seav participated in the following changeset discussionsseav participated in the following changeset discussions| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 162171252 by ianlopez1115 @ 2025-02-05 15:53 | 1 | 2025-02-17 03:21 | seav | Maybe a better tag for CMC is faculty=communication instead of amenity=college? The latter tag implies an independent educational institution, but UPD colleges are integral parts of the university.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:faculty |
| 155051918 by ervinjoshuadelrosario @ 2024-08-10 08:38 | 1 | 2024-09-06 07:48 | seav | Hi, why did you modify the QC–Pasig boundary here? The boundary actually cuts through Robinsons Galleria because the boundary predates the creation of the mall and its adjacent buildings.As evidence, Crowne Plaza's website states it is in QC, while Holiday Inn Galleria's website ... |
| 2 | 2024-09-10 12:37 | DP24PH ♦418 | Good evening! We will investigate this QC-Pasig boundary issue to avoid further conflicts due to wake of Makati-Taguig boundary dispute. Similarly, we have an ongoing boundary dispute investigation in Northern Dasmariñas - Imus / Bacoor.As a precaution, we will either revert immediately t... | |
| 148779918 by Rally @ 2024-03-17 16:21 | 1 | 2024-07-28 01:53 | seav | Hi! May I know why the polygon for Plaza de Roma was deleted in this changeset? |
| 2 | 2024-09-03 02:35 | Rally ♦11 | Not intentional. Accidentally selected with the removal of non-existent 'parking space' polygon along Adres Soriano Avenue. Restored already. | |
| 148488873 by Rally @ 2024-03-11 05:38 | 1 | 2024-03-12 14:18 | seav | Hi! Is the Strava heatmap more accurate than the DATUM drone imagery? I see that you realigned a few buildings that are now misaligned to the drone imagery. |
| 2 | 2024-03-13 11:28 | Rally ♦11 | Strava in Intramuros is not reliable on all streets (with some concentrated on one side, eg. Muralla). Sorry not aware (or forgot existence) of the DATUM drone imagery. Had initial issues with buildings encroaching roads (with rendered width using josm's plugin) trying to visualize approx width... | |
| 136703888 by gendy54 @ 2023-05-29 14:35 | 1 | 2023-12-30 03:40 | seav | Hi! You mistagged the wrong Immaculate Concepcion church in Bulacan as a minor basilica. It is the church in Malolos that is the minor basilica (already tagged), not the one in Santa Maria. |
| 2 | 2023-12-30 05:13 | seav | I apologize. I missed the news that the church had been declared a minor basilica in 2021. Sorry! | |
| 3 | 2023-12-30 20:01 | gendy54 ♦584 | No problem ;) | |
| 144035222 by DP24PH @ 2023-11-15 05:07 | 1 | 2023-12-28 09:50 | seav | Hi! May I know why you tagged the Quiapo Church grounds as a boundary=national_park? This tag is only used for actual natural parks usually enjoyed for outdoor activities and environmental preservation and not cultural/religious heritage. |
| 2 | 2024-01-05 11:32 | DP24PH ♦418 | Given the upcoming National Shrine status for the Quiapo Church, we should properly place the entire church grounds, including Plaza Miranda, under the protected land area. This will be subjected to further discussion.DP24 | |
| 144173755 by Alexis Giraud-Courtney (CoMaps) @ 2023-11-18 13:09 | 1 | 2023-11-20 11:49 | seav | Hi Alexis! Did you actually intend to mark the *whole* island as landuse=forest? This seems wrong to me because the beaches and the residential area to the south doesn't really fit a forest land use. |
| 88212948 by seav @ 2020-07-19 22:09 | 1 | 2023-11-16 16:41 | Anim Mouse ♦10 | Hello, the current barangay boundary for North Caloocan is wrong, I tried editing it using iD but I can't zoom out so that I can edit it properly, can you help to fix it? This is the proper barangay boundaries: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:North_Caloocan_Barangay_Map_with_Area_Names.... |
| 2 | 2023-11-17 06:17 | seav | @Anim, can you provide an official source for the boundaries? I added the boundaries based on Caloocan City government's own maps (although the maps were from 2006). See here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EygqEz_uLk3wsdDzxBcBrrH8aJTveyCV/view?usp=sharing | |
| 3 | 2023-11-17 08:01 | Anim Mouse ♦10 | @seav, I can say that the map from Wikimedia Commons is the official one, it is the same as the map that is posted at Brgy. Hall of 174, and one of the proof of the map from 2006 you have given is wrong is the fact that the Brgy. Hall of 178 is located at 14.757675, 121.056375 which the map from 200... | |
| 129821199 by relaemanila @ 2022-12-07 12:50 | 1 | 2023-05-29 01:30 | seav | FYI: I deleted the whole relation for the Manila-Quezon Expressway and adjacent structures such as exits. I looked at the project and this seems to be in just the proposed stage and is far from being actually realized. So mapping the route as if the alignment is already fixed and the exits ramps are... |
| 133786022 by relaemanila @ 2023-03-17 12:14 | 1 | 2023-05-13 05:06 | seav | Hi! Where is your source that the maritime boundary between Manila and Pasay curves like this? Some of the planned reclamation projects in talks with the City of Manila lies on the Pasay side of the curve you mapped. I think the original line is more accurate. |
| 131488647 by seav @ 2023-01-20 02:35 | 1 | 2023-01-20 02:39 | seav | Changeset comment correction: This should be "Paombong" instead of "Mapandan". |
| 130710575 by relaemanila @ 2022-12-31 07:05 | 1 | 2023-01-03 03:24 | seav | Where did you get the boundaries for Bacacay? Based on various sources, Bacacay includes most (if not all) of Cagraray Island. Also, I don't think Bacacay actually touches the summit of Mount Mayon. The relation you created for Bacacay doesn't make any sense.Please do not add any admin... |
| 2 | 2023-01-07 03:33 | relaemanila ♦52 | Hi!It wouldn't have been easier if I add boundaries and check the villages with a name that is inside the city/municipality. So the city/municipal boundary should cover them. | |
| 3 | 2023-01-07 07:30 | seav | Hi! It's not really a matter of whether mapping something is easy or not. Lots of things are hard to map.What's more important in OSM is whether things beings mapped or added to the map is accurate or not. And in this particular case, I can clearly see that the Bacacay boundary you add... | |
| 4 | 2023-01-07 09:58 | relaemanila ♦52 | Hi,It wouldn't be a clean area if you said "or delete these highly inaccurate admin boundaries" for highly inaccurate boundaries. I will stop adding more admin boundaries if that is not an option.Thank you! | |
| 130404931 by relaemanila @ 2022-12-23 07:02 | 1 | 2023-01-03 03:32 | seav | Where are you getting your boundary data? The admin boundary you created for Pilar doesn't encompass the place nodes for the barangays of Bagumbayan, Landing, Wakas, Bantan which are all part of Pilar.See list of barangays from PSA: https://psa.gov.ph/classification/psgc/?q=psgc/barangays/0... |
| 130713058 by relaemanila @ 2022-12-31 09:11 | 1 | 2023-01-03 03:15 | seav | What did you intend for this relation? Cagraray is not an administrative area nor an LGU, so marking this relation as a type=boundary + boundary=administrative does not make any sense. If you want a relation/polygon for the island, it already exists: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4057468 |
| 129153518 by relaemanila @ 2022-11-20 11:55 | 1 | 2022-12-03 02:06 | seav | Hi! Do you have any evidence that this project has gone past the proposal stage and that this project will definitely be constructed within the next few years? If not, then I don't think these should be added to OSM. |
| 2 | 2022-12-07 00:56 | seav | I've deleted LRT Line 6A since there is no evidence that this proposed railway already has ROW acquired or being acquired so the alignment is extremely speculative at this point. Elements added to the map is just clutter right now. | |
| 128546250 by relaemanila @ 2022-11-06 08:35 | 1 | 2022-12-07 00:24 | seav | I've deleted LRT Line 6 East Extension since there is no evidence that this proposed railway already has ROW acquired or being acquired so the alignment is extremely speculative at this point. Elements added to the map is just clutter right now.Ref. discussion: https://www.openstreetmap.org... |
| 129154934 by relaemanila @ 2022-11-20 12:41 | 1 | 2022-12-07 00:06 | seav | I've deleted LRT Line 6D since there is no evidence that this proposed railway already has ROW acquired or being acquired so the alignment is extremely speculative at this point. Elements added to the map is just clutter at this point.Ref. discussion: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset... |
| 124947971 by seav @ 2022-08-15 23:04 | 1 | 2022-08-15 23:05 | seav | Changeset comment correction: 5 barangays instead of 4 |
| 119117344 by DP24PH @ 2022-03-30 13:37 | 1 | 2022-04-13 10:35 | goldabaoy ♦1 | Hi DP24PH, we have observed that you reverted the changes made by our team in Charbel Subdivision 14 days ago. We would like to share with you that the changes made by our team is verified on ground last March 7, 2022. May we ask for possible reasons for the revert so we can also cascade this to our... |
| 2 | 2022-04-13 23:04 | DP24PH ♦418 | Hello! It looks like you have placed the access=private tags on main roadway (St. Charbel Avenue) where it shouldn't be in this case due to the fact that during regular days (Mon-Sat except Holidays), toll operations are in place. I'll send you further discussion once the Holy Week is over... | |
| 3 | 2022-04-14 12:45 | seav | @goldabaoy, may I know what team you are referring to in your comment? I looked at your profile and it is blank: it doesn't indicate which team you are affiliated with. | |
