Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
Hay gente que no se entera o no se quiere enterar, coincido Diego contigo, pd.: Supongo que su respuesta airada no se hará esperar. No se preocupe, encajo bien. De todas formas aquí termino, no pienso gastar ni un minuto más con usted. He incluso se me ocurren palabras mas gruesas pero como decia mi abuelo intentar que ciertas personas entiendan lo evidente a veces es perder tiempo, dinero y categoria. Hasta aqui con este asunto. Pepe El sáb., 25 ene. 2020 9:34, Diego García escribió: > Esto ya es surrealista. > > ¿Usted a qué ha venido por aquí? ¿A mapear o a sacarnos de la ignorancia, > como en el 1808? ¿Cuántos años lleva usted viviendo aquí como para > discutirnos? ¿Conoce mínimamente la realidad de España, o sólo lo que > encuentra por internet? Se está retratando usted solito. Se lo pido por > favor: deje de hostigar a toda una comunidad nacional, le invito a irse por > donde ha venido, déjenos en paz. Hay muchas cosas para editar en su propio > terreno si le parece bien. O en el Congo Belga, o en Laponia. La wiki de > OSM me han dicho que está muy bien en esta época del año. > > Disculpe la ocurrencia, no es mi estilo en público. Pero la paciencia > tiene un límite muy fino, y usted se lo lleva saltando desde hace demasiado > tiempo. > > > Un saludo, a todos menos a uno, > > Diego > > pd.: Supongo que su respuesta airada no se hará esperar. No se preocupe, > encajo bien. De todas formas aquí termino, no pienso gastar ni un minuto > más con usted. > > El sáb., 25 ene. 2020 a las 6:05, Philippe Verdy () > escribió: > >> 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,
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
Esto ya es surrealista. ¿Usted a qué ha venido por aquí? ¿A mapear o a sacarnos de la ignorancia, como en el 1808? ¿Cuántos años lleva usted viviendo aquí como para discutirnos? ¿Conoce mínimamente la realidad de España, o sólo lo que encuentra por internet? Se está retratando usted solito. Se lo pido por favor: deje de hostigar a toda una comunidad nacional, le invito a irse por donde ha venido, déjenos en paz. Hay muchas cosas para editar en su propio terreno si le parece bien. O en el Congo Belga, o en Laponia. La wiki de OSM me han dicho que está muy bien en esta época del año. Disculpe la ocurrencia, no es mi estilo en público. Pero la paciencia tiene un límite muy fino, y usted se lo lleva saltando desde hace demasiado tiempo. Un saludo, a todos menos a uno, Diego pd.: Supongo que su respuesta airada no se hará esperar. No se preocupe, encajo bien. De todas formas aquí termino, no pienso gastar ni un minuto más con usted. El sáb., 25 ene. 2020 a las 6:05, Philippe Verdy () escribió: > 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
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
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
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
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
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
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] hello, first message tried in this list
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 >
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
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 autonomous communities, they are officialized by a Spanish administration (provinces, ministries, state agencies) for their domain of use, so they exist (even in their own open data sets) and they are expected to be present in OSM (otherwise other Spanish users wouldn't have created some of them, but left the situation unfinished and incoherent, so they were still not usable). Those administrations unfortunately designate them as "comarca", but if you read their sources correctly, the term "comarca" is not used alone and is qualified. ___ 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
OK this object is removed (it had no tags qualifying it as a "comarca", il was made essentially temporarily while seeing the duplicate admin_level 7 for Treviño only, when it is only the eastern part of a comarca at level 7 too) Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 16:33, Diego Cruz Alonso a écrit : > Dear Philippe, > > Exactly, the situation is so messed up in Wikipedia and in the map because > this has never been addressed properly before in Spain. Please stop adding > things until borders are sorted out in the community. You are not allowed > to sort this out on your own and we are not accepting undebated > impositions. If you have a clear plan on how to do things, explain it here > BEFORE implementing it in the map. > > By the way, you *are* inventing things: «Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de > Ebro» is nothing that exists in reality. Please remove that limit. > > Best regards > ___ > Talk-es mailing list > Talk-es@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es > ___ 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
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. Mira solo quieres imponer tu criterio. Y así no funcionan las cosas, se acabo ya el intentar razonar contigo y que tu te comportarte como un prepotente. Así que por favor deja de editar en España y todo solucionado. Los que somos de aquí lo solucionaremos. Si no atiendes a razones lo siguiente ya es volver a remitirlo arriba y que te bloqueen por lo mismo que ya te han bloqueado como pone en este bloqueo https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3386 "A pesar de la advertencia en el bloque anterior (“no más ediciones administrativas en España hasta que la comunidad local esté feliz de que sus límites sean correctos nuevamente”)" Claramente te hemos expresado varias personas de varias maneras que no estamos conformes con sus ediciones y sigues y sigues intentando imponer en vez de razonar. Deja las ediciones de límites administrativos en España ya. El mié., 22 ene. 2020 a las 16:33, Diego Cruz Alonso () escribió: > Dear Philippe, > > Exactly, the situation is so messed up in Wikipedia and in the map because > this has never been addressed properly before in Spain. Please stop adding > things until borders are sorted out in the community. You are not allowed > to sort this out on your own and we are not accepting undebated > impositions. If you have a clear plan on how to do things, explain it here > BEFORE implementing it in the map. > > By the way, you *are* inventing things: «Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de > Ebro» is nothing that exists in reality. Please remove that limit. > > Best regards > ___ > Talk-es mailing list > Talk-es@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es > -- Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso - Sanchi Blog http://jorgesanzs.es/ ___ 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
Dear Philippe, Exactly, the situation is so messed up in Wikipedia and in the map because this has never been addressed properly before in Spain. Please stop adding things until borders are sorted out in the community. You are not allowed to sort this out on your own and we are not accepting undebated impositions. If you have a clear plan on how to do things, explain it here BEFORE implementing it in the map. By the way, you are inventing things: «Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro» is nothing that exists in reality. Please remove that limit. Best regards___ 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
