On certain data consumers, such as Organic Maps, this relation ends up as more than a dozen mislabeled Cainta Municipal Halls.

Surely it would be better if this was simply a closed way containing the entire compound, similar to, say, the Cavite Civic Center?

Reverted. Please see my recent edit at changeset #158118139, which fixes the surrounding relation’s incorrect information tags and distinguishes it from a nearby branch of the same hotel chain.

osm.org/changeset/158118139

Changeset 500! 🎉

To note, this is largely continuous with District 2 of the Bacoor City Council, with some exceptions.

Formerly "Bacoor East", D2 comprises Molino I-VII, and QR W/C/E, but also includes Mambog I-IV. (Mambog V was merged into II in the merger plebiscite.) My classmate from Mambog wouldn't consider himself as from Molino, unless he lived at the edge of the brgy boundary (Princeton Heights subd along Blvd).

Residents of eastern SN3 (Green Valley and neighboring subds) also put "Molino" in their addresses, but their City Councilors come from District 1.

Why is SHIV tagged "suburb" and not "neighbourhood"? This subdivision comprises a part of (although to be more precise, most parts of) barangay Molino 6, which is tagged as a "quarter" (defined on the wiki as smaller than a suburb).

It's especially awkward that Carto and OpenMapTiles render this subd's name more so than the barangay it's under :/

Hierarchy should be:
City > Suburb > Quarter > Nh;
Bacoor > Molino > Molino VI > SH4

Perhaps should be labeled "NBP Compound" instead? And be not necessarily tagged as "prison" itself since that conflicts with way:353324341 for NBP itself (osm.org/way/353324341/history#map=16/14.3806/121.0201)?

Note to self: No receipt given. Also seemingly the *only* business renting in this building..?

The overall business district in which Westgate (this sector of that CBD development) is in. It's part of the address, after Westgate and before the local government district / "barangay" (Alabang).

slr but yeah, I realized. I was thinking of `was:` rather than `historic:` for what I was using it for.

Although I have discovered a wiki article osm.wiki/Order_of_key_parts that implies you could put a date at the end of a key.