| 4 | 2022-04-16 04:46 | DP24PH ♦418 | Hello! It seems that I have overlooked the previous comment where @seav have responded, but may we know which team you're affiliated with to avoid possible COI issues, and to promote transparency and accountability within OSMPH.DP24 | |
| 5 | 2022-04-18 00:39 | goldabaoy ♦1 | Hi @DP24PH and @seav, apologies for the late revert. I did not do the edits but one from our team at Grab PH. We are receiving feedback from our riders on the ground and we are modifying the map data based on these reports. Thank you for clarifying the "toll operations" on us. I think we n... | |
| 118775549 by Timmy_Tesseract @ 2022-03-22 11:52 | 1 | 2022-03-22 23:53 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | Highly urbanized cities outside Metro Manila are usually tagged admin_level=6 like provinces. Baguio is a HUC administratively independent from Benguet. |
| 2 | 2022-03-23 03:09 | seav | To clarify, the Baguio relation itself is admin_level=6 just like any other city or municipality in the country. But their boundary ways is at least admin_level=6 for borders with other HUCs (like Cebu-Mandaue boundary) or admin_level=4/3 for borders with surrounding provinces to reflect the fact th... | |
| 3 | 2022-04-12 00:07 | Timmy_Tesseract ♦152 | Currently all HUCs and ICCs with mapped boundaries are tagged as admin_level=6. But giving this some further considerations I actually think there are many good reasons why it would make sense to tag them as admin_level=4.R.A. 7160 Section 25 effectively defines HUCs and ICCs as first level ... | |
| 116612496 by dasmarinas_mapper @ 2022-01-26 08:02 | 1 | 2022-01-26 20:28 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | Isn't the first place you'll think of Bacoor as the Zapote-Talaba-Niog area? |
| 2 | 2022-01-26 22:19 | seav | Compared to your Manila, LP, and P'que locations, this (Tirona-Aguinaldo junction) is actually a defensible place. But I kinda agree with TagaSanPedroAko here. The Bacoor junction seems like the more "downtown" area of the city, and an even central junction to various transportation r... | |
| 3 | 2022-01-27 02:44 | DP24PH ♦418 | This needs further attention with the LGU regarding the final "downtown" area, considering the population and transportation. | |
| 4 | 2022-01-27 04:50 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | @DP24PH It's more or less clear the Zapote-Talaba-Niog area is the ''de facto'' downtown, as the most built-up and the end of Alabang-Zapote Kabila. This edit moved the city node to around SM Bacoor, but to me, that isn't the best place as more busier area is Zapote-Tal... | |
| 5 | 2022-01-27 04:57 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | @DP24PH Heto ka na naman. You're trying to help, but why go whole lengths to ask LGU? The issue is very simple: locate the node in Poblacion or busier area[s]? Panapaan is also busy with SM around, but I think it's Zapote. | |
| 6 | 2022-01-27 14:22 | DP24PH ♦418 | Hence, it is very unclear on where the node should be placed wherein I myself got confused already. :'(Not sure if it is Panapaan, Zapote, or close to Bacoor Hall of Justice/Church as its poblaction/downtown, so it requires consensus. | |
| 7 | 2022-01-28 16:18 | dasmarinas_mapper ♦36 | Hi, TagaSanPedroAko, seav, and DP24. Sorry for the late response, but thank you for your inputs. I placed the city node back to the area near the intersection but further south (specifically at McDonalds) from the original node near the Zapote-Talaba border. Changeset: 116713894I guess it all de... | |
| 116612376 by dasmarinas_mapper @ 2022-01-26 07:57 | 1 | 2022-01-26 22:09 | seav | Why place the node at this nondescript location along the river? Having the node at or near the Lawton area is the best place for this because this is beside the old city of Intramuros, almost adjacent to the city hall, and is the hub of various transportation routes that terminate in Manila.Alt... |
| 2 | 2022-01-28 16:26 | dasmarinas_mapper ♦36 | I moved it specifically to Plaza Mexico as a compromise between Intramuros and Binondo.With changeset 116714470, I moved it to Lawton Rd between the post office and Jones Bridge based on your input, but not further south so it'll still be close to both Intramuros and Binondo. | |
| 116612692 by dasmarinas_mapper @ 2022-01-26 08:10 | 1 | 2022-01-26 22:04 | seav | I disagree with this movement. I'm a native of Las Piñas and the city hall compound is not as "central" or "important" as you may think. The poblacion area is culturally significant (Bamboo Organ Church) and is the centerpiece of the Las Piñas historic corridor... |
| 2 | 2022-01-28 16:10 | dasmarinas_mapper ♦36 | Hi! Thanks for the input. Reverted with changeset 116713766. | |
| 60305288 by Rally @ 2018-06-30 15:53 | 1 | 2022-01-09 18:49 | seav | Hi, Rally. May I know why you deleted the following 2 service ways?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/166262771https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/166119448These exist based on my local knowledge. |
| 115009929 by Engineer0088397 @ 2021-12-16 13:23 Active block | 1 | 2021-12-16 18:50 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | The link you give:http://bouyweather.com/doesn't exist or is always down... Marc Zoutendijk OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group |
| 2 | 2021-12-16 20:47 | seav | I think the correct URL is https://www.buoyweather.com/"Buoy" was misspelled. | |
| 3 | 2021-12-17 07:41 | marczoutendijk ♦2,755 | Thank you! Hence all BOUYWEATHER are misspelled… | |
| 4 | 2021-12-17 08:32 | DP24PH ♦418 | Caution must be taken on dealing with the suspicious edits since we have to verify first thru the ferry ride, once the weather permits.DP24 | |
| 5 | 2021-12-26 05:13 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | Ngah, you again! Not that too wordy! But, this is completely suspicious. | |
| 6 | 2021-12-28 11:52 | DP24PH ♦418 | Likewise, our partner from OSM-DWG have issued the block once again over this suspicious edit. Will monitor the latest developments thru this #papercut_fix ticket: https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/8 | |
| 77298584 by GOwin @ 2019-11-20 03:14 | 1 | 2021-11-26 08:47 | seav | GOwin, you converted MC Home Depot from a building to a landuse and added parking lanes. I am quite sure that this is a rooftop parking area, and the whole polygon 39723791 is still a building. |
| 2 | 2021-11-26 08:51 | seav | Same with polygon 27788686 for S&R | |
| 3 | 2021-11-27 00:52 | GOwin ♦852 | Thanks for catching this, @seav. Feature confirmed with Mapillary imagery. | |
| 108208208 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2021-07-18 20:55 | 1 | 2021-08-17 15:00 | seav | When updating the population, don't forget to update the population:date=* tag to the value "2020-05-01". Also, do the same for the boundary relation if it exists. |
| 108644242 by seav @ 2021-07-26 20:04 | 1 | 2021-07-27 14:47 | Fred73000 ♦223 | This role is a big bug ; please read this and delete what you have donehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary |
| 2 | 2021-07-27 15:15 | seav | Sorry, but I disagree with you. The role values "admin_centre", "outer", and "inner" are only mandated for boundary=administrative relations which is the main focus of the wiki page you linked."admin_centre" especially doesn't make sense for religious... | |
| 3 | 2021-07-30 20:39 | Fred73000 ♦223 | Hello,Here some other informations about all relations boundary :https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/relations/boundary#rolesThe 4200 roles boundary are yours. The 8 600 000 roles outer are other people : do you think that everybody is wrong but you ?Maybe they have read that ?https://... | |
| 108232201 by seav @ 2021-07-19 08:22 | 1 | 2021-07-19 14:47 | Joey Samson Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2021-07-19 15:53 | seav | Hindi ikaw ang boss ko. At bilang boluntaryo, minamapa ko ang aking nais imapa at hindi kung anong gusto mo. | |
| 100947120 by c4rlo @ 2021-03-13 10:15 | 1 | 2021-05-18 13:48 | seav | Hi! I noticed you are adding municipal boundary relations from the COD database which is originally derived from the PSA dataset. Please note that PSA has not given permission for their boundaries to be widely distributed, which would happen if they are added into OSM. |
| 104598910 by bukaskalyemapa @ 2021-05-12 21:44 | 1 | 2021-05-18 13:32 | seav | Hi! I see that you modified the Cavite-Batangas boundary to "follow mountains". Do you have a source such as a Republic Act or something else that specifies that the boundary actually follows ridgelines? |
| 2 | 2021-05-19 19:26 | bukaskalyemapa ♦2 | Hello! I don't know of any law which states that provincial boundaries like Cavite and Batangas actually follow mountain ranges, but I modified the border this way. I just thought it would be more realistic for it to follow the ridgelines since the boundary seems to generally go along them. Bu... | |
| 103454229 by GOwin @ 2021-04-23 06:07 | 1 | 2021-05-18 11:48 | seav | Question: Do you hide non-road features or only download roads? For example: when you split Loyola Street to add road-related tags in this changeset, you inadvertently broke two boundary relations. |
| 2 | 2021-05-19 23:43 | GOwin ♦852 | The issue should've been caught by the JOSM validator, whether or not I filter the data. I wonder why that was missed.I'll look into this issue, and check those boundaries again. Thanks for the heads-up! | |
| 99150102 by GOwin @ 2021-02-12 06:02 | 1 | 2021-05-08 15:56 | seav | Tip: When splitting a closed coastline that also has a place=island/islet tag, don't forget to create a multipolygon relation for the island and transfer the island-related tags from the split coastline ways to the relation.See: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12688075 |
| 2 | 2021-05-08 23:46 | GOwin ♦852 | Thanks for catching it ! It seems that I missed JOSM's validation warning for that. | |
| 101287430 by Thirdy Bobiles @ 2021-03-18 22:17 | 1 | 2021-03-26 17:06 | seav | I partially reverted this changeset because it mistakenly included TS Cruz's perimeter into the Las Piñas relation. |
| 101290381 by Thirdy Bobiles @ 2021-03-19 00:07 | 1 | 2021-03-26 17:05 | seav | I have reverted this changeset because it mistakenly included the whole TS Cruz perimeter into BF Homes Almanza's relation. |
| 101118731 by schadow1 @ 2021-03-16 11:51 | 1 | 2021-03-16 12:23 | seav | I think this is incorrect. This relation you created includes the municipalities of San Vicente, Dumaran, and Araceli and not just Roxas. |
| 101118540 by schadow1 @ 2021-03-16 11:48 | 1 | 2021-03-16 12:21 | seav | Hmmm. I previously modified the Palawan relation to exclude Puerto Princesa because the city is a HUC and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the province despite being its capital. |
| 71747552 by GOwin @ 2019-06-30 03:44 | 1 | 2021-02-27 23:46 | seav | This changeset turned a long waterway (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27663262) into a culvert. Probably around 98% of this waterway is not actually covered or underground. |
| 2 | 2021-02-28 00:05 | GOwin ♦852 | I must've missed a split along the way. Will re-check. Thanks! | |
| 99105699 by Kirby SJ @ 2021-02-11 12:04 | 1 | 2021-02-24 12:41 | seav | This changeset deleted the Philippine baselines and I have reverted it here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99905587 |
| 98219661 by GOwin @ 2021-01-27 10:05 | 1 | 2021-02-18 21:51 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | Just noticed this lately, this edit removed a lot of street name suffixes I added (while keeping it on the others). I think we should move toward using full street names (official street name signs might drop them, but they are included in the name used in addresses) |
| 2 | 2021-02-18 23:58 | GOwin ♦852 | Yes, they were removed. 1. That's the accepted convention. 2. The street signs from the Mapillary imagery doesn't indicate "street" as a suffix. | |
| 3 | 2021-02-19 01:19 | seav | Should this be discussed with the wider community? Personally I prefer leaving out any "Street" suffixes. And consumers can use heuristics to assume that any road name without a street-like suffix like "Avenue" or "Boulevard" to have "Street" as the implied su... | |
| 4 | 2021-02-19 01:41 | GOwin ♦852 | Like I mentioned earlier, the names I changed was based on what's on the street signs in the area. As is visible in the Mapillary imagery.My practice is, if I find any "St." in street names, I spell them out. If I have information or imagery that shows that they're not on str... | |
| 5 | 2021-02-19 03:12 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | This has been discussed back in 2020 on talk-ph, but the talk to officially adopt use of full street names regardless of what official signs say (with possible exceptions, such as EDSA, STAR Tollway) seems to have stalled. I think we shouldn't set OSM Philippines apart in terms of road naming c... | |
| 6 | 2021-02-19 03:19 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | In addition, having address using the common short names used in common speech that commonly drops stuff like suffixes (for brevity's sake) as against those posted in road or business signage, posters/ads, calling cards, documents, etc., looks weird, to be frank, except for the possible excepti... | |
| 98949569 by oodiegoodie @ 2021-02-09 06:12 | 1 | 2021-02-11 05:25 | seav | This has been reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99077115Reason: Municipal waters (R.A. 8550) is part of the jurisdiction of LGUs. |
| 98955661 by oodiegoodie @ 2021-02-09 07:45 | 1 | 2021-02-10 06:34 | seav | This has been reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99018564Reason: Municipal waters (R.A. 8550) is part of the jurisdiction of LGUs. |
| 2 | 2021-02-10 06:52 | seav | Also partially reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99019678 | |
| 98959297 by oodiegoodie @ 2021-02-09 08:39 | 1 | 2021-02-10 06:13 | seav | This has been reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99017055Reason: Municipal waters (R.A. 8550) is part of the jurisdiction of LGUs. |
| 98897523 by oodiegoodie @ 2021-02-08 09:37 | 1 | 2021-02-10 04:41 | seav | This changeset is reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99011722Municipal waters is included in the jurisdiction of LGUs as stated in R.A. 8550. |
| 98411809 by seav @ 2021-01-30 12:13 | 1 | 2021-01-30 12:22 | seav | See discussion on Skyscrapercity. QBEx's status is still unclearhttps://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/quezon-bicol-expressway.1904233/page-13 |
| 97589641 by seav @ 2021-01-16 03:18 | 1 | 2021-01-17 00:20 | seav | Changeset tag is wrong: "Lapu-Lapu" should be "Mandaue" |
| 97589421 by seav @ 2021-01-16 02:58 | 1 | 2021-01-17 00:20 | seav | Changeset tag is wrong: "Lapu-Lapu" should be "Mandaue" |
| 97588772 by seav @ 2021-01-16 01:59 | 1 | 2021-01-17 00:20 | seav | Changeset tag is wrong: "Lapu-Lapu" should be "Mandaue" |
| 97588721 by seav @ 2021-01-16 01:56 | 1 | 2021-01-17 00:20 | seav | Changeset tag is wrong: "Lapu-Lapu" should be "Mandaue" |
| 96479659 by JAT86 @ 2020-12-27 11:07 | 1 | 2021-01-11 00:55 | seav | I think it is much better to use standard keys that are used worldwide such as designation=* instead of using invented local keys such as place:PH=*. |
| 91831888 by mdgabriel @ 2020-10-01 14:08 | 1 | 2020-12-17 12:34 | ianlopez1115 ♦365 | That's a lot of solar panels. Appreciate the level of detail. |
| 2 | 2020-12-18 02:12 | seav | These were originally mapped as buildings until I pointed it out on Telegram. | |
| 3 | 2020-12-21 03:30 | mdgabriel ♦7 | Thanks, @ianlopez1115.@seav, yep, this is the one you raised on telegram. Thank you for pointing this out. There are still a lot to validate and correct within Pampanga. | |
| 87238580 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2020-06-28 00:28 | 1 | 2020-11-18 10:19 | seav | Can you provide proof that long lengths of the SLEX extension is actually being constructed? You have marked the portion going towards Lucena as highway=construction. Unless the right-of-way has been fenced off and cleared, then I don't agree that highway=construction is the correct tag. |
| 2 | 2020-11-18 10:54 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | Those are mostly approximation from official sources. I've already marked part TR5 Lucena-Matnog (then QBX or QUEBEX) as proposed (pending notice to proceed for Lucena-Gumaca), but for TR4 Sto. Tomas - Lucena, agree they should be retagged as only the Taong section (around Villa Escudero) is be... | |
| 93326215 by seav @ 2020-10-31 08:10 | 1 | 2020-10-31 08:11 | seav | Oops. Changest comment should be: "[Alabang] CBTL is now open". |
| 86705894 by GOwin @ 2020-06-16 07:45 | 1 | 2020-10-01 00:00 | seav | This changeset duplicated an amenity=school, several school buildings, and a road. I wonder what happened? Unsaved JOSM changes + internet problems? |
| 2 | 2020-10-01 00:44 | GOwin ♦852 | Thank you for fixing. | |
| 87119097 by Enteng Siaga @ 2020-06-25 06:34 | 1 | 2020-09-30 20:14 | seav | Hi! It seems you accidentally changed a `place=town` tag into `place=Pampanga`, which is incorrect. I have now fixed this. |
| 83762401 by nicolemap @ 2020-04-19 06:52 | 1 | 2020-09-20 22:17 | seav | This changeset duplicated a lot of buildings, tracing/creating buildings that were already existing. |
| 86640938 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2020-06-15 03:05 | 1 | 2020-09-07 15:32 | seav | Please be careful when "reuploading" changesets. This particular changeset resulted in duplicated overlapping streets. |
| 88285890 by seav @ 2020-07-21 09:06 | 1 | 2020-07-24 09:25 | mueschel ♦6,575 | Hi,what does "poblacion = yes" mean? This tag is not used in any other place.Jan |
| 2 | 2020-08-03 20:53 | seav | Hi! Sorry for the delayed response. This tag indicates that the barangay[1] is designated as the town's poblacion[2] or "center" by the national government. You can see this designation in the following page where the Talisoy barangay (in the table near the bottom of the page) has the... | |
| 3 | 2020-08-04 08:08 | mueschel ♦6,575 | Hi, thanks for the explanation!We already have the tag 'capital' to mark the capital of some area. That's not just for the capital of countries.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capitalIn your case it's the capital of an admin_level=8 (I assume) so "capital=8&q... | |
| 4 | 2020-08-04 18:59 | seav | Hi! I am uncomfortable using "capital=10" (barangays are at "admin_level=10") because there are plenty of cases where a set of 2 or more barangays are designated as part of the town's poblacion. For example, the town of Dolores has 4 barangays in its poblacion: https://psa.g... | |
| 5 | 2020-08-05 08:26 | mueschel ♦6,575 | Ok, that might not perfectly fit the current use of 'capital'. Maybe we can find another more general term for this key that can be used worldwide? I think in most places the assigned city center is marked by placing the 'place' node there.You could ask on the mailing list to... | |
| 6 | 2020-08-05 10:46 | seav | For now I'm using the OSM philosophy "any tag you want" to capture this information in OSM.As for the location of the "place=town" node, we are already doing this. To illustrate, here is an Overpass Turbo query for the six poblacion barangays of the town of Balabac as we... | |
| 88203630 by seav @ 2020-07-19 15:24 | 1 | 2020-08-04 00:52 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | We've been generally using only the number or letter for alpha-numeric barangays, but here (and related edits), you've added the "Barangay" prefix. Didn't the existing naming convention change? |
| 2 | 2020-08-04 04:05 | seav | My general philosophy now is "as much as possible, mapping and tagging should follow the conventions set by the OpenStreetMap community as a whole" as stated on the page header here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventionsThe name=* tag should be the common ... | |
| 3 | 2020-08-04 06:01 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | I see, and the wiki's contain out-of-date advice. Would modify that immediately. | |
| 4 | 2020-08-04 20:01 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | Just updated the wiki to add an exception for alpha-numeric barangays. | |
| 83850931 by DP24PH @ 2020-04-21 04:05 | 1 | 2020-06-18 03:23 | seav | I disagree with the addition of a "tram" here. In OSM, trams have actual rails embedded into the road. It is not the case in Mall of Asia. At best, the trams here are just very specialized buses. |
| 2 | 2020-06-18 08:53 | DP24PH ♦418 | Will revise the classification into 'bus' category thru today's #Mapping101 Thursdays webisode via fb.me/DearPaulPH. Anyways, thank you very much for your feedback. | |
| 85704886 by VMPanes @ 2020-05-25 06:36 | 1 | 2020-05-25 09:14 | Joey Samson Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2020-05-26 05:53 | seav | (@Joey Samson: will you please stop spamming changesets with your requests? Changeset comments are for discussing the edits within a changeset, not for off-topic requests.) | |
| 85682887 by seav @ 2020-05-24 13:37 | 1 | 2020-05-24 15:02 | Joey Samson Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2020-05-24 15:56 | seav | @Joey Samson. I am just a volunteer mapper. I am not paid to do any of these mapping. That means that I will map whatever I want whenever I feel like doing it. | |
| 3 | 2020-05-25 08:30 | Joey Samson Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 85678578 by seav @ 2020-05-24 11:10 | 1 | 2020-05-24 11:12 | seav | Oops. Changeset comment is wrong. Correct changeset comment is:[Cagayan] Extend municipal boundary relations to cover municipal waters; remove addr:province=* tag from boundary relations; add place=town nodes of coastal towns to boundary relations as role:admin_centre; add boundary tags to inter... |
| 83791033 by VMPanes @ 2020-04-20 02:50 | 1 | 2020-05-14 14:33 | seav | Hi! If I understand this changeset correctly, you replaced the previous boundary geometry for Sanchez Mira and Pamplona with the dataset from Project NOAH. However, the previous geometry included those municipalities' municipal waters which gives municipal governments jurisdiction over things l... |
| 83429816 by mbueza @ 2020-04-12 14:44 | 1 | 2020-05-14 07:46 | seav | Hi! I notice that you've been adding barangay boundaries but you are using Google Maps as your source.Please see the following: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_you_just_use_Google_Maps.2Fwhoever_for_your_data.3F |
| 83661522 by VMPanes @ 2020-04-16 17:42 | 1 | 2020-05-14 00:19 | seav | Hi! I think in the process of adding the municipal boundaries you have moved the place=town nodes of several municipalities from their poblacions to the geographical center? Is this your actual intention? These nodes should be at the poblacion, preferably at or near the town plaza. |
| 2 | 2020-05-22 08:06 | Joey Samson Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 81734495 by MauVon @ 2020-03-03 15:42 | 1 | 2020-04-22 13:38 | seav | This changeset has been reverted by changeset 83944525. The former changeset removed a boundary relation. |
| 81733932 by MauVon @ 2020-03-03 15:23 | 1 | 2020-04-22 13:38 | seav | This changeset has been partially reverted by changeset 83944525. The former changeset removed a label node from a boundary relation. |
| 81712769 by xmspix @ 2020-03-03 06:48 | 1 | 2020-04-22 13:37 | seav | This changeset has been partially reverted by changeset 83944525. The former changeset changed a type=boundary relation into a type=multipolygon relation |
| 82592519 by Niwre Erv Apotseg @ 2020-03-24 23:49 Active block | 1 | 2020-03-25 16:46 | Andre68 ♦88 | Does this island really exist? Which source did you use? I can't see it on any arial imagery. |
| 2 | 2020-03-26 11:37 | seav | This user has a habit of adding fictitious objects to the map. This changeset should be reverted.Ref: http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=10839391 | |
| 3 | 2020-03-26 11:42 | maning ♦41 | Reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82658675 | |
| 4 | 2020-03-27 21:47 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 82733493 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some problematical edits in the Philippines. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3587 , previous block and numerous changeset discussion comments for more information. | |
| 81254249 by Elmer Lamasan @ 2020-02-20 06:16 | 1 | 2020-02-22 19:54 | seav | What is this untagged way? |
| 2 | 2020-02-26 02:32 | seav | I have deleted this untagged way. | |
| 81254501 by Elmer Lamasan @ 2020-02-20 06:21 | 1 | 2020-02-22 19:59 | seav | This city node is not needed since it already exists here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/255066773I have deleted this duplicate node. |
| 80865037 by seav @ 2020-02-11 18:21 | 1 | 2020-02-11 18:43 | seav | Changset comment correction: "3rd District" should be "4th District" |
| 79874907 by maxolasersquad @ 2020-01-21 19:43 | 1 | 2020-01-22 13:52 | ianlopez1115 ♦365 | AFAIK, M Lhuillier (founded by Michel Lhuillier) and Cebuana Lhuillier (founded by Philippe Lhuillier) are not the same company. Part of this changeset was reverted (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79921151) |
| 2 | 2020-01-22 15:02 | seav | I think this error occurred is because M Lhuillier is not included in the Name Suggestion Index used by iD while Cebuana Lhuillier is included. Also, the Name Suggestion Index lists "m lhuillier" as a "match" for Cebuana Lhuillier leading to incorrect edits.https://github.com... | |
| 3 | 2020-01-22 19:59 | maxolasersquad ♦92 | Thanks for the catch. I have witnessed that the tag fixing in iD can sometimes have "fixes" that, at least to me, may be questionable. I've tried to get better about scrutinizing each auto-fix. When covering a large area like this is it's reasonable I may sometimes miss something... | |
| 74786999 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2019-09-23 04:05 | 1 | 2019-10-01 09:16 | seav | Based on the following video, your tagging of the status of CALAX is too optimistic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WvTA9gFmisThe motorway is still under construction and is not yet a highway=motorway + access=no. |
| 74070278 by wambacher @ 2019-09-04 07:53 | 1 | 2019-09-05 07:32 | Joseph E ♦137 | Thank you for fixing this relation. I was stumped. What was the problem with it that was preventing the rendering? It was confusing that the boundary text label was showing in the Openstreetmap-carto style still. - Joseph EisenbergSee https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3822... |
| 2 | 2019-09-05 07:46 | wambacher ♦435 | Hi Joseph, to be honest the problem still exist.If you look carefully, you'll see there are two lines visible. One is ok and the other is a data error in the rendering database. This sometimes happens and can only be solved by the admins.You could try to get in contact to the OWG (OSM... | |
| 3 | 2019-09-09 09:19 | seav | Interesting. It seems you did this no-op changeset in order to try and fix the rendering issue. Or were you trying to fix some other issue? | |
| 4 | 2019-09-09 10:19 | wambacher ♦435 | Yes, rendering problem is true. Sometimes the rendering database which mapnik is using, contains old or invalid data. This will be fixed by the admins doing a complete reload 1-2 times a year.Sometimes "tickling" a object (relation, way or node) will help. I created a new node in t... | |
| 74125328 by ohmyohreo @ 2019-09-05 10:34 | 1 | 2019-09-06 08:26 | glglgl ♦274 | Are you sure that the City of Pasay doesn't exist any longer as such? Or what does the removal of the respective relation mean? |
| 2 | 2019-09-06 19:09 | seav | Pasay City still exists. I think the deletion is accidental. I have reverted the deletion here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74190303 | |
| 73235823 by mapbeks @ 2019-08-11 08:31 | 1 | 2019-08-28 05:28 | GOwin ♦852 | Should this be a no u-turn or a no left-turn restriction? The restriction you added is no-left-turn, and there does'nt seem to a road for turning left to. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/73235823 |
| 2 | 2019-08-28 05:53 | seav | I think the intention is that this is a no-U-turn restriction, but given that the editor being used is iD, the built-in turn restriction editor in iD does not have a good support for properly modeling the proper no-U-turn restriction.In any case, this no-left-turn restriction is an okay (but not... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-28 05:54 | mapbeks ♦10 | Good day Sir Erwin! As per checking our resources, it is a no u-turn sir. But if I do the restriction coming from the origin lane and restrict it as well as a no u-turn that maybe the cars coming from Mckinly can't turn left when they cross the intersection --- ... | |
| 4 | 2019-08-28 05:54 | mapbeks ♦10 | Good day Sir Erwin! As per checking our resources, it is a no u-turn sir. But if I do the restriction coming from the origin lane and restrict it as well as a no u-turn that maybe the cars coming from Mckinly can't turn left when they cross the intersection --- ... | |
| 5 | 2019-08-28 10:21 | GOwin ♦852 | Using iD is just as good as JOSM. This no left-turn restriction is redundant to the no u-turn resriction, r5697218 added by Eugene in 2015. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/73235823 | |
| 6 | 2019-08-28 10:23 | GOwin ♦852 | However, if you're adding a no left-turn restriction for vehicles coming from McKinley heading to CP Garcia, you chose the wrong members for your restriction. You may want to check it again. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets... | |
| 7 | 2019-08-28 11:29 | seav | I have a feeling that Grab's backend routing engine might not support turn restrictions with one or more ways in 'via' roles (as opposed to just a single node for the 'via'). This is a really common problem in many routing engines and quite complex to support.For example... | |
| 8 | 2019-08-28 17:02 | seav | I had a private chat with Mikko regarding this and I can confirm that Grab's system does not detect the existing no-u-turn restriction. I have told Mikko to escalate this with Grab because they need to support ways-as-via turn restrictions if they really want to do proper routing using OSM. | |
| 73605198 by GrabPHVicPuno @ 2019-08-22 05:47 | 1 | 2019-08-28 05:06 | GOwin ♦852 | Why delete existing features for no good reason, when your edits rae minor? --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/73605198 |
| 2 | 2019-08-28 05:18 | GOwin ♦852 | Try to elaborate on your changeset comments. "test" is not very helpful. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/73605198 | |
| 3 | 2019-08-28 05:57 | seav | @GOwin, just to clarify, I think your first comment is not intended for this changeset (because nothing was deleted here)? So the second comment is the correct feedback? | |
| 73772918 by GrabPHPrince @ 2019-08-26 23:59 | 1 | 2019-08-28 03:48 | GOwin ♦852 | May I know why you have to delete the road segment, when all you need to do is split a highway --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/73772918 |
| 2 | 2019-08-28 05:05 | seav | @GOwin, the road segment wasn't deleted in this changeset. The mapper did actually split the road, although the place where the splitting happened is kinda weird. I'll ask Mikko about this changeset. | |
| 73817468 by GrabPHPrince @ 2019-08-28 00:39 | 1 | 2019-08-28 03:46 | GOwin ♦852 | with certain exceptions, deleting existing features just to add your changes are not considered as a good practice. If you're only adding a one way restriction, it's not difficult to add those tags to all applicable segments. Do you mind sharing what happened here? --- ... |
| 2 | 2019-08-28 05:01 | seav | @GOwin, I think you are misinterpreting the changes here. Nothing was deleted. Detroit and Don Alfredo were simply split at their common intersection. | |
| 3 | 2019-08-28 05:15 | GOwin ♦852 | I'm in the wrong here, and you're right, Eugene. @GrabPHPrince, when you do split roads, try to make sure that you split the other crossing roads in the vicinity, as well. | |
| 73375057 by Monica May @ 2019-08-15 09:42 | 1 | 2019-08-21 07:31 | Velox ♦22 | Mass deletion of existing roads. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/73375057 |
| 2 | 2019-08-27 01:59 | Monica May ♦6 | Hi, sorry, my mistake. It seems that I accidentally deleted them during my second data upload around the area. I've undeleted and reuploaded the roads now. | |
| 3 | 2019-08-27 04:22 | seav | Thanks, Monica! 😊 | |
| 72888363 by DP24PH @ 2019-08-01 09:03 | 1 | 2019-08-08 02:56 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | I don't think marking the at-grade sections with Skyway above it should be marked as tunnel, as the layer tag already implies it. |
| 2 | 2019-08-08 03:31 | seav | Ouch. I agree. SLEX is not a tunnel. | |
| 3 | 2019-08-10 13:57 | DP24PH ♦418 | Apologies for late response, but it is basically a 'covered' part and not a tunnel (as per explanation to prevent confusion) where some parts of at-grade (after Skyway Entry Ramp to Sucat Interchange) are prone to GPS signal disruptions. | |
| 71374826 by Lian Spurgeon Las Pinas @ 2019-06-18 17:35 | 1 | 2019-06-27 14:38 | seav | This changeset has been reverted. The user has the habit of doing fantasy edits. |
| 70341363 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2019-05-17 03:53 | 1 | 2019-06-19 08:58 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | Just checking - does the deletion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28393458/history need restoring? |
| 2 | 2019-06-27 12:38 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | Also, what does "#papercut_fix" mean? | |
| 3 | 2019-06-27 14:36 | seav | IIRC, "papercut" refers to "death by a thousand (paper) cuts". Basically, we tag these as minor errors on the map that nobody really bothers to fix. We (OSM PH) have since expanded this concept to flag things that need urgent/systematic fixing. | |
| 70265885 by seav @ 2019-05-15 08:55 | 1 | 2019-06-25 21:37 | Ryzen Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2019-06-25 21:49 | seav | I did not refer to any imagery and did not need to. I merely fixed changeset 70236153 to preserve data history. There should not be any (substantial) change in the geometry that was introduced by changeset 70236153. | |
| 69637964 by Lian Spurgeon Las Pinas @ 2019-04-27 12:02 | 1 | 2019-06-19 10:57 | seav | This changeset has been reverted. This user has the habit of doing fantasy edits. |
| 69638044 by Lian Spurgeon Las Pinas @ 2019-04-27 12:06 | 1 | 2019-06-19 10:52 | seav | This changeset has been reverted. This user has the habit of making fantasy edits. |
| 69639332 by Lian Spurgeon Las Pinas @ 2019-04-27 13:07 | 1 | 2019-06-19 10:44 | seav | This changeset has been reverted. |
| 70077909 by Lian Spurgeon Las Pinas @ 2019-05-09 15:08 | 1 | 2019-06-19 10:24 | seav | This changeset has been reverted. This user has the habit of doing fantasy edits. |
| 70111121 by Lian Spurgeon Las Pinas @ 2019-05-10 14:01 | 1 | 2019-06-19 10:20 | seav | This changeset has been reverted. This user has a habit of doing fantasy edits. |
| 70111316 by Lian Spurgeon Las Pinas @ 2019-05-10 14:07 | 1 | 2019-06-19 10:09 | seav | This change has been reverted. This user has a habit of doing fantasy edits. |
| 70111422 by Lian Spurgeon Las Pinas @ 2019-05-10 14:10 | 1 | 2019-06-19 10:07 | seav | I reverted this changeset via changeset #71395444.It makes no sense for Meralco to "expand" Lopez Building. |
| 70942002 by GOwin @ 2019-06-05 01:38 | 1 | 2019-06-05 18:20 | seav | (Note: When the multipolygon relation was created, the cemetery-related tags remained on one of the outer ways. I've fixed this.) |
| 2 | 2019-06-05 22:19 | GOwin ♦852 | Thanks @seav! | |
| 66056026 by Gudetama17 @ 2019-01-05 19:58 | 1 | 2019-05-29 18:33 | dikkeknodel ♦285 | Hi Gudetama17,Thanks for heling out with project 5509. I notice you have drawn a lot of buildings, and they have all kinds of funny shapes. Most of the time building are rectangular though. iD editor has a fast way to do this, after you finished drawing the four points of the building you can push... |
| 2 | 2019-05-30 12:20 | seav | Minor correction: To square areas/buildings, the new iD keyboard shortcut is 'Q' instead of 'S'. | |
| 3 | 2019-06-03 16:41 | dikkeknodel ♦285 | Thanks for the addition :-) | |
| 69272705 by Lian Spurgeon Las Pinas @ 2019-04-16 13:52 | 1 | 2019-05-21 16:05 | seav | Reverting this changeset. The parking lot that this changeset deleted is still operating (I'm parked there right now). |
| 69834056 by seav @ 2019-05-03 09:13 | 1 | 2019-05-08 22:19 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | Since a new bridge is to be constructed in place of the old one, why would you delete it? I think it is better handled by tagging it as under construction (though starting date of construction is to be announced). |
| 2 | 2019-05-09 17:33 | seav | We really should not be using "construction" keys or values for things that are not *actually* being constructed. If the bridge will be recreated in the future, then it is a simple matter to just draw a new bridge or undelete the old bridge and then re-tag it as needed. | |
| 69417734 by schadow1 @ 2019-04-21 07:11 | 1 | 2019-04-30 12:46 | DP24PH ♦418 | One-way scheme might be implemented on weekends and holidays as per recent text message from Tagaytay City Public Safety Department - Traffic Unit. |
| 2 | 2019-04-30 13:42 | seav | If this will indeed be implemented, you can use conditional restrictions: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictionsSomething like:oneway:conditional=yes @ (Sa,Su,PH) | |
| 3 | 2019-05-01 01:20 | DP24PH ♦418 | For review: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69754877 | |
| 69214644 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2019-04-14 21:36 | 1 | 2019-04-20 12:11 | ianlopez1115 ♦365 | There's also unverfied splits in the MacArthur Highway from Meycauayan upwards - I'll do what I can to clean them up |
| 2 | 2019-04-22 05:27 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | I think we could leave the splits as is if the northbound/southbound lanes are divided by a painted median (which is legally a barrier), quite similar to the centerline used in Maharlika Highway in San Pedro, but we might need to check existing imagery if the centerline corresponds to a painted medi... | |
