Given that both variants are documented as equal I prefer the full url because it is better supported by some OSM applications.

For example on the OSM main website and also in GoMap!! urls in contact:facebook are direct links while there is no such integration for the shorter usernames.

In this and other changesets you've added the tag motor_vehicle=yes on a large number of gates.

In mapillary image from 2021 it is clearly visible that those gates are closed to traffic. Did you conduct a more recent survey where you found out that this is no longer the case?

Also, the current combination of access=no + motor_vehicle=yes means that cars/motorcycles are allowed to use these gates but pedestrians/bicycles are not. This seems quite unlikely. If the gates are really open now it would be better to modify the access=* tag than to additionally add motor_vehicle=*.

Good day Оксана1818, why did you remove the designation tag on this road?

Also please always mention which sources you use to make your edits (ground survey, local knowledge, imagery, database x, etc.) and please use better changeset comments (See: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments).

This part of the provincial boundary was very likely traced by hand purely based on guesswork (see history version 1 from 2014). It would be great if you could improve the alignment to be more accurate.

By the way, are you using any sources other than existing openstreetmap data when adding municipal boundaries? If yes please always mention them in your changesets.

In this case it seems that the actual boundary of Pigcawayan is somewhere in between the currently mapped provincial boundary and the municipal boundary you added. Have a look at the area around Panatan which is part of Sultan Kudarat municipality.

Boundaries of Barira will need to be revised too, there's currently a big overlap with Pigcawayan.

Thanks for your efforts!

I think it's better to use established tags over inventing a new one whenever possible.

Two different address components indicating a place smaller than a barangay are very commonly found in addresses here. Examples are subdivison + purok, sitio + purok etc.

For the specific example in this changeset a possible approach would be to move "Alabang" to addr:barangay (just as we're using addr:city for all municipalities/cities independently from their place tag in OSM).

Then addr:quarter can be used for "Filinvest City". This way the order of the address components is clear for data consumers (neighbourhood before quarter). A newly invented tag like addr:estate most likely would just be ignored by data consumers and even if they consider it, they'd have no idea in which part of the address it belongs.

Besides the fact that semicolon-separated values are well-established, using this tagging also improves likelihood of redundant wikidata elements being reviewed and fixed.

Some wikidata enthusiasts might regularly check all unusual wikidata tags in their area of interest but they wouldn't watch out for a undocumented wikidata:1 tag.

Btw in this specific case, wikidata entries have already been merged (thanks to seav) and wikidata tag in OSM is now updated too.

Good morning.

Due to urban place tag hierarchy (neighbourhood < quarter < suburb) place=quarter only seems to be suitable for very small barangays where puroks are the only level of named subdivisions.

In large barangays like those affected by this changeset place=quarter is already needed for puroks that encompass one or several smaller place=neighbourhood or by non-administrative named areas that encompass several puroks.

Some examples of this three level hierarchy are Capitol Homes in Purok Uraya in Brgy. Mankilam or Esmeralda Homes in Purok Malinawon in Brgy. La Filipina.

Hey,

For the Candaba poblacion barangays place=suburb seems fitting.

But others (e.g. Pangclara) are clearly distinct settlements which seem to better fit OSM definition of place=village.

Good day Grandasse. This is Madrid in Surigao del Sur, Philippines. Not the capital city of Spain.

Hello, while Bulacan is the correct spelling for the province, the municipality is officially named Bulakan. I've reverted the spelling change and also restored the deleted wikidata tag.

Selamat pagi. I made the upgrade to trunk because the final section of Jalan Pulau Balang is now under construction. But giving this some further thoughts I agree that it's probably better to keep the existing roads as primary until full connectivity is provided.

Thank you too for your improvements around this airport. I noticed that in changeset 122739840 you accidentally added an aeroway=aerodrome duplicate (way 1072541131). Is this the terminal building?

Good day mueschel, thanks for catching this!

Good day Kadubei,

In this changeset you added spanish translations for many name tags. Please only do this if these name variants are in actual local usage (which is not the case here).

For more details see: osm.wiki/Names#Language-specific_names

Hey Julien, sorry for this. Seems like Go Map!! kept some unsaved edits from several weeks prior. Will be more careful about this in the future.

Good day CristinaSabau. Please review the wiki guidelines for highway=living_street. This classification is only intended for sreets wide enough to accomodate motorcars which is not the case here. Also there are specific conventions per country for when to use this classification, in the Philippines usage of this tag is not recommended due to lack of legal definition.

Good day MihaiBenta,

The tag motorcar=* (like all other access tags) should only be used to indicate legal access restrictions. If a street is too narrow for motorcars please use highway=path instead.

Good day. Is it possible that you had a building filter activated when making the edits in this changeset?

Ways 1085052876 and 1085052873 both were previously connected to a building=roof and were correctly tagged as covered=yes.

Hi Schadow, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

(1) It seems that there's a global consensus that access on barriers is the bare minimum, with access on all affected ways being preferable. There are some cases where only the latter will allow for correct routing (for example private subdivisions with several gates).

(2) Some maps choose to display access restrictions on ways, some choose not to. It can be very useful to visually identify private roads on a map without having to do a routing test.

(3) I think the main criteria for private access is a closed gate not open to the general public. Security guards or no trespassing signs are only optional.

(4) I'm not familiar with any other router that equals access=private to access=no. Usually it is interpreted equal to access=destination. Anyone travelling to a private destination either already has permission to enter (e.g. owner, employee) or receives it upon arrival (e.g. visitor, delivery).

I Cavite alone there are more than 6000 residential ways (~12% of all residential roads) tagged as access=private. It would be very limiting not to include these in routing.

(5) If the guard or homeowner needs to allow/approve access then permissive is not the right tag. Permissive in OSM means that a road is open to the general public but in the future the owner could decide to put up a gate and change it to private.

Good day Schadow,

No sticker no entry policy means that anyone entering this subdivison requires individual permission from the guard. This corresponds to access=private in OSM.

Access=permissive would only be applicable if the gate is open at all times and no verification is needed to enter.