I'm all fine removing ref= tags on provincial bus routes with frequent trips, unless you can find something on the terminal, the vehicle or their tickets that fits that. I would be fine with using a number based on their
departure time in military/24-hour clock for most long-distance routes with one/two daily departures.

For city or commuter bus and PUJ, we can add them again considering LTFRB will be adding route numbering schemes for such, like what 's being done with the Metro Manila city bus network since rationalization in preparation for GCQ.

I don't know yet what to do with P2P, but I see we can keep the ref= for routes run by certain companies.

I'm swamped by a large major edit involving the proposed Batangas leg of the PNR long-haul line, but to comment on your 3rd point, I don't think the potential confusion with the TV network is a good reason to revert the change to GMA for General Mariano Alvarez. AFAIK, most painted route signs on jeepneys say GMA due to limited space on signage, but I also see various forms of General Mariano Alvarez. Legal issue is too much of a reason to do things like that.

That's as planned, but not on the existing track (NSCR will use viaducts on left side between Sucat and Mamatid, and existing track to be rebuilt to standard gauge – like those in the LRT and MRT – and reused for freight and long-haul). Section through San Pedro already mapped. NSCR Solis-Calamba still at pre-construction, but actual construction should start after end of Metro Manila and CALABARZON ECQ.

If you want to edit again, no more adding of developments that are speculative, like those of malls and things.

I'm also mapping future large infra projects and things, but I try to reflect on the tags they're still being planned (and final plan subject to change) or being built.

I think we better stick with the long form (i.e. MetroExpress) instead for convenience, but why would you prefer MEX instead?

I still think MetroExpress is more recognizable that MEX, but is there any branding change?

Don't should we better map bus stops or PUV loading/unloading zones with a single node separate from the road? I'll fix again those for Ayala and Magallanes northbound stops (which I've merged with the existing bus stop nodes on a previous edit before this).

Just to be frank, I can't understand part of your reply. Trip mo lang ba magpakadalubhasa sa British English? Nakakaloko't trying hard.

Further details on bus route additions/modifications related to COVID-19 city bus route rationalization plan: https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/64

Quirino Highway (remainder tagged as trunk) downgraded to primary (three-digit route becoming unnumbered at Caloocan boundary, and road lacking at least two segments with expressway-like quality, such as U-turns and grade separation at major intersections).

Regalado Highway and Mindanao Avenue (Commonwealth-Regalado) downgraded as minor arteries and "inner roads".

See my comment on the git.

(PS: Why British spellings? Mukhang trying hard, pero saan ka natuto non?)

Checked this on Mapillary, but there's no separate unloading zone.

Fine to me, but I'm all wondering about why you're using British spellings/word choices on some changeset comments and edited features.

Hmm, I don't think you add the "Interchange" suffix on some stop/terminal where you can transfer to another mode of transportation, unless they're posted. I think you rename the Robinsons Place Dasmariñas terminal as "Palapala Terminal" (ad they're called on route names on UV Express and PUJs). I've removed the "Interchange" suffix on most stops you've edited.

No problem with mapping sidewalks as separate, especially if it's a trunk or if there's a fence or barrier to deter jaywalking, but I don't think you tag no-jaywalking with foot=no unless posted :-).

Comment should be: "[Manila/Camanava area//Meycauayan, Bulacan] #BuildBuildBuild clean up for Tutuban Station, updates on Manila-Clark Railway and NLEX-SLEX Connector Road since end of Luzon-wide ECQ"

Go for that, especially after the ECQ :-).

Isn't the UBE PITX Route active now? Looked at the official UBE Express website, but can't find that route.

I used also to use PH:living_street for the implied 20 kph speed limit, but I moved toward marking implied speeds of 20-40 kph with source:maxspeed=PH:urban.

No problem with keeping the PH:urban tags on those with 20 kph. IMO, PH:residential would be too narrow. Ingat!

Wala akong nakitang karatula na pinapakita kung lampas ka sa speed limit ng 60. May nakita ka bang karatula bago pa magka-ECQ?

I tagged the source of the speed limits, but as with what I've observed, most of the speeds you've added they're rather the same as those in RA 4136.

Also, don't forget to add source:maxspeed just to inform mappers of where you've got the speed limits.