<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Thanks for inviting the attention of the talk-ph mailing list to my comment[0] on this subject, Timmy.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Speaking of which, and with regard to the recommendation on how to use "designation", we may want to consider the use of "admin_type:PH" (along with admin_level) namespace instead, similar to how the OSM-FR community is doing with their admin_type:FR [1]. For consistency, it may seem that this is a more proper tag to organize this information under.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">With regard to Quiabaton, I personally tend to think that it's a sitio rather than a purok. From the imagery, the settlement doesn't appear big enough to be organized into zoned clusters but local information should help clarify this.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"> Regardless, and as documented in the convention pages, it's correct to tag the name of the place as simply "Quiabaton", and think that the use of loc_name "Sitio Quibaton" is unnecessary. (Right now, loc_name isn't even considered by nominatim or photon in searches.)<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"></div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">[0]: <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Philippines/Mapping_conventions#admin_level.3D12_for_Puroks_.3F">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Philippines/Mapping_conventions#admin_level.3D12_for_Puroks_.3F</a></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">[1]: <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/admin_type%3AFR#values">https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/admin_type%3AFR#values</a></div><br></div><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif" color="#999999">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </font><div><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><font color="#999999">»</font><font color="#ff6633"> </font>email:<font color="#000000"> <a href="mailto:erwin@ngnuity.net" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" target="_blank">erwin@</a></font><a href="http://ngnuity.xyz/" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" target="_blank"><font color="#ff9900"><b>n</b></font><font color="#0066cc"><b>gnu</b></font><b><font color="#9900ff">it</font></b><font color="#ff9900"><b>y</b></font><font color="#000000"><b>.<font color="#ff9900">xyz</font></b></font></a><font color="#000000"> </font><span style="color:rgb(255,102,51)"></span><font color="#000000"></font></font><div><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><font color="#999999">»</font><font color="#ff6633"> </font>mobile: <a href="https://t.me/GOwin" target="_blank">https://t.me/GOwin</a></font></div><div><div><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><font><font color="#999999">»</font><font color="#000000"> </font></font>OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B <span style="color:rgb(255,102,51)">|</span> 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B</font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 6:45 PM Timeo Gut <<a href="mailto:timeo.gut@hotmail.com">timeo.gut@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Hello everyone,<br>
<br>
Erwin has raised some interesting points on the mapping conventions
talk page. I'm moving this here hoping that more people can read and
comment.
<div><br>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>I've always thought that, in our hierarchy of local
places, puroks are never found in sitios. While working
on OSMaPaaralan, I encountered school 109360, and
according to the <a href="https://ebeis.deped.gov.ph/beis/reports_info/masterlist" target="_blank">DepEd
school database</a>, their address is listed as "Purok
Casunugan, Sitio San Ysiro" within Barangay San Jose of
Antipolo City. <br>
<br>
According to our current convention page, Purok and
Sitio nodes are lumped together under admin_level=11,
but in this case, and if used that way, this
hierarchical order will be incorrect. I found several
other Puroks (Canumay, Libis) under Sitio San Ysiro. <br>
<br>
Perhaps it would be better to dis-aggregate a Purok as
admin_level=12 (place=* + designation=purok +
admin_level=12), and keep admin_level=11 for Sitios
exclusively? Strictly speaking, these are not
administrative entities, but Purok and Sitio leaders are
usually designated by the Barangay chairperson, so
there's some sort of "administrative" relationship to
these settlements.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I've been bothered by this for quite some time too. The root
of the confusion seems to be that most Sitios are actually
Puroks while in other cases the term is used in names
referring to larger geographical areas that have experienced
further sudivision due to population growth.<br>
<br>
The concept of Sitios is much older than the Purok system.
With the introduction of the latter many Sitios where simply
declared Puroks (often while also being assigned a number).
In these cases the two terms are basically interchangeable.
It is very common that colloquially (and also on signs and
for addressing) everyone is still using Sitio while in
official documents the same places are listed as Puroks
(e.g. <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6396309956" target="_blank">Sitio
Quiabaton / Purok 6 Quiabaton</a>). With the old place:PH
tag it was unclear which value to use in this kind of
situation, but considering the definition of the designation
tag they should clearly be tagged as =purok. <br>
<br>
For Sitios that are of purely historical or geographical
nature I think we should consider dropping admin_level and
designation altogether. These Sitios really do not fit the
definition of either of these tags. The loc_name tag should
be sufficient to record the prefix.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Timmy<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk-ph mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-ph@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-ph@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph</a><br>
</blockquote></div>