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

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.

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

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

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

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"

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/

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

? > > 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 > *

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

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

[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

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

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

[talk-ph] Issues with "VJMEJ Planned"

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).

Re: [talk-ph] Esri imagery in Pampanga

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 >

[talk-ph] Esri imagery in Pampanga

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

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

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"

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

Re: [talk-ph] City node location

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

[talk-ph] City node location

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.

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

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

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

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 &g

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

per, 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 u

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

(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

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

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 l

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

-- 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 So

[talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"

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] New Year road reclassifications

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

[talk-ph] Grab edits in Batangas City

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

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

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 Me

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

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 >

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

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

[talk-ph] Update on proposed road reclassifications

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

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

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

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

(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

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

y.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 attent

[talk-ph] Access tagging around SEZs

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

Re: [talk-ph] Grab street name edits

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

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

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,

[talk-ph] Main roads inside BF Homes

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

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

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 everyth

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

tario 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:

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

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),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: > J

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

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

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

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

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

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 m

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

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 M

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

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 separ

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

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

[talk-ph] Road name suffixes again

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

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

(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

[talk-ph] Restarting discussion on road classifications

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

[talk-ph] Access tags again

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

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

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 M

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

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 +

[talk-ph] Street or road name suffixes

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.

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

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 ar

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

[talk-ph] Problems with "haroldjohn"

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

[talk-ph] Tagging of implied speed limits

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

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

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).

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

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

Re: [talk-ph] Revisiting road classifications

e 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 intro

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

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

[talk-ph] Revisiting road classifications

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) **

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

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 replie

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

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

[talk-ph] Name of Festival Alabang

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

[talk-ph] About user "MembersOnly"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[talk-ph] Batangas City data cleanup

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

[talk-ph] Retagging the abandoned PNR Batangas Line

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

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

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...@g

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

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

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

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

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

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

[talk-ph] Updated guidelines on power lines

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

[talk-ph] Manila barangays and barangay zones

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

[talk-ph] Quezon City mapping: districts

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