Sorry but let me be clear about this situation: Please STOP editing boundaries in Spain until Spanish community has consensus in this topic. Spanish community is very upset with that. More than 10 people are constantly reviewing your editions. Your editions in that topic in this moment are not welcomed. It is clear now Spanish Community of OSM has to do a review of our boundaries. If we go to https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#values we can see more than 10 possible types of boundaries we can investigate and edit. And we miss some custom boundaries we have in some regions as "vegueries" or "comarcas (agrarias) "agricultural counties" so we have to talk about it in peace, WITHOUT EDITIONS, make an agreement and apply and map it. Then your help will be very welcomed. You are not from Spain,you are not living in Spain and you don't know Spain better than Spaniards. I would not go to France to edit the départements. Thanks for your understanding yopaseopor PD: sorry if I sound rude and for my bad English. On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:34 PM Philippe Verdy wrote: > Hello, I'd like to follow up on the discussion started here about me. > > Note: I can read perfectly Spanish, but I won't talk in Spanish as my > writing level is too poor and could lead to more misinterpretations. > > I was told by a Spanish user to map missing comarcas in Aragon and then I > was blocked for that, even if there was no "error", and there was an > ongoing talk with existing users that did not contacted me directly on OSM > but prefer to complain to the DWG. > > It is clear from the talks (and it was agreed by the comments sent to the > changeset) that this was only a misunderstanding. And that I did not break > anything. > > I talked also bout the fact that there are several competing comarcal > delimitations. They do not exist officially at national level, but are > effective by laws and regulations in each region (short for autonomous > community), and that for regions that are separated in different provinces, > the comarcal decided by regions in their official bulletin of laws does not > take into consideration the existing province boundaries. > > But there were several existing consensus for this topic in related > projects (including, but not only, Wikidata, Spnish Wikipedia, and > Commons). And the situation is not clear as all kinds of comarcas are mixed > together or confused (sometimes with the same name depending on their type). > > Anyway there was a "most common" practice existing in relevant commnities > about what was the more relevant (the situation is complicated by the fact > that there are "natural comarcas" or "traditional comarcas" which have > today no official status, of that sometimes coexist at several levels (a > traditional "comarca" may be seen as a subcomarca of another traditional > comarca). > > I did not want to promote one kind of comarcas for another, but at least > make the existing set consistent with itself for the most common use seen > and discussed since long in various opendata projects). Allowing then the > separate creation of these comarcas and properly tagging them to > differentiate them when needed was what I started. > > But at least one comarcal division should exist in each region. > > I had proposed several things, I was talking about them, but I was blocked > twice in a row during these talks (and was even blocked from continuing > these talks or even read the comments). > > > > Now I've tried several times to join this list, but the OSM MLM has > technical problems as it does not comply to the enforcement measures taken > by various ISP (including very large ones): since about one year (March > 2019) many ISP have enforced these rules, notably DKIM and DMARC for their > mails, but the OSM MLM breaks the DKIM and DMARC digital signatures (by > modifying digitally signed parts of emails: some MIME headers, the mail > subject line and/or the content body. To do that on messages signed with > DKIM or DMARC by their original sender, the MLLM must take some care: it > must sign again its own modifications and update its DNS to conform to DKIM > and DMARC. But it does not, only the SPF protocol is used, and then the SPF > protocol breaks again because the OSM MLM is not the original sender. Mails > sent for the OSM MLM are then bouncing. > > And now recently the OSM MLM has been *silently* dropping subscriptions > from their lists. It has done that massively. Many users can no longer > communicate on the OSM lists. Worse, now they want to block users because > their mails are "bouncing". This makes communication in OMS tlak list very > dangerous if not impossible. People are blocked unfairly even if they did > not usurpate anyone. They are forced to change their email, can no longer > choose their provider or loose messages from the lists that they expected > to see. > > I was blocked in OSM because of repeated failure to join this list to > continue this discussion.
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 14:45, Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso
a écrit :
> Si nos vamos a la documentación de la wiki
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary
> Pone que los enclaves se hace en la misma relación y solucionado. No pone
> que se tengan que crear nuevas relaciones, subrelaciones y cosas parecidas.
>
> ¿Qué el "Enclave de Treviño" puede que se tenga que etiquetar de otra
> manera?
>
I did not invent that name, it was already present in OSM !
> Puede ser, ante la duda habra que hablarlo, pero eso no da razón para
> inventarse nombres y cosas nuevas si no existen.
> "Enclave de Treviño" Tiene representación especial dentro de España por
> algunos conflictos que han existido que no comparten otras zonas. Se puede
> ver en qué tiene pagina especial en la wikipedia por ejemplo. Habra que ver
> cómo poner este caso especial.
>
But it's still not a "comarca" under the meaning intended by other comarcas
in the two autonomous communities involved.
>
> Por favor deja de editar fronteras hasta que se llegue a un consenso.
> Estamos abiertos a escuchar sugerencias y ver cómo solucionar los
> diferentes problemas que surgen en las diferentes zonas de España. Pero no
> llegar e imponer criterios.
>
All those existing boundaries at admin_level 7 were added without any prior
consensus of tagging. In fact there's no tagging at all documented for
them. the Wiki OSM just indicates "comarca" is at level 7, but this was an
informal proposal, never discussed, and the link goes to Wikipedia where
they are also not documented and sorted properly (this also applies to
Wikidata where the classification is still not made as well, and commons
where maps and categories are all mixed with ambiguous names). Seriously,
this is not consistant "data" in the OSM meaning.
There's a need to start creating something consistant (this does not mean
removing what was made, just retagging properly and avoid conflicts of
interpretation). And there, nothing is documented. We must still start by
the "hard way" trying to disambiguate things to get at least one consistant
view and then retag the rest with temporary tags that can be rediscussed to
get more views.
OSM is all about that: someone starts the hard job to separate the
concepts, fill holes, find overlaps; this requires much efforts to prepare
the field (what I'm doing, while avoiding to create too much conflicts).
Then there's a cleanup and maintenance step that occurs until the existing
schema is found to be insufficient.
Because of these inconsistancies the admin_level 7 was found to be unusable
and unused in OSM for Spain. So much opendata about these comarcas still
cannot be imported and checked. Being coherent is a great thing as it
really helps integrating more items and developing new methods to be more
precise and solve ambiguities, and develop new usages of OSM data for
derived cartography (notably statistical maps, related to many other open
data or private data, with enough granularity that people can understand;
but with just communities, provinces and municipalities, this is
insufficient: there are hundreds of municipalities in provinces or
autonomous communities and no way to use significant grouping that matches
verifiable sources; so each one has to recreate its own comarcal
delimitation, frequently with errors/omissions/overlaps or different
meanings, and the statistics map and aggregated data are not comparable
with each other).
> No se a que llamas mapa en mayusculas "MAPA"
>
MAPA was refereing to the *correct* and common Spanish abbreviation for the
full name of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food
("Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación") and I thought it was
implicit and wellknown to native Spanish users (like you?)
It's not the Spanish equivalent of "map" in English. The capitals were
correct in that case and really intended (and it would be a non-sense to
cite an unspecified anbd generic "mapa" as a source. The *lowercase* would
have been obviously wrong in the context I gave. And the sources in OSM
indicate the full Spanish name of the ministry, not this abbreviation I
used only in this talk thread.
___
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
Hola Phillippe, por favor, para de editar límites administrativos en España. Varios usuarios de la comunidad te lo han pedido y has seguido editando. Muchos usuarios de la comunidad están muy descontentos con tu actitud de hechos consumados. Para de editar. Después podemos hablar de qué límites administrativos son correctos y cuáles no, uno por uno. Un saludo, Jose Luis El mié., 22 ene. 2020 a las 14:44, Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso (< sanc...@gmail.com>) escribió: > Si nos vamos a la documentación de la wiki > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary > Pone que los enclaves se hace en la misma relación y solucionado. No pone > que se tengan que crear nuevas relaciones, subrelaciones y cosas parecidas. > > ¿Qué el "Enclave de Treviño" puede que se tenga que etiquetar de otra > manera? Puede ser, ante la duda habra que hablarlo, pero eso no da razón > para inventarse nombres y cosas nuevas si no existen. > "Enclave de Treviño" Tiene representación especial dentro de España por > algunos conflictos que han existido que no comparten otras zonas. Se puede > ver en qué tiene pagina especial en la wikipedia por ejemplo. Habra que ver > cómo poner este caso especial. > > Por favor deja de editar fronteras hasta que se llegue a un consenso. > Estamos abiertos a escuchar sugerencias y ver cómo solucionar los > diferentes problemas que surgen en las diferentes zonas de España. Pero no > llegar e imponer criterios. > > No se a que llamas mapa en mayusculas "MAPA" > > El mié., 22 ene. 2020 a las 13:26, Philippe Verdy () > escribió: > >> The enclaves de Miranda de Ebro are related to another one, for Treviño >> in the same area that was also mapped and overlapped the same level 7 as >> the comarca de Ebro (containing that enclave). >> But these enclaves de Mirando de Ebro are enclaved by another province >> than those for Treviño. I did not make them "comarcas", it may have just >> been while looking for holes or overlaps. >> >> I've seen a few comarcas that forgot enclaves of their municipalities or >> included enclaves of other municipalities not member of the comarca. >> >> The object named "Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro" is more or less >> descriptive, just like the name given to "Enclave de Treviño", they are >> documented with similar but varying names in historical documents as such >> "enclaves", but not administrative today by themselves as they have no form >> of autonomy. This was not made as a "comarca" at all. If you don't like it, >> no problem for removing it (but then what is "Enclave de Treviño" ? >> > >> There's a mix and confusion between what are "comarcas" in Spain. It's a >> generic term just like "geographic region" used for various things >> grouping, not necessarily endorsed by an existing public collectivity >> (municipalities, provinces, autonomous communities, and the state). >> >> And someone says that I did not reply to questions sent on this list. >> I've seen comments, but the real questions were actually written by me. I >> proposed to sort these. And create a correct tagging that avoids the >> confusions between the comarcal types. I did not say we should remove these >> and visibly existing users have different needs. >> > >> The agrarian comarcas are documented by MAPA, even published on their >> opendata and visible on their online map, throughout Spain. They have some >> administrative status for managing agriculture founding and the Spanish and >> European planification. They have documented names, and do not necessarily >> follow the regional and/or provincial delimitations or the historical and >> "natural"/traditional delimitations >> >> The delimitations of historical and "natural" comarcas have also borders >> that are in fact very fuzzy if defined with borders of today's >> municipalities, when they were groups of villages whose delimitations have >> changed locally before they were organized as municipalities, and sometimes >> merged into the same town or city. It's just like trying to map mountain >> chains: this cannot be based on today's administrative borders (e.g. the >> Pyrenees or the Andes cordillera). >> >> In OSM there are some fuzzy objects types like bays, that use quite >> precise coastlines but fuzzy strokes across the see and no clear point of >> intersection between these strokes and the coastlines. They are "natural" >> objects for geographic regions, bot "boundaries". May be this should apply >> to natural comarcas whose /exact/ borders are in fact not so exact and vary >> across authors (and they just agree about which historical urbanized >> settlements should be inside, but not really for how for of the surrounding >> rural area they should enclose. There may be some natural artefacts like >> rivers or cliffs, but rivers also have changed over history, cliffs are not >> easy to delineate and were also changed by human activity, like also >> forests and lakes/ponds also have largely changed or very across seasons. >> >> Natural
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
Si nos vamos a la documentación de la wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary Pone que los enclaves se hace en la misma relación y solucionado. No pone que se tengan que crear nuevas relaciones, subrelaciones y cosas parecidas. ¿Qué el "Enclave de Treviño" puede que se tenga que etiquetar de otra manera? Puede ser, ante la duda habra que hablarlo, pero eso no da razón para inventarse nombres y cosas nuevas si no existen. "Enclave de Treviño" Tiene representación especial dentro de España por algunos conflictos que han existido que no comparten otras zonas. Se puede ver en qué tiene pagina especial en la wikipedia por ejemplo. Habra que ver cómo poner este caso especial. Por favor deja de editar fronteras hasta que se llegue a un consenso. Estamos abiertos a escuchar sugerencias y ver cómo solucionar los diferentes problemas que surgen en las diferentes zonas de España. Pero no llegar e imponer criterios. No se a que llamas mapa en mayusculas "MAPA" El mié., 22 ene. 2020 a las 13:26, Philippe Verdy () escribió: > The enclaves de Miranda de Ebro are related to another one, for Treviño in > the same area that was also mapped and overlapped the same level 7 as the > comarca de Ebro (containing that enclave). > But these enclaves de Mirando de Ebro are enclaved by another province > than those for Treviño. I did not make them "comarcas", it may have just > been while looking for holes or overlaps. > > I've seen a few comarcas that forgot enclaves of their municipalities or > included enclaves of other municipalities not member of the comarca. > > The object named "Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro" is more or less > descriptive, just like the name given to "Enclave de Treviño", they are > documented with similar but varying names in historical documents as such > "enclaves", but not administrative today by themselves as they have no form > of autonomy. This was not made as a "comarca" at all. If you don't like it, > no problem for removing it (but then what is "Enclave de Treviño" ? > > There's a mix and confusion between what are "comarcas" in Spain. It's a > generic term just like "geographic region" used for various things > grouping, not necessarily endorsed by an existing public collectivity > (municipalities, provinces, autonomous communities, and the state). > > And someone says that I did not reply to questions sent on this list. I've > seen comments, but the real questions were actually written by me. I > proposed to sort these. And create a correct tagging that avoids the > confusions between the comarcal types. I did not say we should remove these > and visibly existing users have different needs. > > The agrarian comarcas are documented by MAPA, even published on their > opendata and visible on their online map, throughout Spain. They have some > administrative status for managing agriculture founding and the Spanish and > European planification. They have documented names, and do not necessarily > follow the regional and/or provincial delimitations or the historical and > "natural"/traditional delimitations > > The delimitations of historical and "natural" comarcas have also borders > that are in fact very fuzzy if defined with borders of today's > municipalities, when they were groups of villages whose delimitations have > changed locally before they were organized as municipalities, and sometimes > merged into the same town or city. It's just like trying to map mountain > chains: this cannot be based on today's administrative borders (e.g. the > Pyrenees or the Andes cordillera). > > In OSM there are some fuzzy objects types like bays, that use quite > precise coastlines but fuzzy strokes across the see and no clear point of > intersection between these strokes and the coastlines. They are "natural" > objects for geographic regions, bot "boundaries". May be this should apply > to natural comarcas whose /exact/ borders are in fact not so exact and vary > across authors (and they just agree about which historical urbanized > settlements should be inside, but not really for how for of the surrounding > rural area they should enclose. There may be some natural artefacts like > rivers or cliffs, but rivers also have changed over history, cliffs are not > easy to delineate and were also changed by human activity, like also > forests and lakes/ponds also have largely changed or very across seasons. > > Natural objects still can live in OSM but not withe the same tags and > should not be based on lines drawn for precise objects. And they can > perfectly overlap, but have low precision. Historical objects also have > generally not been accepted in OSM unless they stil lexist in some > legislation or treaty or for some limited purposes (such as statistical > continuity for about 10 years, or preservation of existing contracts, and > for the legal delay of judiciary procedures or adaptation of the rest of > the legislation, needed after a recent legal change: these
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
Hola, Philippe. Por consiguiente, estas comarcas que estás mapeando no son del tipo administrativo, ya que no se emplean para la zonificación administrativa oficial del territorio que en España está dividida en comunidades autónomas, provincias y municipios (y comarcas sólo en aquellos lugares donde la legislación autonómica así lo ha definido). Tampoco son "boundary=political", ya que no son demarcaciones electorales. Estos límites comarcales "temáticos" deberán ser mapeados empleando una etiqueta boundary nueva, según lo que se decida en el hilo "Unidades Administrativas - Castilla y León [debate]" que ha abierto Crashillo. Un cordial saludo, -- David Marín Carreño El mié., 22 ene. 2020 a las 14:10, Philippe Verdy () escribió: > Note also that "political" boundaries are used in Spain for linguistic > areas, not just electoral constituencies. > > There should be a subtag for the political=* type to distinguish them (and > there are multiple consituency types depending on the kind of elections, > including European elections for European deputies elected for Spain). > > I just challenge here the fact that every concept is mixed, and there are > already collisions on the same classification tags for different things. > This does not allow easy searches and clear results (e.g. to create > statistical maps without doubly-counted overlaps). > > So first we must solve these collisions, find holes that should be filled > for completeness (needed for statistics), and then apply consistent tagging > (which can be decided, for now it's not even documented anywhere, there are > just different assumptions by different users: it's a mess to find the > existing items in OSM and get consistant results). > > Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 13:47, Francisco Javier Diez Rabanos < > diera...@jcyl.es> a écrit : > >> De la mismas manera que las comarcas agrícolas se pueden incluir las >> comarcas forestales, que en Castilla y León están disponibles en el portal >> de datos abiertos. >> >> >> https://datosabiertos.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/set/es/medio-ambiente/comarcas-medio-ambiente-cyl/1284687310081 >> >> >> >> *De:* Philippe Verdy [mailto:ver...@gmail.com] >> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 22 de enero de 2020 13:25 >> *Para:* Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap >> *Asunto:* Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list >> >> >> >> The enclaves de Miranda de Ebro are related to another one, for Treviño >> in the same area that was also mapped and overlapped the same level 7 as >> the comarca de Ebro (containing that enclave). >> >> But these enclaves de Mirando de Ebro are enclaved by another province >> than those for Treviño. I did not make them "comarcas", it may have just >> been while looking for holes or overlaps. >> >> >> >> I've seen a few comarcas that forgot enclaves of their municipalities or >> included enclaves of other municipalities not member of the comarca. >> >> >> >> The object named "Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro" is more or less >> descriptive, just like the name given to "Enclave de Treviño", they are >> documented with similar but varying names in historical documents as such >> "enclaves", but not administrative today by themselves as they have no form >> of autonomy. This was not made as a "comarca" at all. If you don't like it, >> no problem for removing it (but then what is "Enclave de Treviño" ? >> >> >> >> There's a mix and confusion between what are "comarcas" in Spain. It's a >> generic term just like "geographic region" used for various things >> grouping, not necessarily endorsed by an existing public collectivity >> (municipalities, provinces, autonomous communities, and the state). >> >> >> >> And someone says that I did not reply to questions sent on this list. >> I've seen comments, but the real questions were actually written by me. I >> proposed to sort these. And create a correct tagging that avoids the >> confusions between the comarcal types. I did not say we should remove these >> and visibly existing users have different needs. >> >> >> >> The agrarian comarcas are documented by MAPA, even published on their >> opendata and visible on their online map, throughout Spain. They have some >> administrative status for managing agriculture founding and the Spanish and >> European planification. They have documented names, and do not necessarily >> follow the regional and/or provincial delimitations or the historical and >> "natura
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
Note also that "political" boundaries are used in Spain for linguistic areas, not just electoral constituencies. There should be a subtag for the political=* type to distinguish them (and there are multiple consituency types depending on the kind of elections, including European elections for European deputies elected for Spain). I just challenge here the fact that every concept is mixed, and there are already collisions on the same classification tags for different things. This does not allow easy searches and clear results (e.g. to create statistical maps without doubly-counted overlaps). So first we must solve these collisions, find holes that should be filled for completeness (needed for statistics), and then apply consistent tagging (which can be decided, for now it's not even documented anywhere, there are just different assumptions by different users: it's a mess to find the existing items in OSM and get consistant results). Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 13:47, Francisco Javier Diez Rabanos < diera...@jcyl.es> a écrit : > De la mismas manera que las comarcas agrícolas se pueden incluir las > comarcas forestales, que en Castilla y León están disponibles en el portal > de datos abiertos. > > > https://datosabiertos.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/set/es/medio-ambiente/comarcas-medio-ambiente-cyl/1284687310081 > > > > *De:* Philippe Verdy [mailto:ver...@gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* miércoles, 22 de enero de 2020 13:25 > *Para:* Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap > *Asunto:* Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list > > > > The enclaves de Miranda de Ebro are related to another one, for Treviño in > the same area that was also mapped and overlapped the same level 7 as the > comarca de Ebro (containing that enclave). > > But these enclaves de Mirando de Ebro are enclaved by another province > than those for Treviño. I did not make them "comarcas", it may have just > been while looking for holes or overlaps. > > > > I've seen a few comarcas that forgot enclaves of their municipalities or > included enclaves of other municipalities not member of the comarca. > > > > The object named "Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro" is more or less > descriptive, just like the name given to "Enclave de Treviño", they are > documented with similar but varying names in historical documents as such > "enclaves", but not administrative today by themselves as they have no form > of autonomy. This was not made as a "comarca" at all. If you don't like it, > no problem for removing it (but then what is "Enclave de Treviño" ? > > > > There's a mix and confusion between what are "comarcas" in Spain. It's a > generic term just like "geographic region" used for various things > grouping, not necessarily endorsed by an existing public collectivity > (municipalities, provinces, autonomous communities, and the state). > > > > And someone says that I did not reply to questions sent on this list. I've > seen comments, but the real questions were actually written by me. I > proposed to sort these. And create a correct tagging that avoids the > confusions between the comarcal types. I did not say we should remove these > and visibly existing users have different needs. > > > > The agrarian comarcas are documented by MAPA, even published on their > opendata and visible on their online map, throughout Spain. They have some > administrative status for managing agriculture founding and the Spanish and > European planification. They have documented names, and do not necessarily > follow the regional and/or provincial delimitations or the historical and > "natural"/traditional delimitations > > > > The delimitations of historical and "natural" comarcas have also borders > that are in fact very fuzzy if defined with borders of today's > municipalities, when they were groups of villages whose delimitations have > changed locally before they were organized as municipalities, and sometimes > merged into the same town or city. It's just like trying to map mountain > chains: this cannot be based on today's administrative borders (e.g. the > Pyrenees or the Andes cordillera). > > > > In OSM there are some fuzzy objects types like bays, that use quite > precise coastlines but fuzzy strokes across the see and no clear point of > intersection between these strokes and the coastlines. They are "natural" > objects for geographic regions, bot "boundaries". May be this should apply > to natural comarcas whose /exact/ borders are in fact not so exact and vary > across authors (and they just agree about which historical urbanized > settlements should be inside, but not real
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
De la mismas manera que las comarcas agrícolas se pueden incluir las comarcas forestales, que en Castilla y León están disponibles en el portal de datos abiertos. https://datosabiertos.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/set/es/medio-ambiente/comarcas-medio-ambiente-cyl/1284687310081 De: Philippe Verdy [mailto:ver...@gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 22 de enero de 2020 13:25 Para: Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap Asunto: Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list The enclaves de Miranda de Ebro are related to another one, for Treviño in the same area that was also mapped and overlapped the same level 7 as the comarca de Ebro (containing that enclave). But these enclaves de Mirando de Ebro are enclaved by another province than those for Treviño. I did not make them "comarcas", it may have just been while looking for holes or overlaps. I've seen a few comarcas that forgot enclaves of their municipalities or included enclaves of other municipalities not member of the comarca. The object named "Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro" is more or less descriptive, just like the name given to "Enclave de Treviño", they are documented with similar but varying names in historical documents as such "enclaves", but not administrative today by themselves as they have no form of autonomy. This was not made as a "comarca" at all. If you don't like it, no problem for removing it (but then what is "Enclave de Treviño" ? There's a mix and confusion between what are "comarcas" in Spain. It's a generic term just like "geographic region" used for various things grouping, not necessarily endorsed by an existing public collectivity (municipalities, provinces, autonomous communities, and the state). And someone says that I did not reply to questions sent on this list. I've seen comments, but the real questions were actually written by me. I proposed to sort these. And create a correct tagging that avoids the confusions between the comarcal types. I did not say we should remove these and visibly existing users have different needs. The agrarian comarcas are documented by MAPA, even published on their opendata and visible on their online map, throughout Spain. They have some administrative status for managing agriculture founding and the Spanish and European planification. They have documented names, and do not necessarily follow the regional and/or provincial delimitations or the historical and "natural"/traditional delimitations The delimitations of historical and "natural" comarcas have also borders that are in fact very fuzzy if defined with borders of today's municipalities, when they were groups of villages whose delimitations have changed locally before they were organized as municipalities, and sometimes merged into the same town or city. It's just like trying to map mountain chains: this cannot be based on today's administrative borders (e.g. the Pyrenees or the Andes cordillera). In OSM there are some fuzzy objects types like bays, that use quite precise coastlines but fuzzy strokes across the see and no clear point of intersection between these strokes and the coastlines. They are "natural" objects for geographic regions, bot "boundaries". May be this should apply to natural comarcas whose /exact/ borders are in fact not so exact and vary across authors (and they just agree about which historical urbanized settlements should be inside, but not really for how for of the surrounding rural area they should enclose. There may be some natural artefacts like rivers or cliffs, but rivers also have changed over history, cliffs are not easy to delineate and were also changed by human activity, like also forests and lakes/ponds also have largely changed or very across seasons. Natural objects still can live in OSM but not withe the same tags and should not be based on lines drawn for precise objects. And they can perfectly overlap, but have low precision. Historical objects also have generally not been accepted in OSM unless they stil lexist in some legislation or treaty or for some limited purposes (such as statistical continuity for about 10 years, or preservation of existing contracts, and for the legal delay of judiciary procedures or adaptation of the rest of the legislation, needed after a recent legal change: these preservation is very useful for having precise statistical reports and maps). Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 09:56, Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso mailto:sanc...@gmail.com>> a écrit : Buenas. Le agradecería a Philippe Verdy que en vez de seguir editando hablara y dijera qué sucede. Estoy esperando a que conteste sobre las zonas que no hay ley y en las que se esta volviendo a meter a editar según parece. Dialogar con la comunidad no es soltar qué ha escrito aquí, decir que todo lo ha hecho bien y cuando se le dice que no, irse a seguir h
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
The enclaves de Miranda de Ebro are related to another one, for Treviño in the same area that was also mapped and overlapped the same level 7 as the comarca de Ebro (containing that enclave). But these enclaves de Mirando de Ebro are enclaved by another province than those for Treviño. I did not make them "comarcas", it may have just been while looking for holes or overlaps. I've seen a few comarcas that forgot enclaves of their municipalities or included enclaves of other municipalities not member of the comarca. The object named "Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro" is more or less descriptive, just like the name given to "Enclave de Treviño", they are documented with similar but varying names in historical documents as such "enclaves", but not administrative today by themselves as they have no form of autonomy. This was not made as a "comarca" at all. If you don't like it, no problem for removing it (but then what is "Enclave de Treviño" ? There's a mix and confusion between what are "comarcas" in Spain. It's a generic term just like "geographic region" used for various things grouping, not necessarily endorsed by an existing public collectivity (municipalities, provinces, autonomous communities, and the state). And someone says that I did not reply to questions sent on this list. I've seen comments, but the real questions were actually written by me. I proposed to sort these. And create a correct tagging that avoids the confusions between the comarcal types. I did not say we should remove these and visibly existing users have different needs. The agrarian comarcas are documented by MAPA, even published on their opendata and visible on their online map, throughout Spain. They have some administrative status for managing agriculture founding and the Spanish and European planification. They have documented names, and do not necessarily follow the regional and/or provincial delimitations or the historical and "natural"/traditional delimitations The delimitations of historical and "natural" comarcas have also borders that are in fact very fuzzy if defined with borders of today's municipalities, when they were groups of villages whose delimitations have changed locally before they were organized as municipalities, and sometimes merged into the same town or city. It's just like trying to map mountain chains: this cannot be based on today's administrative borders (e.g. the Pyrenees or the Andes cordillera). In OSM there are some fuzzy objects types like bays, that use quite precise coastlines but fuzzy strokes across the see and no clear point of intersection between these strokes and the coastlines. They are "natural" objects for geographic regions, bot "boundaries". May be this should apply to natural comarcas whose /exact/ borders are in fact not so exact and vary across authors (and they just agree about which historical urbanized settlements should be inside, but not really for how for of the surrounding rural area they should enclose. There may be some natural artefacts like rivers or cliffs, but rivers also have changed over history, cliffs are not easy to delineate and were also changed by human activity, like also forests and lakes/ponds also have largely changed or very across seasons. Natural objects still can live in OSM but not withe the same tags and should not be based on lines drawn for precise objects. And they can perfectly overlap, but have low precision. Historical objects also have generally not been accepted in OSM unless they stil lexist in some legislation or treaty or for some limited purposes (such as statistical continuity for about 10 years, or preservation of existing contracts, and for the legal delay of judiciary procedures or adaptation of the rest of the legislation, needed after a recent legal change: these preservation is very useful for having precise statistical reports and maps). Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 09:56, Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso a écrit : > Buenas. > > Le agradecería a Philippe Verdy que en vez de seguir editando hablara y > dijera qué sucede. Estoy esperando a que conteste sobre las zonas que no > hay ley y en las que se esta volviendo a meter a editar según parece. > Dialogar con la comunidad no es soltar qué ha escrito aquí, decir que todo > lo ha hecho bien y cuando se le dice que no, irse a seguir haciendo lo > mismo. Hay que hablar y dialogar y ver los puntos de vista. > > No creo que se le este pidiendo nada especial. Es una cosa esencial en una > sociedad civilizada, hablar las cosas. Si no quieres hablar y solucionarlo > solo nos queda volver a pedir que actúen desde arriba. > > Yo creo que si no hay ley que las regule, que legalmente no existen pero > sí con otros motivos históricos, agrarios, Deberíamos decidir por cuál > de esos motivos es el más adecuado etiquetarlos y poner un etiquetado > diferente. No podemos tener igual las fronteras oficiales que unas > fronteras históricas que no existen realmente. Eso sí en todos los casos >
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
Buenas. Le agradecería a Philippe Verdy que en vez de seguir editando hablara y dijera qué sucede. Estoy esperando a que conteste sobre las zonas que no hay ley y en las que se esta volviendo a meter a editar según parece. Dialogar con la comunidad no es soltar qué ha escrito aquí, decir que todo lo ha hecho bien y cuando se le dice que no, irse a seguir haciendo lo mismo. Hay que hablar y dialogar y ver los puntos de vista. No creo que se le este pidiendo nada especial. Es una cosa esencial en una sociedad civilizada, hablar las cosas. Si no quieres hablar y solucionarlo solo nos queda volver a pedir que actúen desde arriba. Yo creo que si no hay ley que las regule, que legalmente no existen pero sí con otros motivos históricos, agrarios, Deberíamos decidir por cuál de esos motivos es el más adecuado etiquetarlos y poner un etiquetado diferente. No podemos tener igual las fronteras oficiales que unas fronteras históricas que no existen realmente. Eso sí en todos los casos fronteras documentadas correctamente. Agradecería la opinión del resto, pero sobre todo de Philippe Verdy antes de que continue sus ediciones. Y mirando lo de «Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro». ¿Verdy nos lo puedes explicar? Saludos. El mié., 22 ene. 2020 a las 8:47, Diego García () escribió: > Buenos días. > > Por Aragón también. > > No voy a andar revisando todo cada vez que interviene este editor. > Como ejemplo https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79841251 donde crea > comarcas en Teruel y de paso le cambia el adminlevel a la localidad de > Monzón de 7 a 8, siendo que es la capital del Cinca Medio. Veo muchas más > ediciones, pero no me las voy a repasar todas. > > Qué pereza, madre mía. Y qué paciencia. > > > > Un saludo, > > > > > > > El mié., 22 ene. 2020 a las 5:15, Diego Cruz Alonso () > escribió: > >> Buenos días a todos: >> >> Lamento tener que volver a escribir a la lista en relación con este tema, >> pero el usuario Verdy_p ha vuelto a editar demarcaciones en Castilla y >> León. Ha creado dos áreas con boundary=political en la provincia de Burgos, >> una en el condado de Treviño y otra agrupando otros dos enclaves que ha >> denominado «Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro» (me aventuro a decir que >> tal cosa no existe). Por lo que veo la etiqueta boundary=political se >> utiliza en España para circunscripciones electorales y cosas así, ¿me >> equivoco? ¿Tiene sentido crear entes específicos para los enclaves con ella? >> >> Además, ha seguido creando comarcas agrarias (ahora en Palencia) sin >> esperar a que se decida en común lo que se quiere hacer con las comarcas en >> esta comunidad autónoma (invito a otros usuarios castellanoleoneses a >> participar y a todo el que quiera opinar). Cabe la posibilidad de que haya >> que borrar todas, pues la única oficial sigue siendo El Bierzo, así que es >> posible que esté perdiendo su tiempo y nos lo haga perder posteriormente si >> tenemos que borrar todo. >> >> Un saludo >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-es mailing list >> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es >> > ___ > Talk-es mailing list > Talk-es@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es > -- Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso - Sanchi Blog http://jorgesanzs.es/ ___ 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
Buenos días. Por Aragón también. No voy a andar revisando todo cada vez que interviene este editor. Como ejemplo https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79841251 donde crea comarcas en Teruel y de paso le cambia el adminlevel a la localidad de Monzón de 7 a 8, siendo que es la capital del Cinca Medio. Veo muchas más ediciones, pero no me las voy a repasar todas. Qué pereza, madre mía. Y qué paciencia. Un saludo, El mié., 22 ene. 2020 a las 5:15, Diego Cruz Alonso () escribió: > Buenos días a todos: > > Lamento tener que volver a escribir a la lista en relación con este tema, > pero el usuario Verdy_p ha vuelto a editar demarcaciones en Castilla y > León. Ha creado dos áreas con boundary=political en la provincia de Burgos, > una en el condado de Treviño y otra agrupando otros dos enclaves que ha > denominado «Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro» (me aventuro a decir que > tal cosa no existe). Por lo que veo la etiqueta boundary=political se > utiliza en España para circunscripciones electorales y cosas así, ¿me > equivoco? ¿Tiene sentido crear entes específicos para los enclaves con ella? > > Además, ha seguido creando comarcas agrarias (ahora en Palencia) sin > esperar a que se decida en común lo que se quiere hacer con las comarcas en > esta comunidad autónoma (invito a otros usuarios castellanoleoneses a > participar y a todo el que quiera opinar). Cabe la posibilidad de que haya > que borrar todas, pues la única oficial sigue siendo El Bierzo, así que es > posible que esté perdiendo su tiempo y nos lo haga perder posteriormente si > tenemos que borrar todo. > > Un saludo > > > ___ > Talk-es mailing list > Talk-es@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es > ___ 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
Buenos días a todos: Lamento tener que volver a escribir a la lista en relación con este tema, pero el usuario Verdy_p ha vuelto a editar demarcaciones en Castilla y León. Ha creado dos áreas con boundary=political en la provincia de Burgos, una en el condado de Treviño y otra agrupando otros dos enclaves que ha denominado «Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de Ebro» (me aventuro a decir que tal cosa no existe). Por lo que veo la etiqueta boundary=political se utiliza en España para circunscripciones electorales y cosas así, ¿me equivoco? ¿Tiene sentido crear entes específicos para los enclaves con ella? Además, ha seguido creando comarcas agrarias (ahora en Palencia) sin esperar a que se decida en común lo que se quiere hacer con las comarcas en esta comunidad autónoma (invito a otros usuarios castellanoleoneses a participar y a todo el que quiera opinar). Cabe la posibilidad de que haya que borrar todas, pues la única oficial sigue siendo El Bierzo, así que es posible que esté perdiendo su tiempo y nos lo haga perder posteriormente si tenemos que borrar todo. Un saludo ___ 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
Buenas tardes, Philippe. Para que no estemos dando vueltas en círculo, voy a dejarlo claro: ahora veo que los límites administrativos son una combinación de adminlevel y boundary. Visto así, efectivamente, estoy equivocado y no se han duplicado las comarcas. Sin embargo, lo que ha hecho usted es inventarse un límite nuevo, no sé qué es peor. "I agree with that and I have not challanged that. It was additional independant objects (for reference purpose only and useful for contruction purpose and verification)." Por favor, deme un solo ejemplo de proceso de referencia, construcción o verificación en que sea necesario el etiquetado que usted está tratando de imponernos, fraccionando las comarcas en objetos independientes. Etiquetado que, por otro lado, no está documentado en ninguna parte, es una mera invención suya. Dígame en cuál de esas leyes que ha estudiado aparece "Hoya de Huesca (Zaragoza)". No es algo que exista ni sobre el terreno, ni como construcción artificial de datos que se necesite. "But if you can't understand that (at least when a complete and coherent set of relations is built, we need additional intermediate objects (like these few "fraction" subnelations, whose name is not important and will be invisible, except in OSM editors) and sort and organize the long lists of municipalities to avoid forgetting one..." Lo entiendo perfectamente, y vuelvo a decir que los objetos fraccionarios que usted propone son innecesarios, solo contribuyen a que todo sea más complicado. Más arriba menciona que siguió las convenciones antes de editar: mire, no se lo niego. Tenemos la documentación muy poco desarrollada, comparada con otros países. Pero tengo claro que no siguió dichas convenciones después: ¿porqué no paró cuando vió que varios editores españoles le expresaron su disgusto con lo que usted estaba haciendo? Conozco de sobra la situación de los límites en Aragón. Salvo las comarcas de Huesca y algunas de Zaragoza y Teruel, el resto de comarcas no están incluídas, y los municipios no están bien, fruto de ediciones precipitadas al principio, y de poco cuidado después. Se habrá encontrado de todo: fronteras rotas, etc. Y si me hubiera preguntado antes, se lo habría contado encantado. No se imagina cómo le hubiera agradecido que viniera a echarnos una mano limpiando municipios o completando comarcas, de verdad. Pero ya le digo que así, no. Escuche: le estuvimos diciendo clara y unánimemente desde la comunidad española que no fraccione las comarcas, y usted insistió en ello y en justificar sus acciones, sin aportar ningún argumento que convenza. Le estuvimos diciendo también que no edite límites sin debate previo y sin enfrentar ideas con la comunidad local de esa autonomía, y estuvo haciendo oídos sordos y dando excusas. A pesar de todo ello no ha parado de editar hasta que le han baneado dos veces, que es cuando realmente se ha puesto en contacto con nosotros. Y con todo ello, todavía no le hemos visto ni una sola vez pedir disculpas o admitir que se ha equivocado, aunque solo sea por cortesía. En fin, un saludo, Diego ___ 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
