Wiki. before the edits will be
> done, as that will be an automated edit. Stay tuned for updates regarding
> my proposal I sent to ianlopez1115 about retagging all Plantersbank
> branches to China Bank Savings branches, if he agreed.
>
> Have a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. Happy mapping!
>
> ,
> ---TagaSanPedroAko
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Retagging all Plantersbank branches to China Bank Savings branches

[Jherome Miguel]

Last day, I sent a message
 to ianlopez1115
regarding a proposal to retag all remaining Plantersbank branches to China
Bank Savings branches, making "Plantersbank" the old_name=* tag. As
mentioned in an announcement by Chinabank
,
Plantersbank started its merger with China Bank Savings (CBS), a Chinabank
subsidiary. I already made some retagging of Plantersbank branches in Metro
Manila (in this changese t
and the following one ),
but for most edits, they will to be done as mechanical edits by
ianlopez1115, using a dedicated account.

While I started the first edits in JOSM, using Overpass API queries, I will
not do every edit here. Ianlopez1115 will handle the rest of the retagging
edits, but it will be discussed here on talk-ph first, and documented on
this page on the OpenStreetMap Wiki. before the edits will be done, as that
will be an automated edit. Stay tuned for updates regarding my proposal I
sent to ianlopez1115 about retagging all Plantersbank branches to China
Bank Savings branches, if he agreed.

Have a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. Happy mapping!

,
---TagaSanPedroAko
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Proposing mapping of areas affected by Typhoon Nina

[Jherome Miguel]

Last Christmas day, Typhoon Nina made landfall and have caused damage to
buildings and infrastructure, especially power lines, in Bicol Region and
CALABARZON, yet, buildings in affected areas are still not mapped in many
parts of the areas affected. While building mapping is continuing in
Batangas, as part of DOST's Project NOAH (ISAIAH), other areas affected,
like most of Quezon, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, and Catanduanaes have
a few buildings mapped, as a result of lack of quality aerial imagery.
Mapping important infrastructure, like buildings (especially houses), roads
(especially roads leading to barangays), power lines, and important POI's
may help in humanitarian response, especially if done before disaster
strikes, like mapping done before Typhoon Ruby (Hagupit) in 2014, where
Northern Samar, which was soon hit by the typhoon.

Are there any possibility of mapping areas affected by this recent typhoon?
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Tagging offices of electric utilities/cooperatives and list of electric utilities/cooperatives

[Jherome Miguel]

Electric utility/cooperative offices (including branch offices) have no
standard tagging in the Philippines. Various tagging includes
office=company or office=utility, plus landuse=commercial for the grounds,
or building=commercial for the building. I am proposing the possible tags
to map an electric utility or cooperative company offices.

office=electric_utility (for privately owned electric utilities, e.g.
Meralco, Visayas Electric Company, Davao Light, Cotabato Light, Cabanatuan
Electric Corporation/CELCOR)
office=cooperative (for local electric cooperatives, usually in the
provincial level)
building=commercial (if the office is in the whole building. The name of
the utility/cooperative is not needed if the office is mapped as a polygon
with landuse=commercial)
landuse=commercial (if the office has grounds, that includes buildings,
parking lots, and other facilities).

Also, I will make a page for a list of electric utilities/cooperatives on
the wiki, so there is a guide for naming electric utility/cooperative
offices and tagging operators of transmission (including subtransmission)
and distribution infrastructure (power lines, substations, poles/towers,
etc).
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Updated guidelines on power lines

[Jherome Miguel]

I updated the guidelines on power lines at the WikiProject Power
Systems/Philippines page. There are additional guidelines, like mapping
transmission lines, characterized by tubular towers and usually made of
wood, concrete, or metal and owned by Meralco and provincial electric
cooperatives/companies, and mapping minor power lines and utility poles,
including those having transformers. Yet, with some areas lacking quality
imagery for tracing, a survey and local knowledge about tubular power tower
and utility pole locations may be used to map them. Also, mapping
transmission lines on rural areas may be difficult to map because of lack
of imagery or low quality imagery.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Manila barangays and barangay zones

[Jherome Miguel]

Manila's map on barangay nodes/boundaries and barangay zone boundaries
are still not added. While Manila's legislative and administrative
districts are mapped, barangay and barangay zones are still incomplete
or not mapped at all. I added barangays on Quiapo, but it is still
few. Someone may help on adding those barangay nodes/boundaries and
barangay zone boundaries.

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Quezon City mapping: districts

[Jherome Miguel]

Quezon City's political map on OpenStreetMap is mostly complete, with every
barangay mapped, but the district boundaries are still missing, although
district nodes are already added. I started to add nodes for those
districts, like Novaliches, New Manila, Santa Mesa Heights, Diliman, and
Balintawak, but district boundaries are still undefined. Can someone map
Quezon City's district boundaries, while I'll add the others, like the
Project areas La Loma, and Bago Bantay (possibly the same as the "Munoz"
area)?
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph