So you're saying a mapper can not go there and verify that:
"all certified and high quality products!"
not sure about you - but I can actually read certificates and watch all the certificate seals on the products.

"Owner is educated electrical engineer following the PEC!"

So a mapper can not go to the man, and ask him if he's an educated engineer and knows the PEC?

If you ask him, he'll answer you any question and shows you even in the PEC which he has laying on his desk if you have any questions.

How would this not be verifiable?

Also how can certificates and engineering degree be subjective or how can the PEC be subjective?

if you wanna remove it - be my guest, it's not that important to me, but claiming a mapper is incapable of asking questions and degrees and certificates are not verifiable but subjective - then why do we have worldwide universities, diplomas, degrees and certificates if we can't verify them and if it's only just subjective .. that's funny and you're the first person ever in my life who claims degrees, certificates and diplomas are worldwide useless crap because they're subjective and non verifiable LOL

but again, go ahead and delete it if it's that important to you

Hi, first of all thank you for helping to map the city here, and it's a good edit, first of all, but may I know what's your source for the alignment? On my BING imagery which is just a couple months old this water area is actually a retaining buffer, which the golf course also uses as water reservoir for watering in dry season - but it's at least twice as big as you mapped it. So maybe you use another source?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139564611

Hi - I was actually wondering about this for a long time and wanted to ask in the group already several times about it.

the landuse and disused both should be removed of course - yet is the "abandoned" actually valid? as the fact is, under the soil it still exists, the landfill.. They just covered and closed it.

maybe abandoned alone isn't factually correct? Although I have no idea how to map it pointing out the landfill isactually still there, just underground..
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139820376

I'm actually wondering if that is really a name?

When I added it - I may not have been so strict on naming - and if the description is "SM Mini Park" I might just have added that as a name.. although that's strictly speaking false and should be just in the description ...
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138815021

Hi Tim, why did you remove valid tags?
addr:country=PH
addr:*=*
If you know them and they exist.... so there's no reason for me not to add them and for someone just looking up specific heritage buildings (someone doing a worldwide query) it might be very helpful if the tags are there.

addr:quarter=Session Road Area into the non-valid tag addr:barangay?

addr:barangay has no valid meaning worldwide nor in any apps. As such I and with me many, follow the proposal by Eugene for many years now:
osm.wiki/User:Seav/LGUs

Baguio isn't the province of Benguet! On OSM we stick to reality right, - the administrative boundary of Benguet does NOT include Baguio.

So I'm kinda puzzled about why you made these changes?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138814918

Hi Tim, why did you remove valid tags?
addr:country=PH
addr:*=*
If you know them and they exist.... so there's no reason for me not to add them and for someone just looking up specific heritage buildings (someone doing a worldwide query) it might be very helpful if the tags are there.

addr:quarter=Session Road Area into the non-valid tag addr:barangay?

addr:barangay has no valid meaning worldwide nor in any apps. As such I and with me many, follow the proposal by Eugene for many years now:
osm.wiki/User:Seav/LGUs

Baguio isn't the province of Benguet! On OSM we stick to reality right, - the administrative boundary of Benguet does NOT include Baguio.

So I'm kinda puzzled about why you made these changes?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138814918

ah, nm, they're relocating.. okay then :)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138123046

Hi - why did you mark Silantro as disused? I haven't passed by there in the last few months - but on FB they're still active
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138123046

Hi there, thank you for your contribution and please keep it up!

but first of all - don't add a 2nd node where there's already a node for your shop available use that node and just add your additional information please.

Just some notes to improve your contributions:
level=*
level:ref=*
addr:floor=*

And on the addr: tags please read:
addr:*=*

Success to your further mapping and please do read the articles so your shops can actually be properly navigated to.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138136119

Hey, can you provide the name of the hostel too?

So we can verify it's legit.

Also, house numbers we add in Baguio without the dash or other special characters. So just 45 A.

Also, keep in mind 09281766050 doesn't work for everyone worldwide.

+63 928 176 6050 works worldwide for everyone inside and outside of the Philippines.

Thank you
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137918198

please when adding an amenity - at least put some information to it like operator, name, anything so we can verify it's legit
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137918077

Thank you for your contribution, unfortunately we have to revert/delete it for which I'm sorry but there's simply no apartment for tourism available at the middle of the crossing here, now I may not speak for the whole world, surely somewhere on the planet someone put an apartment in the middle of a crossing, but most certainly not in Baguio! Please next time write a name or other information to the apartment so at least we mappers who verify information can figure out where that actually is you're referring to. As local mapper I'd be more then helpful finding the right location and instead of delting this contribution of yours, move it to the right spot and adding all the other important information.

Thank you and please add more - but again, with some more information at least an official name for the object.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137324080

Hi, my I know why changing the SamsAgritourismPark ➜ https://www.facebook.com/SamsAgritourismPark

Both are valid so I am wondering why changing a valid tag into a valid longer tag?

Note this isn't criticism, maybe the wiki isn't up-to-date?

contact:facebook=*#How_to_use?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137200937

Hi Dmonk - first of all thank you for your contributions!

Please keep in mind +63 0746204506 won't work on phones. I fixed this already and added more data - but the phone number convention it's
+63 74 620 4506 (that will work on any phone worldwide) thank you

Please don't add objects that already exist on the map. And especially don't add a duplicate - which doesn't even have all the proper information.

Please don't add objects that already exist on the map. And especially don't add a duplicate - which doesn't even have all the proper information.

good arguments - thanks

Which you by merging it broke ..

So now I'm looking forward to your explanation why you consider it's better to break a functioning tag - and make it unuseable for everyone?

If your reason is:"to make sure someone will merge it on wikidata" then I understand that - that thought came to my mind as well actually - purposely and deliberataly ruining the tagging - so someone at wikidata will be forced to merge it..

But then again, I figured and this was my argument - if I do that - maybe 99,99% of the OSM users won't even know how to do that - and then I'm breaking it for all of these users and none of them able to fix it?

So that's why I choose to keep the wikidata key and value legit and working and not breaking it.

Again - looking forward to your argument why to break it deliberately - maybe you have a good argument for that beyond my own consideration I had to deliberately break a valid tagging scheme?

Thanks and keep up the mapping
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138753504

Hi there, I put it in a wikidata:1 analog with inscription tagging system, for the reason JOSM complains about that the ; doesn't work for wikidata.

Which is sad of course if 0.00% of the users worldwide can use this now you merged it.

And the reason I added both - is because the smaller number has the priority and the 2nd duplicate made later to this object should be merged with the first wikidata of course.

Dupes are not supposed to be on wikidata.

Thus to make it working, I just had the first wikidata - which is the correct one, in the correct wikidata tag and the faulty one, I put analog to inscription system to use :1, :2, etc to wikidata:1 to not break the wikidata tag.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138753504

Hi, well as long as there's ongoing works to resolve the issue I'm good with that. I understand everything is voluntarily and we're all time-limited.

Now I know you're working on it - then I won't comment it anymore and looking forward to the resolution.

Take care and keep up the mapping :)