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

[Ervin Malicdem]

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

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

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


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

> The value is that we align better to the global tagging scheme with
> respect to human settlements. And there is a great variability in barangays
> that shoehorning them all into just place=village no longer makes sense.
> For example, Barangay 12 in Pasay is essentially just a small city block
> while Barangay 176 in Caloocan has a population of almost 250,000 making it
> more populous than majority of all PH cities. Both do not seem to be
> "villages" in the global OSM sense to me.
>
> Also, back when we decided to tag barangays as place=village, tags like
> place=quarter or place=suburb didn't exist yet.
>
> Finally, we can still mark these place nodes as barangays by adding the
> designation=barangay tag if you want to query for them.
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 3:22 PM maning sambale, 
> wrote:
>
>> Pardon for my confusion, but I don's see the value of splitting
>> barangays to village and quarter in the context of the Philippines.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:19 PM Jherome Miguel 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I also thought of using the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)
>> subclassifications of barangays to determine which gets quarter or village,
>> as being inside a city boundary doesn't make every barangay urban.
>> >
>> > * urban barangay - quarter
>> > * rural barangay - village
>> >
>> > We may also consider having a tag to handle the PSA subclassification.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:03 PM Jherome Miguel 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Eugene suggested to tag barangays in cities as place=quarter when
>> applicable. We already agree to tag remote or rural sitios/puroks as
>> place=hamlet, and we haven't agreed on how to deal with urban barangays.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:56 PM maning sambale <
>> emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> From the wiki:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aplace%3Dquarter
>> >>> "This does not have to be an administrative entity. "
>> >>>
>> >>> We agreed in the past that barangay is synonymous to place=village.
>> >>> Were there any changes with this view?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:57 AM Jherome Miguel <
>> jheromemig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I am already seeing retagging of barangays in urban areas (e.g.
>> Metro Manila) from place=village to place=quarter. Our present guidelines
>> for tagging local government unit (LGU) says barangays always get tagged as
>> village regardless if it's in an urban or rural area, but the
>> recommendation to tag urban barangays to quarter hasn't been documented yet
>> nor discussed (though I agree with it as they better reflect the situation
>> in urban areas and the general tagging recommendations).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Our current guidelines on mapping sitios/puroks is to tag them as
>> place=neighbourhood, even if it's on a rural or isolated area. I tag them
>> as place=hamlet instead, as they better reflect how they are in reality
>> (those are usually clusters of homes with populations of ~100-200, though
>> those are just approximates as they are not covered in censuses) and best
>> follows general tagging recommendations. I'm also considering having this
>> scheme for sitios/puroks depending on their location:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > * Urban - place=neighbourhood
>> >>> > * Rural - place=hamlet
>> >>> > ___
>> >>> > talk-ph mailing list
>> >>> > talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>> >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> cheers,
>> >>> maning
>> >>> --
>> >>> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
>> >>> https://github.com/maning
>> >>> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
>> >>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> cheers,
>> maning
>> --
>> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
>> https://github.com/maning
>> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
>> --
>>
>> ___
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> 

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

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

The value is that we align better to the global tagging scheme with respect
to human settlements. And there is a great variability in barangays that
shoehorning them all into just place=village no longer makes sense. For
example, Barangay 12 in Pasay is essentially just a small city block while
Barangay 176 in Caloocan has a population of almost 250,000 making it more
populous than majority of all PH cities. Both do not seem to be "villages"
in the global OSM sense to me.

Also, back when we decided to tag barangays as place=village, tags like
place=quarter or place=suburb didn't exist yet.

Finally, we can still mark these place nodes as barangays by adding the
designation=barangay tag if you want to query for them.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 3:22 PM maning sambale, 
wrote:

> Pardon for my confusion, but I don's see the value of splitting
> barangays to village and quarter in the context of the Philippines.
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:19 PM Jherome Miguel 
> wrote:
> >
> > I also thought of using the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)
> subclassifications of barangays to determine which gets quarter or village,
> as being inside a city boundary doesn't make every barangay urban.
> >
> > * urban barangay - quarter
> > * rural barangay - village
> >
> > We may also consider having a tag to handle the PSA subclassification.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:03 PM Jherome Miguel 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Eugene suggested to tag barangays in cities as place=quarter when
> applicable. We already agree to tag remote or rural sitios/puroks as
> place=hamlet, and we haven't agreed on how to deal with urban barangays.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:56 PM maning sambale <
> emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From the wiki:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aplace%3Dquarter
> >>> "This does not have to be an administrative entity. "
> >>>
> >>> We agreed in the past that barangay is synonymous to place=village.
> >>> Were there any changes with this view?
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:57 AM Jherome Miguel <
> jheromemig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > I am already seeing retagging of barangays in urban areas (e.g.
> Metro Manila) from place=village to place=quarter. Our present guidelines
> for tagging local government unit (LGU) says barangays always get tagged as
> village regardless if it's in an urban or rural area, but the
> recommendation to tag urban barangays to quarter hasn't been documented yet
> nor discussed (though I agree with it as they better reflect the situation
> in urban areas and the general tagging recommendations).
> >>> >
> >>> > Our current guidelines on mapping sitios/puroks is to tag them as
> place=neighbourhood, even if it's on a rural or isolated area. I tag them
> as place=hamlet instead, as they better reflect how they are in reality
> (those are usually clusters of homes with populations of ~100-200, though
> those are just approximates as they are not covered in censuses) and best
> follows general tagging recommendations. I'm also considering having this
> scheme for sitios/puroks depending on their location:
> >>> >
> >>> > * Urban - place=neighbourhood
> >>> > * Rural - place=hamlet
> >>> > ___
> >>> > talk-ph mailing list
> >>> > talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> cheers,
> >>> maning
> >>> --
> >>> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> >>> https://github.com/maning
> >>> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
> >>> --
>
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> maning
> --
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> https://github.com/maning
> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
> --
>
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

