Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

Another reading if you've missed that Aragonese law:

(Boletín Oficial de Aragón n°149, 2006-12-30, Gobierno de Aragón).

Decreto legislativo 2/2006 de 27 de diciembre del Gobierno de Aragón por el
que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Comarcalización de Aragón

http://www.boa.aragon.es/cgi-bin/BRSCGI?CMD=VEROBJ=167404590505

Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 03:01, Alejandro S.  a écrit :
>>
>>> Dear Phillipe,
>>>
>>> I've been living in Zaragoza (Aragón, Spain) for 27 years. Please, don't
>>> tell I don't know what a Comarca is.
>>>
>>> I think Pepe has been pretty clear telling us the laws regarding this
>>> issue:
>>>
>>> *"Oficialmente, insisto, oficialmente la Ley de Bases de Regimen Local,
>>> es la que especifica la division territorial y administrativa de este país.
>>> Y es clara en su articulado en lo que a limites se refiere: Pais, Comunidad
>>> Autónoma y Ciudades Autónomas, Provincia, Municipio y Entidad Local Menor a
>>> municipio (las conocidas como Juntas Administativas Locales, Pedanias,
>>> Poblados, e incluso Parroquias o anteiglesias) el resto no son más que
>>> divisiones de gestión de diferentes organos generalmente para optimizar sus
>>> medios y servicios y no pueden estar en estos niveles pues legalmente no
>>> existen."*
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if we're just overthinking or feeding a troll.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Yonseca.
>>>
>>
These evidences above (including the names of documents, their dates, and
assertable links that any one can see easily) were already made before, but
you did not care about reading them. Think twice before accusing someone of
"trolling".

So I supposed you just lived in Aragon *before* February 2006 and have not
seen what happened there after you left. Or you are not jut interested
yourself by this subject which others consider useful and are legitimate in
OSM (and if you still don't trust what was put in OSM, you can compare with
the published open data of these administrations).

An official comarcalization occured also in Galicia, but Catalunya was the
first to make it official at regional level.
The juntas of provinces have still not understood that, they contiunue to
use their own touristic comarcas, or may maintain them only as statistical
units for reasons of continuity over a period long enough to be able to
report analyze the evolutions. But provinces have no statistics intitutes.
Aragon has its own official statistics institute (IEAST, whose website is
for now the same as the Gobernatio).

The Spanish State government is also late on this in its ministerios and
othert state agencies (but the state government make that for other
planning purposes, not to rule what and how comarcas are regionally
organized, because it is not the competence of these adminsitrations, they
have no power to create or change them officially and give them a judicial
identity or any form of autonomy; only the Spanish parliament *may*
eventually do that, but it won't be consititutionally able to legiferate on
domains whose competence were transfered to the autonomous communities,
without negociating with their respective governments).

The question is not if those comarcas should exist or not. Of course they
should be there. It's only a problem for defining a tagging system, and
using it coherently (something that is incoherent today, but there's no
alternative documentation: someone must do the hard job of first sorting
things to avoid incoherences, then apply the tags, that this list may
discuss, but has to document somewhere without just placing an informal
link to the Spanish Wikipedia article where nothing is coherent or well
defined as the topic is clearly still not understood by most Spaniards that
have contributed to it; the situation is even worse in Wikimedia Commons
with lot of incohrent and undated "maps" and that was then transfered as is
from Commons to Wikidata which also includes various incoherent
categorization from ES.WP where all is mixed, including historical units
that certainly have their place in Wikipedia but not in OSM which should
*first* reflect what is in current use today).
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

The " Instituto Aragonés de Estadística (IAEST) - Territorio y transportes"
explicitly says:

[quote]
La comarca es una entidad local territorial, con personalidad jurídica
propia, que goza de capacidad y autonomía para el cumplimiento de sus
fines, y con competencias propias.

Se muestra la relación de municipios que conforman cada una de las
comarcas/delimitaciones comarcales de Aragón. Para cada comarca se incluye
su código, denominación, los municipios que la componen (código municipal y
denominación del municipio), nombre de la provincia y código de provincia.
También se hace referencia de las leyes de creación de cada una de las
comarcas.

