Agree with everything you've mentioned. I've actually been meaning to break up that forest areas for some time. Only suggestion (which I'll try to find some time to contribute) would be to ensure that the forest covers all of the western areas of Carigara into Capoocan (notably in near Manloy and Upper Hiraan). I noticed there were some areas that were still removed in the last changeset. Ideally these would obviously continue to extend further into Capoocan.

What did you base the boundaries on for this forest land use in the western and southern areas of Carigara? I'm not as familiar with other areas outside of the Carigara boundaries, but I believe the forest area should extend all the way to the municipal limits in areas where landuse is no longer present.

Thanks! I'll keep the event in mind! I'll actually be in Manila on March 6th so might try to make the trip up a few days early!

Thanks for the catch on that - like I said I actually didn't even notice the duplicate hashtag (or initially set it as far as I know). I believe this was the default provided by the task manager - which if it was there should probably be a fix for this in the future for Teach OSM? I can dig into this further to see....
As for your question on the tags - these are deep wells used for a combination of drinking water and basic use. Open to changing the amenity=drinking_water tag to drinking_water=yes or just adding the later tag. Just to clarify, these are not water taps (a later changelog was made to update them after clarifying with local barangay officials). I haven't seen any good guidance on whether to include the amenity tag or not for wells. Hope that helps clarify things!

Hi GOwin. Please note that edits are associated with a Philippines project on Teach OSM. Please see here: http://tasks.teachosm.org/project/431 I actually didn't realize this until you pointed it out, but OSM assigns duplicate hashtags to projects on HOTOSM and Teach OSM. Do note that these edits are certainly meant to be where they are placed and part of the Philippines project, not the Congo one.

Ya part of the issue I'm having is that some households are technically part of a different barangay than the boundaries they fall within. We've field verified the boundaries with communities so it's not an issue of moving the boundaries and more trying to figure out the appropriate tagging for the households that fall outside the boundaries of the barangay they belong to. Right now, I've been tagging these households with the previously mentioned number tag and "addr:place" with the barangay the associate with (not necessarily fall within). In other words, the combination of the number and place tags would give the barangay that households associates with. Not entirely sure if this is conventional? There wasn't much I could find on the wiki pages on such a problem. Only other approach I can think is to tag them together using the first tag you mentioned (e.g. "ref:barangay:HH"). Right now I'm leaning towards the former (e.g. "ref:HH" AND "addr:place") Any suggestions?

That would work. I'll change the tags. It will work well to use the barangay name instead of the municipality name (Carigara) as the numbering is actually at the barangay, not municipal level (e.g. "ref:Tagak:HH"). Thanks for the catch and recommendation!

The barangays within the Municipality of Carigara use a system of numbering households. They don't represent an "official" address, thus they aren't included in the "addr:housenumber" tag as some households also have a formal address street number (which can be different than their assigned barangay number). There wasn't a good place to put this tag so I'd welcome alternative suggestions.