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

[maning sambale]

Pardon for my confusion, but I don's see the value of splitting
barangays to village and quarter in the context of the Philippines.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:19 PM Jherome Miguel  wrote:
>
> I also thought of using the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) 
> subclassifications of barangays to determine which gets quarter or village, 
> as being inside a city boundary doesn't make every barangay urban.
>
> * urban barangay - quarter
> * rural barangay - village
>
> We may also consider having a tag to handle the PSA subclassification.
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:03 PM Jherome Miguel  
> wrote:
>>
>> Eugene suggested to tag barangays in cities as place=quarter when 
>> applicable. We already agree to tag remote or rural sitios/puroks as 
>> place=hamlet, and we haven't agreed on how to deal with urban barangays.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:56 PM maning sambale  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aplace%3Dquarter
>>> "This does not have to be an administrative entity. "
>>>
>>> We agreed in the past that barangay is synonymous to place=village.
>>> Were there any changes with this view?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:57 AM Jherome Miguel  
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I am already seeing retagging of barangays in urban areas (e.g. Metro 
>>> > Manila) from place=village to place=quarter. Our present guidelines for 
>>> > tagging local government unit (LGU) says barangays always get tagged as 
>>> > village regardless if it's in an urban or rural area, but the 
>>> > recommendation to tag urban barangays to quarter hasn't been documented 
>>> > yet nor discussed (though I agree with it as they better reflect the 
>>> > situation in urban areas and the general tagging recommendations).
>>> >
>>> > Our current guidelines on mapping sitios/puroks is to tag them as 
>>> > place=neighbourhood, even if it's on a rural or isolated area. I tag them 
>>> > as place=hamlet instead, as they better reflect how they are in reality 
>>> > (those are usually clusters of homes with populations of ~100-200, though 
>>> > those are just approximates as they are not covered in censuses) and best 
>>> > follows general tagging recommendations. I'm also considering having this 
>>> > scheme for sitios/puroks depending on their location:
>>> >
>>> > * Urban - place=neighbourhood
>>> > * Rural - place=hamlet
>>> > ___
>>> > talk-ph mailing list
>>> > talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> cheers,
>>> maning
>>> --
>>> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
>>> https://github.com/maning
>>> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
>>> --



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://github.com/maning
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

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

[maning sambale]

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 am already seeing retagging of barangays in urban areas (e.g. Metro Manila) 
> from place=village to place=quarter. Our present guidelines for tagging local 
> government unit (LGU) says barangays always get tagged as village regardless 
> if it's in an urban or rural area, but the recommendation to tag urban 
> barangays to quarter hasn't been documented yet nor discussed (though I agree 
> with it as they better reflect the situation in urban areas and the general 
> tagging recommendations).
>
> Our current guidelines on mapping sitios/puroks is to tag them as 
> place=neighbourhood, even if it's on a rural or isolated area. I tag them as 
> place=hamlet instead, as they better reflect how they are in reality (those 
> are usually clusters of homes with populations of ~100-200, though those are 
> just approximates as they are not covered in censuses) and best follows 
> general tagging recommendations. I'm also considering having this scheme for 
> sitios/puroks depending on their location:
>
> * Urban - place=neighbourhood
> * Rural - place=hamlet
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
https://github.com/maning
http://twitter.com/maningsambale
--

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

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

[Erwin Olario]

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 place=neighbourhoods, as with sitios (without
"Sitio", following the current barangay tagging convention) unless they are
remote , which would then be place=hamlet

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
» email: erwin@ *n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
 | gov...@gmail.com
» mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
» OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:57 AM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> I am already seeing retagging of barangays in urban areas (e.g. Metro
> Manila) from place=village to place=quarter. Our present guidelines for
> tagging local government unit (LGU) says barangays always get tagged as
> village regardless if it's in an urban or rural area, but the
> recommendation to tag urban barangays to quarter hasn't been documented yet
> nor discussed (though I agree with it as they better reflect the situation
> in urban areas and the general tagging recommendations).
>
> Our current guidelines on mapping sitios/puroks is to tag them as
> place=neighbourhood, even if it's on a rural or isolated area. I tag them
> as place=hamlet instead, as they better reflect how they are in reality
> (those are usually clusters of homes with populations of ~100-200, though
> those are just approximates as they are not covered in censuses) and best
> follows general tagging recommendations. I'm also considering having this
> scheme for sitios/puroks depending on their location:
>
> * Urban - place=neighbourhood
> * Rural - place=hamlet
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

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

[Jherome Miguel]

I am already seeing retagging of barangays in urban areas (e.g. Metro
Manila) from place=village to place=quarter. Our present guidelines for
tagging local government unit (LGU) says barangays always get tagged as
village regardless if it's in an urban or rural area, but the
recommendation to tag urban barangays to quarter hasn't been documented yet
nor discussed (though I agree with it as they better reflect the situation
in urban areas and the general tagging recommendations).

Our current guidelines on mapping sitios/puroks is to tag them as
place=neighbourhood, even if it's on a rural or isolated area. I tag them
as place=hamlet instead, as they better reflect how they are in reality
(those are usually clusters of homes with populations of ~100-200, though
those are just approximates as they are not covered in censuses) and best
follows general tagging recommendations. I'm also considering having this
scheme for sitios/puroks depending on their location:

* Urban - place=neighbourhood
* Rural - place=hamlet
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph