See my comment on the git.

(PS: Why British spellings? Mukhang trying hard, pero saan ka natuto non?)

Checked this on Mapillary, but there's no separate unloading zone.

Fine to me, but I'm all wondering about why you're using British spellings/word choices on some changeset comments and edited features.

Hmm, I don't think you add the "Interchange" suffix on some stop/terminal where you can transfer to another mode of transportation, unless they're posted. I think you rename the Robinsons Place Dasmariñas terminal as "Palapala Terminal" (ad they're called on route names on UV Express and PUJs). I've removed the "Interchange" suffix on most stops you've edited.

No problem with mapping sidewalks as separate, especially if it's a trunk or if there's a fence or barrier to deter jaywalking, but I don't think you tag no-jaywalking with foot=no unless posted :-).

Comment should be: "[Manila/Camanava area//Meycauayan, Bulacan] #BuildBuildBuild clean up for Tutuban Station, updates on Manila-Clark Railway and NLEX-SLEX Connector Road since end of Luzon-wide ECQ"

Go for that, especially after the ECQ :-).

Isn't the UBE PITX Route active now? Looked at the official UBE Express website, but can't find that route.

I used also to use PH:living_street for the implied 20 kph speed limit, but I moved toward marking implied speeds of 20-40 kph with source:maxspeed=PH:urban.

No problem with keeping the PH:urban tags on those with 20 kph. IMO, PH:residential would be too narrow. Ingat!

Wala akong nakitang karatula na pinapakita kung lampas ka sa speed limit ng 60. May nakita ka bang karatula bago pa magka-ECQ?

I tagged the source of the speed limits, but as with what I've observed, most of the speeds you've added they're rather the same as those in RA 4136.

Also, don't forget to add source:maxspeed just to inform mappers of where you've got the speed limits.

Is there a waiting shed (shelter) or a "Loading and Unloading Zone" sign in front of Sutherland? I checked Mapillary, but what I only found is a shed in front of Puregold. I think the Carmona LGU will unlikely mark a PUV loading/unloading area too close to one already designated.

I've tried to fix the P2P routes you've mentioned here but I didn't saw immediately this edit. I've renamed all the UBE Express routes on my edit, and fixed the airport shuttle service (is rather run by MIAA, as what I saw last July, and must be mapped to both serve arrivals and departures).

I agree I could move the other P2P routes I've mapped to use the arrivals bus terminal instead, given T3 has an open indoor landside unlike the other NAIA terminals.

It's not provided in the source, but I can assume the route stops at the departures of all NAIA terminals. I can remember seeing a P2P at NAIA T3, but I don't know fully if incoming services use the upper level for unloading and departing buses the lower level for loading (as with all other terminals, given they don't have a freely accessible indoor landside).

Fine to me, since the new jeepneys are somewhat close to a minibus. So, some possible PUV route tagging conventions (not yet final) are:

- Bus: route=bus. ref tag with prefix dependent on service type, P(provincial)/C(city)/P2P(P2P/express bus)-[abbreviation of route name], otherwise use posted ones or simple form of route name if route name is not in the usual format). Can add departure time (in 24-hour/military clock format) for once-daily services.
- Modern PUJ: route=bus, share_taxi=yes, ref tag with L prefix (LE if express, such as those using the expressways), otherwise use posted reference or simple form of name (if route name is not in the usual format, such as on loop routes).
- Traditional PUJ: route=share_taxi, ref tag with J prefix (JE if express, such as those using the expressways), otherwise use posted reference or simple form of name (if route name is not in the usual format, such as on loop routes).
- UV Express: route=share_taxi, ref tag with UV prefix.
- Multicab/Filcab services: no standardized scheme yet (I'm seeing some of such routes tagged as express routes, with E prefix on ref tag, ex. CATRASCO PITX-GenTri via Centennial Road, and Baclaran/PITX-MOA).
- Route names normally follow those painted on the sides of the vehicle, and is formatted as "Point A-Point B" (can add "via points C" if marked). Operator name (can be abbreviated) and/or vehicle/service type (optional or necessary, especially to avoid confusion) is placed before the route name, separated by colon. If operator name (company, co-op or driver's association) is not known or route is run by too many operators, just use the service type for name prefix. If there is a signed reference, use service type/network name and reference (ex. Jeepney 09-M, Green Frog Route 001) as name prefix.

Stay home, stay safe, and happy mapping. Ingat!

I do hear about the opening of SRITT at around August/September 2019, but based on what I heard about the terminal's dry run, I can say it's nearly non-operational due to the bus companies' reluctance to move their terminals from along EDSA. I haven't been to SM Santa Rosa on my last trip from June to July, but if you've been there pre-ECQ, have you seen any buses there? That can help if I'll consider moving the Santa Rosa-Market Market/BGC route to Balibago provided the present situation before and after ECQ.

I see, but I still prefer tagging "traditional" jeepney routes with route=bus plus the optional share taxi tag.

I think we can keep the route=bus tag for modern PUJ routes, and prefix the "traditional" services with J (and express routes with JE).

Considering the unknown status of the route=share_taxi tag, and lack of renderer support for it, I think the route=bus+share_taxi=yes tagging for PUJs should remain, and that's also what we're using for modern PUJ routes.