| 3 | 2019-04-22 16:21 | seav | It is OSM practice to only split roads if there is a physical barrier, not a legal barrier. | |
| 68968622 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2019-04-07 06:54 | 1 | 2019-04-09 23:58 | DP24PH ♦418 | Unfortunately, it becomes "Bacoor-Dasmarinas National Road" by law under RA 11048. Hopefully, this will help you a lot. |
| 2 | 2019-04-12 04:29 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | I think it's more helpful to leave established local names on the name=* tag as is. For this case, you could have placed the name under that act in the nat_name=* tag instead. | |
| 3 | 2019-04-12 05:35 | seav | Seconding TagaSanPedroAko here. Use the most recognizable "official-sounding" name (no abbreviations like "Rd.") for the name=* tag. For the official name, use nat_name=* or official_name=*.This is the reason why EDSA is currently tagged name=EDSA (and EDSA Extension), not na... | |
| 4 | 2019-04-14 01:41 | DP24PH ♦418 | Now that I understand the nat_name=* and official_name=* tags + the relation for the official/national name, how about the Molino Road (local), Paliparan Road (local), and Molino-Salawag-Paliparan Road (old name), respectively? I'm worried that the foreign nationals may be mistaken for the airp... | |
| 5 | 2019-04-14 03:19 | seav | If there is no `aeroway=aerodrome` tag near there, then why should they be confused by a name such as "Paliparan"? | |
| 6 | 2019-04-14 10:26 | DP24PH ♦418 | Because once they would found out the translation, they need more explanation from the local residents on its supposed 'previously kite-flying airfield' history as stated in the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasmari%C3%B1as#PaliparanIn other words, I would have to do more explana... | |
| 68820151 by mallorca05yanyan @ 2019-04-03 02:46 | 1 | 2019-04-03 08:38 | glglgl ♦274 | Are you sure about this change? Here, you changed the administrative relation of Santa Ana to be one big building, but without a complete outline. Would you mind to check this again? |
| 2 | 2019-04-03 17:06 | seav | I repaired the boundary relation here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/68848604 | |
| 3 | 2019-04-03 18:14 | glglgl ♦274 | Thank you! | |
| 67812772 by seav @ 2019-03-05 16:40 | 1 | 2019-03-06 00:35 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | Hi. I added those roads, I suggest this must be handled by tagging the roads as proposed until actual construction, instead of deleting them. I am requesting this to be reverted, provided they are clearly tagged as proposed. |
| 2 | 2019-03-06 03:22 | seav | The nodes and ways are actually still in the database but marked as visible=no (in the user interface, they are labeled as "deleted" but they are not actually deleted).Once the other construction phases have been started, we can then "undelete" them. The advantage of this is ... | |
| 3 | 2019-03-06 04:34 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | I agree, but I see some problems with the edit, like tagging the flyover section over SLEX and Skyway as a trunk. It is rather an expressway, which we tag as motorway. | |
| 4 | 2019-03-06 04:53 | seav | If you visit the site and what is actually being constructed, it is currently just a flyover (and not a viaduct) over SLEX connecting C-5 and C-5 extension. Since both C-5 and C-5 Extension are currently not motorways, tagging this short flyover as a potential motorway is inaccurate. | |
| 67812837 by seav @ 2019-03-05 16:42 | 1 | 2019-03-06 00:37 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | As the same with the related edit before, this must be better tagged as a proposed rather than deleting them. |
| 2 | 2019-03-06 03:22 | seav | See my reply to the other changeset. | |
| 67730930 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2019-03-03 08:30 | 1 | 2019-03-05 15:40 | seav | AFAIK, only the very northern part of the subway (~3 stations from Mindanao Avenue) is actually *currently* being constructed. So it is incorrect to state that the *whole* line is already under construction. |
| 55323400 by JAT86 @ 2018-01-10 14:17 | 1 | 2019-01-23 05:15 | seav | Hi JAT86,Is there any particular reason why you restored/added the gns_classification=* tag? Unless the node also has the gns_unit=* tag, this tag is useless for data-matching purposes. Also the gns_*=* tags are not documented in the OSM Wiki and were a remnant of place name imports done in the ... |
| 2 | 2019-01-23 05:15 | seav | Correction: should be gns_uni=*, not gns_unit=* | |
| 3 | 2019-01-24 09:21 | JAT86 ♦2 | Hello seav. Back then, I used a single changeset to both add tags like the 2015 population, and delete the gns_classification=* tags. However, I thought I might have removed some useful information, so I restored these tags in the next changeset.Please feel free to remove these gns tags. I will ... | |
| 4 | 2019-01-24 09:26 | JAT86 ♦2 | I might have mistaken using the usefulness of gns_classification=* with admin_level=*. However, can we use admin_level=*. without the boundary=administrative tag?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative | |
| 5 | 2019-01-24 16:12 | seav | It is not an widely established practice, but many mappers use the admin_level=* tag to represent what level of government a particular feature applies to such as government offices and not only for boundaries.Here's an example of a traffic sign that uses admin_level=6:https://www.openstr... | |
| 22501326 by GOwin @ 2014-05-23 09:22 | 1 | 2019-01-23 04:49 | seav | @GOwin, I see that this changeset is over 4 years old, but is there any reason why you deleted node 945582522 which is the place=suburb node for Betis, Guagua? Betis is a significant district of Guagua anchored by Betis Church, a designated National Cultural Treasure. Note that Betis is not a barang... |
| 2 | 2019-01-23 05:55 | GOwin ♦852 | I don't recall doing so. It may have been deleted by accident.Thanks for catching it. Node is restored now. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66558773 | |
| 3 | 2019-01-23 06:20 | seav | Great! Thanks! | |
| 61022688 by Humus015 @ 2018-07-24 12:50 | 1 | 2018-08-11 11:07 | seav | Why are you adding name:it tags to points of interest that do not really have Italian names? |
| 2 | 2018-08-12 02:49 | Humus015 ♦34 | The tag is available to avoid problems to other and i think do not create conflict. Many time can find places to near with name too long and can not display both sides. Actually I look the map mainly with mobile phone while i'm moving. | |
| 61178239 by SpaceExplorer @ 2018-07-30 02:41 | 1 | 2018-08-11 11:03 | seav | The building is already correctly named as "Burgundy Corporate Tower". What you have done is to rename a school inside the building incorrectly. |
| 61538828 by ronendoooo @ 2018-08-10 13:36 | 1 | 2018-08-11 10:53 | seav | Hi! The correct tag for the Aquabest POI that you added is shop=water. |
| 2 | 2018-08-11 11:02 | ronendoooo ♦1 | Noted po. Thanks! | |
| 61145086 by wille @ 2018-07-28 15:20 | 1 | 2018-07-28 15:34 | seav | You removed the building=* tag but you forgot to building:levels=* tag. |
| 2 | 2018-07-29 09:36 | wille ♦523 | thank you for fixing it!! :D | |
| 60112869 by jose golpe @ 2018-06-24 05:33 | 1 | 2018-06-28 15:06 | seav | Hi!Thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!May I confirm what type of businesses you have added? You have marked them as tourism=artwork which is for sculptures, murals, and other pieces of public art, and not for printing services. |
| 60114554 by johnmarty @ 2018-06-24 07:50 | 1 | 2018-06-28 15:04 | seav | Hi!Thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!May I confirm that this edit where you deleted a path is correct? I believe this path is for the pedestrian underpass going under Makati Avenue. Does this underpass no longer exist? |
| 58539453 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2018-04-29 23:11 | 1 | 2018-05-16 05:36 | seav | If the highway is not actually *currently* being constructed (or is still in the proposed state), marking it as highway=construction is not appropriate.Even then, only the sections that are being constructed should be marked as highway=construction and not the whole highway. |
| 2 | 2018-06-19 20:26 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | I'll be redoing this, with the Skyway-C5 section only marked as constructed. The rest will be marked as proposed for now. | |
| 57991152 by GOwin @ 2018-04-11 04:11 | 1 | 2018-04-20 21:28 | seav | OK. This node's position now looks really weird:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/734948145What imagery offset did you use for Bing? |
| 2 | 2018-04-21 09:35 | GOwin ♦852 | I'm using the refreshed Bing imagery here, and the odd angle was due to a segment I missed. It's been fixed. Thanks for the catch. | |
| 57703348 by DP24PH @ 2018-04-01 03:23 | 1 | 2018-04-14 04:46 | GOwin ♦852 | When tagging settlements, kindly use place=village for barangay administrative settlements, following OSM conventions.For gated communities kindly use place=neighbourhood. |
| 2 | 2018-04-14 15:53 | seav | Or if the gated community is "small" enough, landuse=residential is enough. | |
| 3 | 2018-04-15 00:11 | GOwin ♦852 | Thanks for chiming in, @Seav. Well, the downside to landuse=residential is that they don't get indexed by Nominatim, or by Photon.Ideally, we shouldn't use landuse for individual settlements, but to identify all homogenous residential areas instead. | |
