Forgot to mention this: POIs. Edit also fixes POI names and remapped some as polygons

We've been generally using only the number or letter for alpha-numeric barangays, but here (and related edits), you've added the "Barangay" prefix. Didn't the existing naming convention change?

Some downgrades are fine (roads in question are inner roads, and size not typical of a primary route), except you left blobs of primary. Can clean up later.

Please provide reason why to upgrade the road to some class. Can revert, then bring this up to talk-ph.

It's all too much to tell other mappers again through notes about features that you find to be in violation of many laws (such as with Philcoa tricycle station). I've been seeing that with your needless additions of no-stopping tags on major roads or those with bike lanes. This is getting into my nerves, and I have nothing to do but to clean up a lot of your edits, from you needless tagging of implied or subjective parking restrictions to your mass renaming of various bus/jeepney stops to follow the rather clutter-y Singapore gov't scheme.

Very, very late reply, but it's a big no to me to oversimplify by completely eliminating LRT/MRT out of your faulty reasoning. Keep the present name as it is, and don't disappoint people looking for LRT/MRT.

Can't you also look up Dasma's local traffic ordinance?

(Off-topic, but can you also respond to my messages regarding naming bus/jeepney stops, because I still seeing stops based on Singapore Land Transport Authority's scheme)

Haven't checked the Bacoor LGU website yet, but is the one-way scheme (since ECQ) still in effect?

Oh, why use overly long names over the simpler and more commonly used "Aguinaldo Highway" and "Tirona Highway"? What a nuisance; such names are official, and pedantic-sounding. Also removing turn restrictions you've just added coz it's dangerous, and fixing PUV stops/loading and unloading zones you've named based on the Singapore LTA naming scheme (pls read the resend of my previous message, with additions and questions).

Just a mistake. I'll be fixing that later.

You can have a stop_position node on the road/track, but I prefer just one node for the sake of the "one feature, one OSM element, and the possible adoption of simplified PTv2 (aren't you keeping up with that?).
Nevertheless, we can still use stop_area relations to group elements of a certain stop/station, especially complex ones

I think you get the rationalized bus route network mapped completely, though it's possible its implementation will get affected by localized ECQ in certain LGUs.

What about provincial buses now? Phil. Arena diversion terminal? VGC/PITX full utilization confirmed? And so on.

Haven't you been aware of the DOTr/DPWH/DILG memo supplementing RA 4136? That's why 80 is the max for Governor's Drive, even where you would find it too fast in a highly urbanized area. You don't need to tag the 50 kph truck/bus/tricycle speed limits if max for cars is 60+ kph.

Aww, but 80 is just the legal maximum for a 1/2-digit (primary) national road, if there's nothing's posted. 60 should be fine if the DPWH or the GenTri LGU posted anything.

Have clicked upload without further specifying sources aside from info based on existing data, so as addition: Bing, Maxar, and 2016 survey

I think we better use a simpler name in sentence case rather than the one you've Added. I also don't think we add a catch-all relation for all routes. For MM City bus, I think you capitalize the PH prefix so it isn't taken for an ISO language code.

Again, regarding MetroExpress Connect routes, the change to MEX must be undone for recognizability.

Please, stop on chasing every user mapping anything your're interested with. Typing in all caps is considered shouting.

Be careful with merging viaduct segments. Looks like you've merged all related sections of LRT-2 without looking at layering where it crosses LRT-1 and a footbridge at Nagtahan. I'll fix this later. Thanks for continuing with remapping the LRT and MRT as double track lines, but better be careful.

Thanks, but I think you don't have to be too polite, and make yourself sound like a foreigner, hehe. E, di ba GCQ na dyan?

Fine, but I still believe we use the simple route name as a short-term solution until LTFRB formally goes thru the route numbering and network rationalization post-ECQ, at least for Metro Manila and surrounding provinces.

I'm all leery with tagging every non-trunk route linking every town, no matter how small, into primary, but considering San Gabriel proper is a small town after all, secondary should be kept. That might be worth another discussion on where to draw the line between primary and secondary because it 's rather too bad our road classifications we've been following since 2006 have a bias to urban road networks.