User talk:Seav/LGUs
First of all thank you for writing this wonderful proposal.
I'm mostly concerned about tagging/key/values to be set properly, and I prefer unified tagging rules easy for everyone (locals and foreigners) to follow and understand while at the same time as close as possible to reality. Therefore I really appreciate this proposal.
So I think it's important to use standards/classifications as close to international OSM community standards as possible while still easy for locals to see the correlations where standards/classifications don't add up one on one.
That being said, I still have some considerations that need to be addressed! Especially for the section of "place=* value decision matrix" - that section doesn't completely address the complexity of the Philippines.
Case example
___________________________________________________________
- Barangay Irisan in the city of Baguio has several smaller places, for instance "San Carlos Heights"
- San Carlos Heights has several Puroks
- Puroks can have villages/subdivisions/etc which sometimes even cross Purok boundaries to make things even more complicated
- The villages, although not official governmental administrative units, are necessary for proper addressing for the mail
according to Sitio San Carlos Heights San Carlos Heights is a sitio
So with the current proposal we'd be ending up Irisan as a quarter having a neighbourhood "San Carlos Heights" which has neighbourhoods of "Purok 18-22" inside the neigbourhood and these neighbourhoods then have ... nothing for the subdivisions and villages which are mandatory to make sure the mail arrives? Because inside San Carlos Heights, Police Village, Lam-En Village, Idogan Village, Irishville, NPC Subdivision, etc are critical for deliveries AND they are basically just neighbourhoods - resulting in neighbourhoods inside neighbourhoods inside neighbourhods inside a quarter?
- as one of the notes in the proposal points out:"Salcedo Village is a defined area in Makati (bounded by Buendia, Ayala, Paseo de Roxas and Makati Avenue) and can be tagged as place=neighbourhood." So we'd be having literally a lot of neighbourhoods inside a lot of neighbourhoods inside several neighbourhoods, inside a quarter which is a quarter because it's not a neighbourhood itself because it contains neighbourhoods but every all these other neighbourhoods inside neighbourhoods would invalidate the very first reason we consider the Barangay quarter and not a neighbourhood because we'd be ending up having neighbourhoods inside neighbourhoods .. and ... oohh...
See the problem here with the current proposal? It doesn't actually address the whole complexity of the Philippines
___________________________________________________________
I have thought about this though!
There are basically 3 articles I want to consider to address the complexity of LGU and addressing, both formal and informal, the Philippines.
- Suburbs - wikipedia
- Neighbourhood - wikipedia
- Hierarchy_of_places - OSM wiki
What options these 3 articles give us
Looking at Suburbs it is clear from
- suburb has become largely synonymous with what is called a "neighbourhood"
- in other countries and the term extends to inner-city areas
- annexed by adjacent cities
as such it clearly indicates there's validity to classify at least some Barangays as suburbs. The proposal says for example a Barangay in urban areas is either neighbourhood or quarter. But the purok/sitio/village/subdivision including the nested ones as pointed out in the case example inside the Barangay is/are already also neighbourhoods, so even if you consider the Barangay a quarter, you still end up with neighbourhoods nested in neighbourhoods but suburbs IS a valid way additionally for Barangay in some situations, as in the case example.
Reason: when looking what a Surburb internationally is considered - synonymous with neighbourhood/inner-city/annexed and then looking at the general OSM convention for places here Hierarchy_of_places it is clear to me "Suburb" especially with this note: "in OpenStreetMap a place=suburb can include any major sub-division of a city, including areas in the city centre. " does apply very well to Barangay levels as well.
Again the concept of a "neighbourhood" inside a "neighbourhood" is kinda weird from my point of view and should be avoided as much as possible.
When you then look at what a neighbourhood actually is Neighbourhood and the clear advantage pointed out here Neighbourhood that there can be no confusion between neighbourhood-suburb as suburb would be a larger unit, that would validate and strengthen even further the use of Suburb along with "neighborhood" and "Quarter" as value for a Barangay for specific occasions.