Las modificaciones que se produzcan se incorporarán a la base de datos una
vez que sean oficiales. La información se muestra de forma conjunta para
todo Aragón y también por comarcas para facilitar el acceso al usuario.

Tabla de informes de comarcas
Estadística local: ámbito comarcal y municipal
[/quote]

These are not just statistical units, they have a juridical identity and
their autonomy, they are officially encoded by IAEST (with the same numbers
as those used in the Aragonese law of comarcalization).

You've not lived in Aragon for long enough or was not aware of that fact
when you lived there (or did not care about it at that time).

Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 05:30, Philippe Verdy  a écrit :

> https://www.aragon.es/-/comarcas
>
> A troll made by Aragon itself ?
>
> Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 03:01, Alejandro S.  a écrit :
>
>> Dear Phillipe,
>>
>> I've been living in Zaragoza (Aragón, Spain) for 27 years. Please, don't
>> tell I don't know what a Comarca is.
>>
>> I think Pepe has been pretty clear telling us the laws regarding this
>> issue:
>>
>> *"Oficialmente, insisto, oficialmente la Ley de Bases de Regimen Local,
>> es la que especifica la division territorial y administrativa de este país.
>> Y es clara en su articulado en lo que a limites se refiere: Pais, Comunidad
>> Autónoma y Ciudades Autónomas, Provincia, Municipio y Entidad Local Menor a
>> municipio (las conocidas como Juntas Administativas Locales, Pedanias,
>> Poblados, e incluso Parroquias o anteiglesias) el resto no son más que
>> divisiones de gestión de diferentes organos generalmente para optimizar sus
>> medios y servicios y no pueden estar en estos niveles pues legalmente no
>> existen."*
>>
>> I'm not sure if we're just overthinking or feeding a troll.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Yonseca.
>>
>>
>> El 25/1/20 a las 1:48, Philippe Verdy escribió:
>>
>> That's only the situation for Spain as a whole. The situation is more
>> complex because Spain has recongized the status of autonomy of its
>> communities, in legal texts that include also the comarcas.
>> So the autonomous communities have power to create them. And this has
>> been then used by them or their provinces. It has also been used by the
>> Spanish government.
>> There are then several comarcal definitions used administratively, but
>> dirrefecntly depending on the administration that defines and used them.
>>
>> Calalunya was the first to take a law of comarcalisation to unify the
>> comarcal delimiation, it has been followed by Galicia and Aragon. Comarcas
>> are still used elsewhere but not unified, and present (differently) in open
>> data sets from various administrations (provinces essentially for touristic
>> development, autonomous communities, Spanish ministries like MAPA for the
>> agrarian comarcas, and another type of comarca, forestry comarcas...)
>>
>> All these definitions are created in the scope of the missions each
>> administration can work on. For example provinces are competent for
>> touristic and cultural development. auytonomous communities have their
>> domain of competence on which the Spanish government cannot enact directly.
>> As well the municipalities themselves have the power to organize themselves
>> and have grouped themsevles into mancomunidades, more or less based (but
>> not necessarily) on comarcas.
>>
>> So comarcas (different kinds) are existing in Spain, just like
>> mancomunidades, even if they are not part of the basic national law. They
>> should be in OSM. But visibly even the Spanish people are confused about
>> their status (and this is reflected by the way comarcas are described in
>> Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons by their existing Spanish commjnity:
>> everything is mixed. and I'm not considering the "natural" comarcas (which,
>> in Wikidata should only be considered as "geographic regions" not as
>> administrative comarcas of Spain), or "cultural/historic" comarcas that
>> also add up to the count.
>>
>> But that I did not create these two (if they were mapped in OSM, their
>> boundaries would be extremely fuzzy as the historic and culural comarcas
>> were based on groups of villages before thee creation of municipalities and
>> the delimitation of municipal boundaries: some municipaltiies would have to
>> be split to match the historic definitions (the cultural comarcas would
>> 

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

https://www.aragon.es/-/comarcas

A troll made by Aragon itself ?

Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 03:01, Alejandro S.  a écrit :

> Dear Phillipe,
>
> I've been living in Zaragoza (Aragón, Spain) for 27 years. Please, don't
> tell I don't know what a Comarca is.
>
> I think Pepe has been pretty clear telling us the laws regarding this
> issue:
>
> *"Oficialmente, insisto, oficialmente la Ley de Bases de Regimen Local, es
> la que especifica la division territorial y administrativa de este país. Y
> es clara en su articulado en lo que a limites se refiere: Pais, Comunidad
> Autónoma y Ciudades Autónomas, Provincia, Municipio y Entidad Local Menor a
> municipio (las conocidas como Juntas Administativas Locales, Pedanias,
> Poblados, e incluso Parroquias o anteiglesias) el resto no son más que
> divisiones de gestión de diferentes organos generalmente para optimizar sus
> medios y servicios y no pueden estar en estos niveles pues legalmente no
> existen."*
>
> I'm not sure if we're just overthinking or feeding a troll.
>
> Best regards,
> Yonseca.
>
>
> El 25/1/20 a las 1:48, Philippe Verdy escribió:
>
> That's only the situation for Spain as a whole. The situation is more
> complex because Spain has recongized the status of autonomy of its
> communities, in legal texts that include also the comarcas.
> So the autonomous communities have power to create them. And this has been
> then used by them or their provinces. It has also been used by the Spanish
> government.
> There are then several comarcal definitions used administratively, but
> dirrefecntly depending on the administration that defines and used them.
>
> Calalunya was the first to take a law of comarcalisation to unify the
> comarcal delimiation, it has been followed by Galicia and Aragon. Comarcas
> are still used elsewhere but not unified, and present (differently) in open
> data sets from various administrations (provinces essentially for touristic
> development, autonomous communities, Spanish ministries like MAPA for the
> agrarian comarcas, and another type of comarca, forestry comarcas...)
>
> All these definitions are created in the scope of the missions each
> administration can work on. For example provinces are competent for
> touristic and cultural development. auytonomous communities have their
> domain of competence on which the Spanish government cannot enact directly.
> As well the municipalities themselves have the power to organize themselves
> and have grouped themsevles into mancomunidades, more or less based (but
> not necessarily) on comarcas.
>
> So comarcas (different kinds) are existing in Spain, just like
> mancomunidades, even if they are not part of the basic national law. They
> should be in OSM. But visibly even the Spanish people are confused about
> their status (and this is reflected by the way comarcas are described in
> Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons by their existing Spanish commjnity:
> everything is mixed. and I'm not considering the "natural" comarcas (which,
> in Wikidata should only be considered as "geographic regions" not as
> administrative comarcas of Spain), or "cultural/historic" comarcas that
> also add up to the count.
>
> But that I did not create these two (if they were mapped in OSM, their
> boundaries would be extremely fuzzy as the historic and culural comarcas
> were based on groups of villages before thee creation of municipalities and
> the delimitation of municipal boundaries: some municipaltiies would have to
> be split to match the historic definitions (the cultural comarcas would
> also have to include some various enclaves that municipalities have created
> in surrounding comarcas): in OSM we could only map these cultural comarcas
> as "boundary=historic", and natural comarcas as "boundary=natural?" or just
> multipolygons with place=* but not any administrartive status (as long
> there's no Spanish adminsitration defining and using them).
>
> Beside that, there are other kinds of areas which may be perceived by some
> as comarcas, but are not, like functional areas (in Catalunya, they are
> defined by local law and used by the Catalan authorities to group their
> official comarcas; in the Balearic islands there are island councils; they
> are not comarcas but mapped as other "political" entities with their own
> political types; elsewhere they don't seem to exist).
>
> Finally to add to the complexity, there are 3 linguistic areas in Navarra
> (they were created by someone else as "poltitical" boundaries).
>
> There are also some isolated municipalities in Spain that were mapped in
> OSM using "political" boundaries for their submunicipal divisions, instead
> of admin_levels 9/10 like the surrounding municipalities.
>
> Another municipality in Spain had its census divisions mapped as
> "boundary=political" (with no other distinguishing tags) instead of
> "boundary=statistics". These have no distinguished names, their given
> "name=*" tag is descriptive only and are all the same (the name of 

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Alejandro S.]

Dear Phillipe,

I've been living in Zaragoza (Aragón, Spain) for 27 years. Please, don't 
tell I don't know what a Comarca is.


