OSM changeset discussions of seav

Changeset	#	Tmstmp UTC	Contributor	Comment
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...
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".
124947971 by seav @ 2022-08-15 23:04	1	2022-08-15 23:05	seav	Changeset comment correction: 5 barangays instead of 4
85760635 by seav @ 2020-05-26 09:40	1	2020-05-26 11:34	Joey Samson Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	2	2022-08-07 10:01	lonvia ♦37	You have added a boundary=administrative with admin_level=2.5 here. This is an illegal value for admin_level and potentially breaks data for users. From what I read from the Wikipedia page, Mindanao isn't an administrative entity at all but just a group of islands. So my recommendation would be...
111100734 by seav @ 2021-09-12 15:16	1	2021-12-07 20:04	Fred73000 ♦223	Hi, I don't know if you remember me : we talked a few month ago about the roles boundary/outer. So I would like to thank you a lot for your changes from the role boundary to the role outer. Another thing you could improve : you are the only one using the role 'seat' instead of &...
110946328 by seav @ 2021-09-09 04:15	1	2021-09-14 02:41	DP24PH ♦418	NOTE from DP24: Dagupan City is an independent component city wherein the provincial boundary of Pangasinan does not include the said city. Likewise, it only proved by its own legislative district representation.
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 done https://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#roles The 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.
87618084 by seav @ 2020-07-06 20:17	1	2021-04-04 15:59	Dolf Andringa ♦5	I disagree with the classification as "trunk". According to the guidelines for the philippines a trunk road is a high speed limited access road. No direct property access and limitations to the types of vehicles allowed. This most certainly does not fit the negros sougt road which has only...
	2	2021-04-05 01:53	DP24PH ♦418	Upon review, though it is not an expressway-like highway, Bayawan City has a population of greater than 100k, hence it is categorized as a trunk, regardless of the highway classification. In that case wherein available and connected bypass/diversion roadways (bypassing the downtown area) should be o...
87203219 by seav @ 2020-06-26 15:58	1	2021-04-04 16:08	Dolf Andringa ♦5	I disagree with the classification as "trunk". According to the guidelines for the philippines a trunk road is a high speed limited access road. No direct property access and limitations to the types of vehicles allowed. This most certainly does not fit the negros sougt road which has only...
	2	2021-04-04 18:20	Timmy_Tesseract ♦150	Hello Dolf. You might have missed the second part of the trunk definition: "Continuous stretch of highway between large cities (population 100,000+)" ;)
16386415 by seav @ 2013-06-02 05:16	1	2021-02-11 06:56	ruthikdhoni ♦11	Hi seva I hope you're doing good please refer this way 224057399 I think it should be residential the road is wide enough
98411809 by seav @ 2021-01-30 12:13	1	2021-01-30 12:22	seav	See discussion on Skyscrapercity. QBEx's status is still unclear https://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"
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".
88285890 by seav @ 2020-07-21 09:06	1	2020-07-24 09:25	mueschel ♦6,560	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 ♦6,560	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:capital In 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 ♦6,560	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_conventions The 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.
85814065 by seav @ 2020-05-27 07:30	1	2020-05-29 19:51	TagaSanPedroAko ♦524	I'm all leery with tagging every non-trunk route linking every town, no matter how small, into primary, but considering San Gabriel proper is a small town after all, secondary should be kept. That might be worth another discussion on where to draw the line between primary and secondary because ...
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...
80865037 by seav @ 2020-02-11 18:21	1	2020-02-11 18:43	seav	Changset comment correction: "3rd District" should be "4th District"
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.
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.
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.
51663182 by seav @ 2017-09-02 08:13	1	2017-09-03 09:52	GerdP ♦2,751	Hi! Please review https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/520747393 It has the same name as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4086661 and highway=unclassified_link should be just unclassified
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...