So my proposal would be, to avoid neighbourhoods inside neighbourhoods as much as possible while still maintain the current proposal but enhance/widen it with an additional option for certain situations to use place=suburb for barangay in these specific situations as well especially for the more complex/nested areas.
back to the case example
___________________________________________________________
- Barangay Irisan would get the place=suburb
- San Carlos Heights (was might or might not originally be a sitio, today it's a larger area spanning several puroks) would get the place=quarter
- puroks get place=neighbourhood
- village/subdivision, as mentioned in the note of the proposal, also place=neighbourhood
In words: if the Barangay has another level of organizational unit between the Barangay and the Puroks, as with San Carlos Heights in Irisan - then we use for Barangay the place=suburb, the level between place=quarter and the smallest unit of purok/village/subdivision becomes place=neighbourhood.
Please this is open for discussion but I'd like to get this done asap because right now things are just too confusing really.
And again, if you understand this proposal-enhancement of mine as a way to chance anything that's already proposed, then I probably explained it wrong. Because it's really meant as an "extension/enhancement/complementary" for a more nested/complex situation where there's another level between Barangay and Purok AND i'd like to address the fact Purok as lowest level of organizational unit doesn't work with the reality where you have also sometimes villages and subdivisions as extra separation within the puroks which are a necessity at least for the postal services and basically are also neighbourhoods. It is addressed in the above mentioned note - but I think it should be clearly outlined in the table of the "value decision matrix"
-- Hike&Map (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Additional to this great proposal, it should be noted that this page Addressing, which is a page open for discussion as well, should be streamlined with this proposal so both the actual tagging and classification of the objects makes sense with the actual addressing for both navigational purposes as well as mail/courier/delivery services.
-- Hike&Map (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
After reading a bit more on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary as well as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dplace
I found the missing part for the way Baguio is organized.
The administrative boundaries of Baguio fit perfectly to the proposal by Seav. But the concepts of "Lower San Carlos Heights and Upper San Carlos heights" as well as "San Carlos Heights" which even has official DPWH signs on the main highways as well as Idogan Village, Saint Patrick Subdivision, NPC, etc are not handled by the proposal.
The missing part in the proposal is the "boundary=place" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dplace
As San Carlos Heights is just a part of Barangay Irisan - yet it includes Purok 17 to 29 And for instance Lam-En or Idogan Village are smaller than Purok 20, both are within Purok 20.
yet San Carlos Heights and the villages are NOT official administrative parts. So they fit perfectly well to the "boundary=place" wiki entry.
That's thus missing in the proposal by Seav - and I'd like to add this missing piece of information to the proposal.
I'm NOT going to add the exact myself - as I leave that to the locals. I just want to point out the "boundary=place" should be included in the proposal how we mappers should deal with it.
As for the villages/subdivisions/etc smaller than puroks the boundary=place and place=neighbourhood describes them pretty well And as for San Carlos Heights, I'd say the choice of Quarter for Barangay in Urban areas would also fit larger parts of the Barangay but then not as boundary=administrative but boundary=place.
So basically non-administrative subsections of a boundary=administrative; gets the same place designation as it's administrative level it's a part of with the difference that boundary=place instead of boundary=administrative - and if that's again split into smaller segments we go down one more level
example (using Seav proposal)
| name=Purok 20 boundary=administrative place=neighbourhood |
name=Idogan Village boundary=place place=neighbourhood |
name=Lam-En Village boundary=place place=neighbourhood |
name=Saint Patrick Subdivision boundary=place place=neighbourhood |
| name=Irisan boundary=administrative place=quarter |
name=San Carlos Heights boundary=place place=quarter |
name=Lower San Carlos Heights boundary=place place=neigbourhood |
name=Upper San Carlos Heights boundary=place place=neighbourhood |
note I'll follow from here on the proposal by Seav 100% on administrative boundaries - and will use my own commented addition for the non-administrative areas - until someone gives me a better proposal or there's finally some movement here on this LGU proposal and a final draft/acceptance by the PH community
Hike&Map (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Another thing I feel is missing in the Seav proposal - is the section "Administrative building conventions" There's no Purok outpost? At least in my Barangay the basic administrative formalities are done at the Purok outpost and not the Barangay Hall - so the Purok outpost should be included in the administrative building convention
Hike&Map (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
update on the purok outpost
i started to follow the guidelines by Seav on the other governmental buildings, with the small exception the outpost isn't administrative but public service.
So together that makes
admin_level=11
amenity=townhall
building=public
government=public_service
name=purok xx outpost
office=government
townhall:type=purok