| 4 | 2018-04-15 02:16 | seav | I am not sure about Photon but Nominatim does index named landuse=residential areas. Case in point: https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=77697295 | |
| 5 | 2018-04-15 05:56 | DP24PH ♦418 | Wait... I have forgot something to place the required tag, and thank you for your feedback. Will fix it later at DEAR PAUL 24 Base, and now at Metro Manila. | |
| 6 | 2018-04-15 06:04 | GOwin ♦852 | And their address rank is now the same. I don't remember the same behavior from before. Thank you for pointing that out.So now that makes them the same - but different. 😸 How would you differentiate their use now? | |
| 7 | 2018-04-15 07:08 | seav | @GOwin, well I would use place=neighbourhood for places that feel like a neighborhood and not necessarily 100% residential. Like Salcedo Village in Makati. | |
| 8 | 2018-04-16 02:41 | GOwin ♦852 | 🙃 | |
| 56354286 by webwires @ 2018-02-14 14:15 | 1 | 2018-03-01 14:59 | seav | Hi! May I know what these highway=steps are in the Camp Aguinaldo Golf Course? Please take note that highway=steps is meant to be used for stairs and stairways, such as the ones at the ends of pedestrian overpasses. |
| 54730468 by webwires @ 2017-12-18 13:16 | 1 | 2017-12-18 13:30 | seav | This is a pretty messy changeset that messes us routing at the Amorsolo exit of Skyway. |
| 54730098 by webwires @ 2017-12-18 13:01 | 1 | 2017-12-18 13:12 | seav | Is Pasong Tamo really divided in this area? I do not recall that there is a center island for Pasong Tamo starting from Dela Rosa until Pasay Road. |
| 54670576 by webwires @ 2017-12-16 03:17 | 1 | 2017-12-18 12:42 | seav | Sorry, but a pedestrian crossing is not tagged as a highway=pedestrian. |
| 54695074 by webwires @ 2017-12-17 04:07 | 1 | 2017-12-18 12:14 | seav | I will be reverting this changeset because it messed up the boundaries of Quezon City, Pasig, and Mandaluyong. |
| 43997235 by kanaris @ 2016-11-28 04:49 | 1 | 2017-10-06 00:35 | seav | Why did you remove the outer ways of the Luzon island multipolygon in this changeset? |
| 47434124 by Becca Wilson @ 2017-04-04 07:40 | 1 | 2017-08-26 05:39 | seav | This changeset unfortunately deleted the baselines of the Philippines. I will be reverting this deletion. |
| 50169303 by Chito Tuason @ 2017-07-10 08:24 | 1 | 2017-07-31 03:31 | seav | Why did you turn the whole boulevard into a bridge? |
| 2 | 2017-07-31 03:35 | seav | Fixed: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50706727 | |
| 49415684 by JohnSantos16 @ 2017-06-10 08:56 | 1 | 2017-06-10 14:09 | seav | Hi! I had to undo some of the changes in this changeset. For example, the place node for Brgy. Corazon de Jesus was deleted. For another, a node was accidentally dragged and snapped into a road (this is a common mistake in the iD editor). |
| 47283122 by Plutocrat @ 2017-03-30 07:12 | 1 | 2017-03-30 13:47 | seav | Did you combine the two separate parts of Polaris together into 1 way? If yes, then you broke the Bel-Air and Poblacion barangay boundary relations. |
| 2 | 2017-03-31 03:05 | Plutocrat ♦2 | Ah, yes, I did that, trying to fix the original problem (part of Polaris and Orion not showing). The ID editor didn't complain. Thanks for catching it. | |
| 3 | 2017-03-31 03:16 | Plutocrat ♦2 | There were some other issues too. Parts of Polaris were marked as generic road, rather than residential, so I was trying to fix those too by joining them together. | |
| 4 | 2017-03-31 03:43 | seav | 👍 | |
| 41449000 by caspermonte @ 2016-08-14 15:30 | 1 | 2017-03-19 08:05 | seav | Hi! What is this under-construction bridge? Are there any news reports for this? |
| 44703570 by tomgkho @ 2016-12-27 11:11 | 1 | 2017-03-19 07:57 | seav | Hi. Based on my observation, it seems only the left-turn to C-5 is open. Are you sure that the left-turn to Julia Vargas is also open? |
| 39956440 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2016-06-11 16:57 | 1 | 2016-07-06 07:05 | seav | Are you really sure that the ramps at C-5-Bayani got changed? |
| 2 | 2016-07-24 02:17 | seav | I've partially reverted this changeset. The C-5-Bayani interchange was correct before. | |
| 39239113 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2016-05-11 10:57 | 1 | 2016-07-19 04:43 | seav | To which imagery did you realign the objects? Please note that both Bing and Mapbox are misaligned in Alabang. |
| 2 | 2017-01-13 08:51 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | I realigned them using Mapbox Satellite imagery. (Sorry for the late reply) | |
| 39831229 by schadow1 @ 2016-06-06 06:45 | 1 | 2016-07-16 05:42 | seav | Are you sure there's a turn restriction here? I've been able to do this turn a few times already. |
| 2 | 2016-07-17 08:46 | seav | OK. I saw the no-left-turn sign.I do think this is a silly move by the LP traffic people. :/ | |
| 3 | 2016-07-18 04:50 | schadow1 ♦58 | About to reply last weekend regarding this but was not able to get to a computer. Yes the no left turn is silly. My neighbors there are against it. Although it seems the policy is implemented passively and is for PUJs only who wanted to do a short trip. But this only according to hearsay. | |
| 38849388 by Chachi Soriano @ 2016-04-25 07:25 | 1 | 2016-04-27 00:14 | seav | Hi! May I ask what project this is? It is not good to remove data from OpenStreetMap especially if the data is correct.Note that you really shouldn't experiment with OpenStreetMap. |
| 38318363 by Luis36995 @ 2016-04-05 14:10 | 1 | 2016-04-16 04:39 | seav | Hi. Please don't connect roads/bridges and waterways/rivers. This is topologically incorrect. Since you are using JOSM, you should be getting a validation error: "node connects waterway and bridge". |
| 2 | 2016-04-16 08:24 | manings ♦209 | Thanks for fixing @seav. | |
| 3 | 2016-04-18 14:05 | Luis36995 ♦64 | Hello seav! Thanks for your feedback! | |
| 37562313 by borrico @ 2016-03-02 09:29 | 1 | 2016-03-03 14:08 | ianlopez1115 ♦365 | Hi,You can use Mapbox Satellite to trace buildings in this area. Just click edit and wait for iD to load. Once loaded, press "B" or click on the "stack of books", then click on "Mapbox Satellite".If you need further assistance in mapping, feel free to send me a ... |
| 2 | 2016-03-10 07:24 | seav | Also, please do try to provide correct spellings. "Parich" should be "Parish". | |
| 3 | 2017-04-16 02:27 | borrico ♦1 | Hi, I tried to correct spelling of parish. I'm using smartphone to edit. I cannot edit it. How do I correct it? Thanks. | |
| 4 | 2017-04-16 13:24 | ianlopez1115 ♦365 | 1. On your mobile phone browser, go to http://level0.osmz.ru/2. Log in (it won't ask for your password)3. Follow instructions at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Level0If you need more help, don't hesitate to send me a PM | |
| 37380441 by zab05 @ 2016-02-23 02:37 | 1 | 2016-02-24 18:57 | seav | Hi zab05,N. Domingo is already on the map. It seems you just added a duplicate street. May I ask what is the reason for this?~Eugene (seav) |
| 37379896 by zab05 @ 2016-02-23 01:03 | 1 | 2016-02-24 18:55 | seav | Hi zab05,F. Blumentritt is already on the map. It seems you just added a duplicate street. May I ask what is the reason for this?~Eugene (seav) |
| 37379590 by zab05 @ 2016-02-23 00:20 | 1 | 2016-02-24 18:53 | seav | Hi zab05,Hayes is already on the map. It seems you just added a duplicate street. May I ask what is the reason for this?~Eugene (seav) |
| 35150042 by Rally @ 2015-11-07 13:58 | 1 | 2016-01-01 10:10 | TagaSanPedroAko ♦524 | Looking over other roads with the Primary tag, this would be Trunk rather than Primary, as it is the most important road among the other Primary roads (Quirino Avenue/P. Diego Cera Avenue, CAA Road, Marcos Alvarez Avenue, and Investment Drive and Daang Hari). How it can be Primary. Is it due to the ... |
| 2 | 2016-01-02 12:48 | seav | If Alabang-Zapote Road is trunk, then Sucat Road should also be trunk as they are both equal in importance. But 2 trunk roads in southern Metro Manila looks out of place.In addition, I think trunk roads in metropolitan areas should be longer. Alabang-Zapote Road just connects Alabang to Zapote a... | |
| 36171625 by Rally @ 2015-12-26 07:26 | 1 | 2015-12-31 15:00 | seav | What exactly are you testing? |
| 2 | 2015-12-31 16:17 | Rally ♦11 | I'm testing admin level 11 on neighborhood (looks like nobody has never been used this in PH): if search-able, and how will it be described on nominatim (eg. as village, county or just another administrative boundary?); how is it rendered (visible dotted lines)? Or should barangay be admin_leve... | |
| 36082110 by manings @ 2015-12-21 10:23 | 1 | 2015-12-21 16:15 | seav | I was hoping that the municipal waters was modified. Otherwise, we currently have overlapping provincial boundary relations: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1506532 |
| 34714218 by jay-jay_jayson @ 2015-10-18 16:00 | 1 | 2015-11-01 02:05 | ampak ♦1 | Hi, the Surigao - Davao Coastal Road has been classified as a Trunk Road but you changedit recently into a primary road. Could you please enlighten me on the basis of this so that I would also know what to do in my future edits? Thanks! |
| 2 | 2015-11-01 23:11 | seav | Hi ampak. No, this is still a trunk road. The map style has been updated and now trunk roads are colored red-orange. Motorways are now deep red, primary roads are now orange, secondary roads are now yellow, and tertiary roads are now wide white roads. Please see the following OSM blog post for the a... | |
| 3 | 2015-11-01 23:13 | seav | Sorry, yes, it seems that somebody did change the road from trunk to primary. | |
| 34966466 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2015-10-30 08:12 | 1 | 2015-10-31 06:10 | seav | Note: Eurotel still exists. Dream Hotel is a separate entity (a motel) located behind Eurotel. |
| 34790748 by riann @ 2015-10-22 01:57 | 1 | 2015-10-28 16:21 | seav | Hi! Why did you delete several street names? |
| 34479455 by seav @ 2015-10-06 21:26 | 1 | 2015-10-06 21:32 | seav | I have removed the boundary tags from the Philippines treaty lines and Kalayaan claim lines to prevent confusion with the boundary based on the baseline defined by Republic Act No. 9522.Based on the the text of the 3 treaties, the treaty lines were not meant to be actual boundaries but rather a ... |
| 2 | 2015-10-09 14:17 | schadow1 ♦58 | How can we present the Kalayaan Group as mentioned on RA9522? | |
| 3 | 2015-10-09 18:59 | seav | The Kalayaan Island are defined as a "regime of islands" in RA9522. Based on UNCLOS, this means that they automatically get a 12 nautical-mile territorial water, 24 nautical-mile contiguous zone, and a 200 nautical-mile EEZ (but only if the island is capable of sustaining habitation on its... | |
| 4 | 2015-10-10 12:34 | schadow1 ♦58 | So do we use UNCLOS or PD 1956 as suggested by RA9522. If UNCLOS should we draw a 12nm territorial waters around Thitu, etc similar to what is on Scarborough? | |
| 5 | 2015-10-10 21:13 | seav | "Regime of Islands" is from UNCLOS so that is what should be followed[1]. So this is similar to Scarborough Shoal. (However, note that Scarborough Shoal's 12-nm line is wrong. It should only be drawn around the rocks that are above water at high tide, and not around the submerged reef... | |
| 34285022 by Gero @ 2015-09-27 15:04 | 1 | 2015-09-27 19:06 | seav | It seems you placed Carabao Island and Limbones Island in Maragondon, and El Fraile Island in Ternate. But these are part of the Corregidor group and are therefore part of Cavite City. |
| 2 | 2015-09-27 22:32 | Gero ♦4 | There seem to be different opinions.At least this map of the Cavite government (http://www.cavite.gov.ph/home/images/cavite%20maps/legis%20dist.jpg) claims Carabao in District VII, but has no claim for Limbones.The older AMS map (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/philippines/txu-oclc-6539351-nd... | |
| 3 | 2015-09-29 20:44 | seav | I'll try to do some research but I agree that there's conflicting information. (Bataan *did* have jurisdiction over Corregidor at some point in the past.) However, I can't easily do the buffer thing you're doing as well as the equidistant lines. | |
| 33724002 by MNL-GenAv @ 2015-09-01 10:33 | 1 | 2015-09-20 04:28 | seav | Why did you delete the point for Sterling Bank of Asia? I passed by the area yesterday and I still see the bank. |
| 34055123 by lllopez @ 2015-09-16 06:37 | 1 | 2015-09-16 19:51 | seav | Hi! Welcome to OpenStreetMap!It seems that you deleted the point for Starbucks and then added a new point for the same Starbucks. This is not a recommended editing practice. I have deleted the point you added and restored the point you deleted. |
| 34054840 by mr_ampere @ 2015-09-16 06:20 | 1 | 2015-09-16 19:44 | seav | Hi! Welcome to OpenStreetMap!You added a point for Medical City, but the hospital already exists in the map database. Therefore I deleted the point you added. |
| 34054908 by mr_ampere @ 2015-09-16 06:24 | 1 | 2015-09-16 19:42 | seav | Hi! Welcome to OpenStreetMap!You added a parking area based on the name, but you forgot to actually specify that it is a parking area. I have corrected this. |
| 34055410 by mr_ampere @ 2015-09-16 06:53 | 1 | 2015-09-16 19:41 | seav | Hi! Welcome to OpenStreetMap. It seems you accidentally moved the points for Cafe Mediterranean and Daja Cafeteria away from Rockwell Business Center. I have changed this back. |
| 34055053 by mr_ampere @ 2015-09-16 06:33 | 1 | 2015-09-16 19:40 | seav | Hi! Welcome to OpenStreetMap. It seems you accidentally moved the point for Buon Giorno from the building to the road. I have changed this back. |
| 33858877 by caspermonte @ 2015-09-07 15:14 | 1 | 2015-09-07 21:29 | seav | Hi, you added nodes for barangays Talon Tres, Talon SIngko, Almanza Uno, and Pilar. But these are already in the map, so there is now duplication. So, I have deleted what you have added. |
| 2 | 2015-09-07 21:31 | seav | (Also, you placed Talon Singko in the wrong place.) | |
| 33801805 by caspermonte @ 2015-09-04 19:13 | 1 | 2015-09-06 01:13 | seav | Hi, you added several buildings and parking lot roads in McKinley Hill. But these building are already in the map and those parking lot roads do not exist anymore because of the Venice Piazza expansion.I have deleted these things that you have added. |
| 33506585 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2015-08-22 14:42 | 1 | 2015-08-23 01:54 | seav | One of the turn restrictions that was added will end up being a no-left-turn from Daang Hari eastbound to Molino Road northbound. Is this correct? |
| 2 | 2015-08-27 16:41 | seav | I have fixed the turn restriction such that it is now a no-u-turn instead of a no-left-turn: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33625607 | |
| 33508268 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2015-08-22 16:17 | 1 | 2015-08-23 01:51 | seav | SLEX is already marked as int_ref=AH26 (international ref is Asian Highway 26). ref=* should be reserved for the national reference numbers provided by DPWH. |
| 2 | 2015-08-27 16:38 | seav | I have removed "AH26" from the ref=* tag: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33625554 | |
| 33509382 by TagaSanPedroAko @ 2015-08-22 17:02 | 1 | 2015-08-23 01:52 | seav | Is your intention to expand the territory of San Pedro? If so, did you also intend to expand the territory of Muntinlupa? |
| 2 | 2015-08-27 16:34 | seav | I have modified Muntinlupa's boundary to the previous shape: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33625476 | |
| 33565253 by gulamangirl @ 2015-08-25 09:11 | 1 | 2015-08-27 16:08 | seav | Hi, thank you for your contributions. I do have a couple of issues with them, though.1. It seems that you deleted an old building polygon and replaced it with a new building polygon for Regina Building. It would be much better to just modify the existing polygon instead of deleting it as some in... |
| 33576822 by schadow1 @ 2015-08-25 17:00 | 1 | 2015-08-27 15:48 | seav | Gen. Trias is not yet a city. The cityhood still needs to be ratified by the residents through a plebiscite. See Section 51 of RA 10675. |
| 2 | 2015-08-27 16:37 | schadow1 ♦58 | Plebiscite is just formality. They would more likely vote for it even if I myself would vote against it. But you are correct, it is not yet a city as of this point. | |
| 33045167 by VMPanes @ 2015-08-02 09:50 | 1 | 2015-08-02 17:50 | seav | Why did you delete the buildings? Unless these buildings don't actually exist, they should still be on the map even if they don't have names. |
| 29637953 by malenki @ 2015-03-21 16:38 | 1 | 2015-03-25 05:34 | ianlopez1115 ♦365 | As far as I know, "Banco de Oro" ought to be renamed as BDO, since they are branded as such (see https://www.bdo.com.ph/about-bdo/business-operation ). I'll be dealing with that in a mechanical edit in the near future. |
| 2 | 2015-03-25 19:14 | malenki ♦254 | You are quite welcome to do so. Initially I only wanted to remove the Garmin tags but since there were banks named BDO, BDo, Bdo, Banka de Oro, Banca de oro etc I had a go at this names, too. | |
| 3 | 2015-03-28 01:04 | seav | I second the motion of standardizing on "BDO". We can use official_name="Banco de Oro" for the longer name. | |
| 26859930 by Khym @ 2014-11-18 08:36 | 1 | 2014-11-18 22:32 | seav | Hi Khym,Instead of deleting the point, why don't you include the point into the way you are creating? Just move the point to one of the corners then draw the rectangle with the point as one of the corners. Then transfer the tags from the point to the rectangle afterwards. |
| 2 | 2014-11-20 00:32 | Khym ♦2 | Hi Eugene,Thanks for the suggestion.Do I need to delete the tags of the original node after I transfer the tags to the new polygon? | |
| 3 | 2014-11-20 23:34 | seav | Yes, please delete the tags. :) | |
| 4 | 2014-11-21 01:22 | Khym ♦2 | Thanks.There are instances that there are both polygons and nodes on a particular feature. But these polygons do not have the tags the points have. What do we need to do? Copy the tags from the point to the polygon and delete the point after? Or delete the polygon and draw a new one using the poin... | |
| 5 | 2014-11-22 06:15 | seav | In that case (there is both a point and a polygon already existing), just copy the missing tags to the polygon if there are any and then delete the point.But, personally, I would merge the node into one of the nodes of the polygon so that the creator of the node is still credited in the existing... | |
| 26858714 by ivet @ 2014-11-18 06:51 | 1 | 2014-11-18 22:58 | seav | Hi ivet,Instead of deleting the point, why don't you include the point into the way you are creating? Just move the point to one of the corners then draw the rectangle with the point as one of the corners. Then transfer the tags from the point to the rectangle afterwards. |
| 26859253 by aileen_aviera @ 2014-11-18 07:45 | 1 | 2014-11-18 22:43 | seav | Hi Aileen,Instead of deleting the point, why don't you include the point into the way you are creating? Just move the point to one of the corners then draw the rectangle with the point as one of the corners. Then transfer the tags from the point to the rectangle afterwards. |
| 26453147 by maning @ 2014-10-31 02:54 | 1 | 2014-11-02 13:41 | seav | Great job! (test comment) |