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
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
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
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 wrote:
>
> I
In the context of the global conventions, quarters in the Philippines are
akin to downtown Poblacion areas. It could be used to tag large
subdivisions with each phase as a neighbourhood.
I agree, the current convention is to tag barangays as place=village.
Puroks can be tagged as
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
