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

[maning sambale]

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] Follow-up on possible LGU-led mapping in Batangas

[Nick Brown]

Hi Jherome,
HOT Ph is in touch with the Batangas PDRRMO via OCHA as well as OCD, but am
not directly in touch with the municipalities. I'm unaware of any
coordinated mapping efforts underway in affected areas, but HOT Ph can
provide trainers to local LGUs upon request.

We have a virtual mapathon planned for Monday evening 7-10pm and hopefully
by then we will have permission from all data providers by then to validate
and release ~550 Evacuation Center locations.

As I understand it, the affected areas are as well mapped as possible via
satellite imagery and can only be improved by local knowledge, hence HOT Ph
has not activated a mapping response. If you're aware of any LGUs who'd
like to improve their local maps please connect them with me.

Best,
Nick

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
>


-- 
*Nick Brown*
Country Manager for HOT Philippines
nick.br...@hotosm.org

*Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
*Using OpenStreetMap for Disaster Risk Reduction, Response & Development*
web  | twitter  |
facebook 
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[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

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

[Ervin Malicdem]

I am still for standardizing place=village  and the use of
place:PH=barangay for the purpose of synchronizing political designation to
the global tag. This will prevent re-evaluating each of the barangays in
the country that are already present in OSM and deciphering if it will be
tagged as a village or hamlet etc. by new mappers who are not adept with
population figures. And changing every map derived for OSM just to fit to
this change would cause more time to consume. Its population can be placed
in the population tag anyway.

Anything that is smaller than a barangay such as a sitio/purok can be
tagged as a place=hamlet and place:PH=sitio

Ervin M.
Schadow1 Expeditinos
A Filipino must not be a stranger to his own motherland.
https://www.s1expeditions.com


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 3:41 PM Eugene Alvin Villar,  wrote:

> The value is that we align better to the global tagging scheme with
> respect to human settlements. And there is a great variability in barangays
> that shoehorning them all into just place=village no longer makes sense.
> For example, Barangay 12 in Pasay is essentially just a small city block
> while Barangay 176 in Caloocan has a population of almost 250,000 making it
> more populous than majority of all PH cities. Both do not seem to be
> "villages" in the global OSM sense to me.
>
> Also, back when we decided to tag barangays as place=village, tags like
> place=quarter or place=suburb didn't exist yet.
>
> Finally, we can still mark these place nodes as barangays by adding the
> designation=barangay tag if you want to query for them.
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 3:22 PM maning sambale, 
> wrote:
>
>> Pardon for my confusion, but I don's see the value of splitting
>> barangays to village and quarter in the context of the Philippines.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:19 PM Jherome Miguel 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I also thought of using the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)
>> subclassifications of barangays to determine which gets quarter or village,
>> as being inside a city boundary doesn't make every barangay urban.
>> >
>> > * urban barangay - quarter
>> > * rural barangay - village
>> >
>> > We may also consider having a tag to handle the PSA subclassification.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:03 PM Jherome Miguel 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Eugene suggested to tag barangays in cities as place=quarter when
>> applicable. We already agree to tag remote or rural sitios/puroks as
>> place=hamlet, and we haven't agreed on how to deal with urban barangays.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:56 PM maning sambale <
>> emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> From the wiki:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aplace%3Dquarter
>> >>> "This does not have to be an administrative entity. "
>> >>>
>> >>> We agreed in the past that barangay is synonymous to place=village.
>> >>> Were there any changes with this view?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:57 AM Jherome Miguel <
>> jheromemig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > 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
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> cheers,
>> >>> maning
>> >>> --
>> >>> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
>> >>> https://github.com/maning
>> >>> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
>> >>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>