My thoughts here, I think tertiary is the best classification for the roads to Parañaque City Hall due to frequent jogs across local streets and a rather sparse network of tertiary roads in the area. For BF Resort Drive, you might need to check due to guardhouse (HOA/Friendship Route sticker required or pass-thru allowed?)

If you want to restore trunk status, I'll disagree as I consider Antipolo as part of Manila for the purpose of mapping the trunk network rather than its own destination. It may be a redundant link to Route 1/Maharlika Highway, but I think you need more convincing reasons so to justify adding a trunk routing through Rizal and eastern Laguna.

Just a note, please be careful tracing from aerial imagery that may be outdated. Also note imagery offsets from GPS tracks. I'll restore the previous alignment for this one (part of this edits involves road that has since been improved).

Just a note, I've seen you've been adding a lot of exit nodes around beginning point of channelizations. You have some named after posted destinations rather than the local name in use, and some unnecessarily redundant with existing named junction areas or nodes. I just sweeped through them, having removed a lot of those.

But that would be the case if P. dela Cruz feeds traffic to other tertiary routes. For this one, there’s none, and the changes are completely fine. Yes, it may have more traffic (considering the Mindanao Avenue gap), but its function is ultimately an industrial collector, not an arterial street, and again, there are no other tertiary roads feeding to it to justify an upgrade.

Unless the Mindanao Avenue extension is not built, having the pre-existing main roads downgraded as a better route is being built is fine. Temporarily upgrading local roads to a higher classification in a map to mark a detour around a closed section is generally not good practice.

Please also use clearer change set comments. I don’t know what you’re doing by just saying OpenStreetMap on your comment.

Please keep your edits within a small area. Changes spanning two or more continents (or the whole world) makes reviewing of local edits hard for other mappers.

Again, what’s the summary of these changes?

I thought you wouldn’t do this again because of what you see in Maps.me, but here, you did it again. I’n planning to undo this.

Just a note, I think temporary road closures that don’t last more than a month are best not tagged and best left to data users such as navigation apps. This reminds me of your edit in Muntinlupa to reflect a one-week special concern lockdown on one street there; the lockdown lapsed, but you havent’t removed the temporary tagging and routing apps can’t route through that street even if it’s already open.

Hello. I've just noticed this edit where you've deleted several buildings, including those with 3D details, and I have undone this. Please be careful editing places you don't know well. Thanks.

(machine translation)

Hallo. Saya baru saja melihat pengeditan ini di mana Anda telah menghapus beberapa bangunan, termasuk bangunan dengan detail 3D, dan saya telah membatalkannya. Harap berhati-hati mengedit tempat yang tidak Anda kenal dengan baik. Terima kasih.

Please be noted that the Dasmariñas boundary is mapped as defined under Republic Act No. 8723. Reiterating points at changeset/94197917, legally-defined LGU boundaries can run across subdivisions or even individual buildings, but remember that the boundary has been defined long before the subdivision has been developed. Legally speaking, the Glens straddles two LGUs, even if all the houses and buildings will have its services provided by the San Pedro LGU.

This edit has been fully or partially reverted at changeset/105380942. Reason: reverting edits on Dasmariñas LGU boundaries mapped per Republic Act No. 8723 against consensus

This edit has been fully or partially reverted at changeset/105380844. Reason: reverting edits on Dasmariñas LGU boundaries mapped per Republic Act No. 8723 against consensus

Hi.

I have been seeing you editing a lot of administrative boundaries, which are generally mapped according to the relevant laws defining them. You have been changing a lot of them, and may need to be reverted. See also https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/76. Please avoid redrawing boundaries which has been mapped according to existing consensus, especially those based on laws.

FYI, the boundary you've try to fix has been already mapped basing on a Republic Act that defines Dasmariñas's boundaries. It has been agreed upon that Dasma's boundary should be mapped according to the RA, but you have changed it again so to make the Glens completely within San Pedro. This edit reminds me of previous attempts to redraw the the legally defined Manila/Pasay boundary, which runs across the CCP complex. I might have to revert this.

Sorry, got the wrong comment due to having it erased accidentally and replaced by those in previous edit in the app (blame the X button on top right corner before uploading!). This should say: [Sorsogon] revert road reclassifications by sock puppet of blocked user, add bridge names, fix road name and land use

I'll do also the same with vandalism as well

I've just called in the DWG to do a mass revert, and if I'll deal with changes involving copyright violations, I'll do that separately from the others.

The businesses deleted are all suspicious, been added en masse by a user which I found to be copying POIs from Google Maps by comparing map coverage. Some are in completely suspicious locations, usually at very odd spots typical of GMaps coverage in some locations. This edit reverts various edits by the user, but why would you think it's wrong to make such large changes using Go Map!?

On the node you're point, it's a mistake, and should be applied to the building. I missed out there's already a name, except it's using a key in caps. Would fix that.