I think Pepe has been pretty clear telling us the laws regarding this issue:

/"Oficialmente, insisto, oficialmente la Ley de Bases de Regimen Local, 
es la que especifica la division territorial y administrativa de este 
país. Y es clara en su articulado en lo que a limites se refiere: Pais, 
Comunidad Autónoma y Ciudades Autónomas, Provincia, Municipio y Entidad 
Local Menor a municipio (las conocidas como Juntas Administativas 
Locales, Pedanias, Poblados, e incluso Parroquias o anteiglesias) el 
resto no son más que divisiones de gestión de diferentes organos 
generalmente para optimizar sus medios y servicios y no pueden estar en 
estos niveles pues legalmente no existen."/


I'm not sure if we're just overthinking or feeding a troll.

Best regards,
Yonseca.


El 25/1/20 a las 1:48, Philippe Verdy escribió:
That's only the situation for Spain as a whole. The situation is more 
complex because Spain has recongized the status of autonomy of its 
communities, in legal texts that include also the comarcas.
So the autonomous communities have power to create them. And this has 
been then used by them or their provinces. It has also been used by 
the Spanish government.
There are then several comarcal definitions used administratively, but 
dirrefecntly depending on the administration that defines and used them.


Calalunya was the first to take a law of comarcalisation to unify the 
comarcal delimiation, it has been followed by Galicia and Aragon. 
Comarcas are still used elsewhere but not unified, and present 
(differently) in open data sets from various administrations 
(provinces essentially for touristic development, autonomous 
communities, Spanish ministries like MAPA for the agrarian comarcas, 
and another type of comarca, forestry comarcas...)


All these definitions are created in the scope of the missions each 
administration can work on. For example provinces are competent for 
touristic and cultural development. auytonomous communities have their 
domain of competence on which the Spanish government cannot enact 
directly. As well the municipalities themselves have the power to 
organize themselves and have grouped themsevles into mancomunidades, 
more or less based (but not necessarily) on comarcas.


So comarcas (different kinds) are existing in Spain, just like 
mancomunidades, even if they are not part of the basic national law. 
They should be in OSM. But visibly even the Spanish people are 
confused about their status (and this is reflected by the way comarcas 
are described in Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons by their existing 
Spanish commjnity: everything is mixed. and I'm not considering the 
"natural" comarcas (which, in Wikidata should only be considered as 
"geographic regions" not as administrative comarcas of Spain), or 
"cultural/historic" comarcas that also add up to the count.


But that I did not create these two (if they were mapped in OSM, their 
boundaries would be extremely fuzzy as the historic and culural 
comarcas were based on groups of villages before thee creation of 
municipalities and the delimitation of municipal boundaries: some 
municipaltiies would have to be split to match the historic 
definitions (the cultural comarcas would also have to include some 
various enclaves that municipalities have created in surrounding 
comarcas): in OSM we could only map these cultural comarcas as 
"boundary=historic", and natural comarcas as "boundary=natural?" or 
just multipolygons with place=* but not any administrartive status (as 
long there's no Spanish adminsitration defining and using them).


Beside that, there are other kinds of areas which may be perceived by 
some as comarcas, but are not, like functional areas (in Catalunya, 
they are defined by local law and used by the Catalan authorities to 
group their official comarcas; in the Balearic islands there are 
island councils; they are not comarcas but mapped as other "political" 
entities with their own political types; elsewhere they don't seem to 
exist).


Finally to add to the complexity, there are 3 linguistic areas in 
Navarra (they were created by someone else as "poltitical" boundaries).


There are also some isolated municipalities in Spain that were mapped 
in OSM using "political" boundaries for their submunicipal divisions, 
instead of admin_levels 9/10 like the surrounding municipalities.


Another municipality in Spain had its census divisions mapped as 
"boundary=political" (with no other distinguishing tags) instead of 
"boundary=statistics". These have no distinguished names, their given 
"name=*" tag is descriptive only and are all the same (the name of the 
municipality, a description they are census division, with just a 
different number appended).


Sorry, but this is not my mess ! Consider all this. Really various 
users have attempted to map differnt things for 

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

That's only the situation for Spain as a whole. The situation is more
complex because Spain has recongized the status of autonomy of its
communities, in legal texts that include also the comarcas.
So the autonomous communities have power to create them. And this has been
then used by them or their provinces. It has also been used by the Spanish
government.
There are then several comarcal definitions used administratively, but
dirrefecntly depending on the administration that defines and used them.

