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.

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).