Aside from these weird tags which have been imported without change from the source dataset, OSM doesn't actually have permission to use this dataset (originally from the Philippine Statistics Authority, then cleaned up via the Technical Working Group of the Office of Civil Defense, then distributed via UN OCHA) so these boundary additions may need to be reverted.

Wrong comment. It should be; fix amenity name

Hi! Can you also update the boundary relations?

Maybe a better tag for CMC is faculty=communication instead of amenity=college? The latter tag implies an independent educational institution, but UPD colleges are integral parts of the university.

faculty=*

Hi, why did you modify the QC–Pasig boundary here? The boundary actually cuts through Robinsons Galleria because the boundary predates the creation of the mall and its adjacent buildings.

As evidence, Crowne Plaza's website states it is in QC, while Holiday Inn Galleria's website states it is in Pasig:

https://www.ihg.com/crowneplaza/hotels/us/en/quezon-city/mnlcp/hoteldetail

https://www.ihg.com/holidayinn/hotels/us/en/pasig-city/mnlgl/hoteldetail

So the boundary as you have mapped it is incorrect because Holiday Inn was put inside QC instead of Pasig.

Hi! May I know why the polygon for Plaza de Roma was deleted in this changeset?

Hi! Is the Strava heatmap more accurate than the DATUM drone imagery? I see that you realigned a few buildings that are now misaligned to the drone imagery.

I apologize. I missed the news that the church had been declared a minor basilica in 2021. Sorry!

Hi! You mistagged the wrong Immaculate Concepcion church in Bulacan as a minor basilica. It is the church in Malolos that is the minor basilica (already tagged), not the one in Santa Maria.

Hi! May I know why you tagged the Quiapo Church grounds as a boundary=national_park? This tag is only used for actual natural parks usually enjoyed for outdoor activities and environmental preservation and not cultural/religious heritage.

Hi Alexis! Did you actually intend to mark the *whole* island as landuse=forest? This seems wrong to me because the beaches and the residential area to the south doesn't really fit a forest land use.

@Anim, can you provide an official source for the boundaries? I added the boundaries based on Caloocan City government's own maps (although the maps were from 2006). See here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EygqEz_uLk3wsdDzxBcBrrH8aJTveyCV/view?usp=sharing

FYI: I deleted the whole relation for the Manila-Quezon Expressway and adjacent structures such as exits. I looked at the project and this seems to be in just the proposed stage and is far from being actually realized. So mapping the route as if the alignment is already fixed and the exits ramps are already planned is very premature.

Hi! Where is your source that the maritime boundary between Manila and Pasay curves like this? Some of the planned reclamation projects in talks with the City of Manila lies on the Pasay side of the curve you mapped. I think the original line is more accurate.

Changeset comment correction: This should be "Paombong" instead of "Mapandan".

Hi! It's not really a matter of whether mapping something is easy or not. Lots of things are hard to map.

What's more important in OSM is whether things beings mapped or added to the map is accurate or not. And in this particular case, I can clearly see that the Bacacay boundary you added is very inaccurate. It's better to leave things unmapped or incomplete than adding things that are wildly inaccurate.

Where are you getting your boundary data? The admin boundary you created for Pilar doesn't encompass the place nodes for the barangays of Bagumbayan, Landing, Wakas, Bantan which are all part of Pilar.

See list of barangays from PSA: https://psa.gov.ph/classification/psgc/?q=psgc/barangays/030811000

Where did you get the boundaries for Bacacay? Based on various sources, Bacacay includes most (if not all) of Cagraray Island. Also, I don't think Bacacay actually touches the summit of Mount Mayon. The relation you created for Bacacay doesn't make any sense.

Please do not add any admin boundary relations unless you are pretty sure of the area it covers.

What did you intend for this relation? Cagraray is not an administrative area nor an LGU, so marking this relation as a type=boundary + boundary=administrative does not make any sense. If you want a relation/polygon for the island, it already exists: relation/4057468

I've deleted LRT Line 6A since there is no evidence that this proposed railway already has ROW acquired or being acquired so the alignment is extremely speculative at this point. Elements added to the map is just clutter right now.