Calalunya was the first to take a law of comarcalisation to unify the
comarcal delimiation, it has been followed by Galicia and Aragon. Comarcas
are still used elsewhere but not unified, and present (differently) in open
data sets from various administrations (provinces essentially for touristic
development, autonomous communities, Spanish ministries like MAPA for the
agrarian comarcas, and another type of comarca, forestry comarcas...)

All these definitions are created in the scope of the missions each
administration can work on. For example provinces are competent for
touristic and cultural development. auytonomous communities have their
domain of competence on which the Spanish government cannot enact directly.
As well the municipalities themselves have the power to organize themselves
and have grouped themsevles into mancomunidades, more or less based (but
not necessarily) on comarcas.

So comarcas (different kinds) are existing in Spain, just like
mancomunidades, even if they are not part of the basic national law. They
should be in OSM. But visibly even the Spanish people are confused about
their status (and this is reflected by the way comarcas are described in
Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons by their existing Spanish commjnity:
everything is mixed. and I'm not considering the "natural" comarcas (which,
in Wikidata should only be considered as "geographic regions" not as
administrative comarcas of Spain), or "cultural/historic" comarcas that
also add up to the count.

But that I did not create these two (if they were mapped in OSM, their
boundaries would be extremely fuzzy as the historic and culural comarcas
were based on groups of villages before thee creation of municipalities and
the delimitation of municipal boundaries: some municipaltiies would have to
be split to match the historic definitions (the cultural comarcas would
also have to include some various enclaves that municipalities have created
in surrounding comarcas): in OSM we could only map these cultural comarcas
as "boundary=historic", and natural comarcas as "boundary=natural?" or just
multipolygons with place=* but not any administrartive status (as long
there's no Spanish adminsitration defining and using them).

Beside that, there are other kinds of areas which may be perceived by some
as comarcas, but are not, like functional areas (in Catalunya, they are
defined by local law and used by the Catalan authorities to group their
official comarcas; in the Balearic islands there are island councils; they
are not comarcas but mapped as other "political" entities with their own
political types; elsewhere they don't seem to exist).

Finally to add to the complexity, there are 3 linguistic areas in Navarra
(they were created by someone else as "poltitical" boundaries).

There are also some isolated municipalities in Spain that were mapped in
OSM using "political" boundaries for their submunicipal divisions, instead
of admin_levels 9/10 like the surrounding municipalities.

Another municipality in Spain had its census divisions mapped as
"boundary=political" (with no other distinguishing tags) instead of
"boundary=statistics". These have no distinguished names, their given
"name=*" tag is descriptive only and are all the same (the name of the
municipality, a description they are census division, with just a different
number appended).

Sorry, but this is not my mess ! Consider all this. Really various users
have attempted to map differnt things for different needs (they are
legitimate), but they were not discussed as well, not documented. The OSM
wiki itself does not document anything about comarcas because it only links
to a fuzzy general article on Wikipedia for comarcas. So various users have
used this mere assumption in the OSM wiki as valid. But the single OSM wiki
page that links comarcas at admin_level 7 is in row of a table describing
the divisions of Spain: that row contains also an indication that this is
"proposed".

Admin levels in Spain (and other boundary types: political, health,
judiciary, mancomunidades, statistics, and even submunicipal divisions)
have never been seriously discussed and documented. That's something you
must work on. The needs are demonstrated, there's clearly more than just
CCAA, provinces and municipalities and there are serious open data sets
from multiple official administrative sources in Spain that define and use
them. All what is missing,is to agree on which tags to use to distinguish
them and clarify 

Re: [Talk-es] Unidades Administrativas - Castilla y León [debate]

[Diego Cruz Alonso]

¡Buenas!

Hemos estado hablando por el grupo de Castilla y León, y estamos bastante de 
acuerdo con que en el admin_level=7 solo esté El Bierzo. Para las comarcas 
agrarias que actualmente están metidas por casi toda la comunidad habría que 
poner otro tipo de boundary, para lo cual propongo agrarian_district, dado que 
en Taginfo no veo nada que pueda aplicarse a este caso entre los valores más 
usados.

Como bien dice Crashillo, en Castilla y León solo son oficiales algunos niveles 
administrativos, así que si se quiere meter otro tipo de entidades como 
partidos judiciales, mancomunidades u obispados, habría que hacerlo con otro 
tipo de boundary.

Espero que todo este debate sobre Castilla y León pueda servir también para 
otras autonomías en las que no hay comarcas oficiales.

Si nadie está disconforme, empezaré a renombrar lindes comarcales cuando tenga 
un ratillo.

Un saludo
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [Talk-es] Unidades Administrativas - Castilla y León [debate]

[Crashillo]

Retomando el asunto para intentar encauzarlo definitivamente, mis
conclusiones las extraigo de analizar la información presente en esta web: 
https://idecyl.jcyl.es/geonetwork/srv/spa/catalog.search#/search
  

*boundary=administrative*

Si filtramos por unidades administrativas, el resultado es más que evidente,
hay 3 y punto. Dentro de los datasets se puede encontrar este link sobre la
directiva INSPIRE 
https://blog-idee.blogspot.com/2009/01/unidades-administrativas-en-inspire.html

  

 

Oficialmente, solo podemos definir: CCAA, provincias y municipios.
Trasladado a etiquetas OSM, sería:

CCAA - admin_level=4
Provincias - admin_level=6
Municipios - admin_level=8

Esto es correcto actualmente en OSM. Ahora bien, existen también
admin_level=7, admin_level=9 y admin_level=10, que en base a lo anterior
comentado no deberían existir, o al menos, no como boundary=adminsitrative
(aunque admin_level solo tiene sentido para esa etiqueta)

*boundary=statistical*

Encontramos también datasets con nuevas divisiones, pertenecientes al
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, que son las secciones y las comarcas, y están
agrupadas en una categoría llamada Unidades Estadísticas. Las podemos
encontrar aquí: 
https://idecyl.jcyl.es/geonetwork/srv/spa/catalog.search#/search?resultType=details=relevance=index&_content_type=json=1=20=Unidades%20estad%C3%ADsticas

  

He propuesto esa etiqueta, statistical, porque se denominan así en la web.
La etiqueta tiene muy pocos usos a nivel mundial. Tema abierto a discusión.

*boundary=health*

También encontramos unos datasets que podríamos incorporar, que son las
areas de salud y zonas básicas de salud, de ahí que proponga health como
etiqueta. Tampoco es que tenga demasiados usos.

Por último, hay muchos datasets que tienen que ver con zonas protegidas,
masas de agua, etc... que si les quisiéramos incorporar, yo utilizaría las
etiquetas que mejor casasen en base a su uso mundial, por ejemplo,
boundary=protected_area, natural_park, forest, water...

No he encontrado información histórica sobre comarcas culturales, que
podrían responder a boundary=historic


Tema final:

Puesto que no es oficial, y el catálogo pertenece a la junta, no hay
información relativa a las ciudades, como por ejemplo barrios/distritos, o
códigos postales. Esos límites, de manera global en OSM se enmarcan en
admin_level=10. Por tanto, podemos ceñirnos a la oficialidad, mapear
exclusivamente 4, 6 y 8; o bien aceptar niveles inferiores como distritos
(9), los cuales fija un Ayuntamiento; o comarcas (7), los cuales fija Medio
Ambiente

El tema queda abierto a sugerencias



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Spain-f5409873.html

___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Pepe Valverde de la Vera]

Esto es increible. ¿Como es posible que andemos todavia dandole vueltas a
este asunto?.

En otros lugares no tengo ni idea pues bastante tenemos con aclararnos en
la diversidad de las 17 España.

Oficialmente, insisto, oficialmente la Ley de Bases de Regimen Local, es la
que especifica la division territorial y administrativa de este país. Y es
clara en su articulado en lo que a limites se refiere: Pais, Comunidad
Autónoma y Ciudades Autónomas, Provincia, Municipio y Entidad Local Menor a
municipio (las conocidas como Juntas Administativas Locales, Pedanias,
Poblados, e incluso Parroquias o anteiglesias) el resto no son más que
divisiones de gestión de diferentes organos generalmente para optimizar sus
medios y servicios y no pueden estar en estos niveles pues legalmente no
existen. Otra cosa es que DECIDAMOS en algunos casos representar esos
limites de gestión, pero que en mi modesto entender, habria que establecer
otros parametros diferentes a los de limites territoriales pues no lo son.

