[talk-ph] Sitios and Puroks

[Timeo Gut]

Hello everyone,

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.


    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 DepEd school
    database <https://ebeis.deped.gov.ph/beis/reports_info/masterlist>,
    their address is listed as "Purok Casunugan, Sitio San Ysiro" within
    Barangay San Jose of Antipolo City.

    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.

    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.



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.

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. Sitio 
Quiabaton / Purok 6 Quiabaton 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6396309956>). 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.

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.

Best regards,
Timmy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20210720/4e523603/attachment.htm>