En otro orden de cosas, estan los enclaves, el más conocido el de Treviño,
pero que solo en la provincia de Burgos puede haber una docena y en
particular con las vecinas Palencia y Cantabria. Se podrian definir como
"islas" de un territorio provincial dentro de otra provincia y por tanto
afecta también a las comunidades autónomas a las que pertenecen. El caso
más afamado es el de Treviño, como ya se ha dicho, pero justo al lado
tenemos un caso similar en extensión y caracteristicas y que ademas afecta
a tres provincias y a tres CCAA, es el municipio de Miranda de Ebro, del
que no se habla pero es aun si cabe mas singular.

En cuanto a las comarcas la legislación vigente es la que corresponde a
cada CCAA y por tanto no existe un criterio generalizado. NO SE PUEDE
CONFUNDIR COMARCA COMO ENTE SINGULAR ADMUNISTRATIVO Y TERRITORIAL (La
Bañeza por ejemplo) con otras agrupaciones territoriales que no tienen ese
estatus aunque se denominen comarcas agrarias, comarca natural, comarca
industrial y que serian instancias similares a un Partido Judicial o un
Arciprestazgo, division administrativa similar a la comarca de ambito
religioso por lo tanto privado y que si tiene una representacion continua
en todo el territorio, PERO NO SON COMARCAS. Otro ejemplo son las
confederaciones hidrográficas, tambien tienen demarcación territorial,
incluso coincidente en algun caso con una comarca (valle del Jerte) pero NO
SON COMARCAS.

Si se ha de representar cualquiera de estas cosas deberia hacerse como he
dicho con nuevas etiquetas diferenciadas y POR CONSENSO todo lo demas
deberia, a mi juicio, REVERTIRSE.
Si ademas se actua de forma unulateral y sin la aprobscion o los criterios
de cada territorio se deberia actuar como en casos similares de ediciones
fuera de las normas.

Esa es mi opinión, salvo caso de otra mejor fundada y fundamentada en mas
de 30 años de experiencia en este mundo de propiedades, territorio y
mojones.

Salud,

Pepe

El jue., 23 ene. 2020 1:31, Philippe Verdy  escribió:

>
>
> Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 20:57, Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso 
> a écrit :
>
>> No he dicho que te inventaras "Enclave de Treviño", sino que el que este
>> ese bien o mal puesto no te da derecho para inventarte otros nombres. El
>> que te has inventado es «Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro»
>>
>> Como no hay admin_level7 en España cojo me lo invento y que se aguantes
>> los Españoles. Ole tú. Gran argumento el tuyo. ¿Y si no existe, cómo lo
>> quieres poner, que en gran parte de España parece que es el
>> caso?¿imponiéndolo? Esto es lo que se te lleva explicando desde el minuto 1
>> pero en vez de dialogar impones que se pone lo que tu dices, como tu dices.
>>
>
> Clamos ! I'm not alone to have created such mixed and unqualified things
> at admin_level 7, because the OSM documentation wiki was not clear at all.
> They were spread by multiple users (not just me) that created them over
> time without consiudering this was an issue and without asking here.
>
> It's not the fact they they do not exist, but they are ambiguously tagged
> and largely incomplete (when in fact they come from administrative sources
> that are complete in their relevant area of coverage). In OSM this was
> largely an unfinished subset of data that has never been usable for any
> purpose.
>
> I do not impose the tagging, I just created one that hoped to be coherent
> by itself and tried to sort the mess. But it remains unfinished. This is
> still a "work in progress"... And I used the correct sources or what
> appeared to be the existing consensus (anyway Spanish users do not seem to
> have properly sortted things as well in Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata).
> Someboday must start "doing the hard job" and find these incoherences. That
> was me, and of course I'm exposed to critics, but not opposed to changes
> and better suggestions, and I'm very open to them. If I make errors I can
> and will fix them.
>
> It's a fact that even if these comarcas are not officialized by the
>