Estimado Philippe. Mi caso es casi el opuesto al suyo. No hablo ni escribo en inglés, pero por motivos laborales no me queda otro remedio que entenderlo, aunque un poco deficientemente. Si para evitar errores en la traducción debemos utilizar ambos idiomas, tendrá que ser así. Lo primero que me gustaría explicarle es que su actitud no se corresponde con un editor que lleva varios años de actividad sobresaliente tanto en cantidad como en calidad en sus ediciones. Para que me entienda, yo jamás me pondría a editar los límites administrativos de otro país sin ponerme antes en contacto con el grupo de editores activo en la zona. Eso es algo que no me entra en la cabeza, por muy colaborativo que sea el proyecto. Se trata de un tema de educación y cortesía, además de los destrozos que se pueden hacer si no conozco suficientemente el tema. No vale decir que intentó ponerse en contacto con nosotros: el tema que usted editaba (los límites comarcales) no estaba tan mal ni era tan urgente editarlo como para emprender la tarea sin decirnos algo antes. Sobre el tema concreto de las comarcas, trataré de ser breve. Ya hace un tiempo que la comunidad española tratamos el tema y básicamente decidimos que cada autonomía hiciese lo que se corresponde a la realidad allí. Resulta que aunque haya establecida por ley una división comarcal para cada autonomía, en la práctica no se ha aplicado por igual. Del mismo modo que en Aragón tenemos comarcas funcionales y que se corresponden (más o menos) con la realidad histórica y geográfica, en Castilla-León no quieren ni oir hablar del tema. Recuerdo a otro editor diciendo, por supuesto en tono coloquial, de cortarle alguna parte del cuerpo al que se le ocurriera crear comarcas en su autonomía. Y estamos todos de acuerdo con ello: ¿quién va a conocer mejor una zona que aquellos que la habitan? ¿quién debe tener la última palabra sobre cómo editar en su zona, sobre cómo está organizada, siempre que se atenga a las normas? Lástima que este debate se produjo en el canal de telegram: aquí doy la razón a mi compañero Miguel, si no le estaría pasando el enlace de la lista. "I was told by a Spanish user to map missing comarcas in Aragon and then I was blocked for that, even if there was no "error", and there was an ongoing talk with existing users that did not contacted me directly on OSM but prefer to complain to the DWG." Me va a permitir que dude que esto sea así. Si no le importa, mencione qué usuario le invitó a mapear las comarcas de Aragón. Y no diga que este fue el motivo de su bloqueo: su edición errónea (porque sí lo es), fue revertida con buenas razones, que se le indicaron en el propio conjunto de cambios. A partir de ahí usted empezó una discusión en esa misma edición sin querer escuchar otros argumentos, y no sólo no paró de editar, sino que además revertió de nuevo los cambios, lo que es claramente una guerra de ediciones. Fue entonces cuando le bloquearon, no antes. Hasta este segundo bloqueo no se ha puesto usted en contacto con nosotros... ¿Dónde está el malentendido? No veo buena fe en su actuación. "About the case of Avila, there are were two different kinds of comarcas in the same province and they would have overlapped. (...)" Sobre el caso de Ávila, usted no propuso nada. Llegó y editó, punto. Se le llamó la atención y no hizo caso, se limitó a aplicar su criterio. "Spain is not more complicate than France or other countries." No, no es más complicado. De hecho, puede que sea más sencillo. Lo que sí son es diferentes. No me diga que ha estudiado mucho para editar aquí, lo que tenía que haber hecho es hablar con nosotros después de estudiar para aclarar las cosas. Respecto a su edición en Aragón, partamos de lo que es cierto e indiscutible: - La organización comarcal es una agrupación de municipios de una misma autonomía, al margen de las provincias. - Debe existir una única relación por cada comarca, con adminlevel 7. Cumpliendo lo dicho ya existía la relación https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6479877 para definir la comarca de la Hoya de Huesca perfectamente editada y sin errores, como hija de la relación Aragón, e independientemente de las provincias. Ahora llega usted y crea dos relaciones nuevas, con adminlevel 7, y se inventa sus nombres (ya que dichos territorios no existen): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10594434 y https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10594435 Esto es totalmente innecesario, e incumple las premisas antes expuestas. La comarca acaba de quedar triplicada en su nivel 7 por otras dos entidades que no existen. Por si fuera poco, utiliza etiquetas de su invención "boundary administrative_fraction" y deja notas para justificar su visión de las cosas. Incluso fue uno de los argumentos que utilizó para debatir conmigo: "dejé una nota que lo dice". Que usted lo diga no es un argumento, compréndalo. Si se hubiera molestado en mirar el histórico de las relaciones de comarcas en Aragón, habría visto que yo participé en todas,
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
Thanks for that reply. I tried to communicate twitch the only working channel (the OSM talk list has various issues and automatically unsubscribes many users for technical reasons, mainly issues on the configuration of their servers: the MLM does not deliver mails to subscribers, they are frequently bounced due to this). I had attempted to use it several times. I used the changeset comments to discuss that, but blocking me via the DWG (without even any contact via the OSM personal messages or direct emails to me) is really unfair, and precipitated. It's largely overreactive. but my OSM block (repeated instantly without notice while I was talking) has also the effect that it blocks all sorts of communication in OSM. I did not want to hurt any one but try to make things consistently. I know that comarcas are not defined nationally by law. But each region (autonomous community) has an official status of autonomy that defines their own divisions, which are the legacy provinces, but with now very limited powers, and the comarcas and municipalities. In addition municipalities can group together for some objectives of cooperation (this is completely similar to French intercommunalities, except that some of them are also recognized nationally and have a fiscal autonomy and are even now required by law to be impelmetned with mandatory missions; for optional missions, they can still cooperate openly, in open groups mixing municipalities for their territory or part of them, departments and regions as fund providers, or some private or semi-private institutions like chambers of commerce or agriculture, or agencies for managing natural parks). I also know that despite the fact that provincial can no longer define "comarcas" with adminsitrative status, they still promote "touristic" comarcas, more or less linked to former traditional comarcas. As well the state (ministries) defines its own delimitations for agriculture planning and management of national and european funds. They should not call them "comarcas" even if they have some limited functions (only for the relevant missions that the state can define or plan itself, however the state has to delegate the funds and empowering of these missions to the autonomous communities to implement them; the provinces are a sort of legacy inherited from the Franco period; lot of things have changed at end of the 1980's when autonomous communities got powered). Anyway, there's still the need to manage the transition. I've found that not just Aragon, Galicia and Catalunya have defined comarcal delimitations, and that other regions have also regulated this (this is part of their autonomy status, including Asturias). Not all have decided completely their comarcal delimiation, but Aragon has done it in a law which is easy to find. For other regions, there's no better consistant comarcal definition than those defined by the state, i.e. agrarian comarca, which are the first kind of classification we can make, and which is also the one decided by the Spanish community in Wikimedia (Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata, however not all is very well sorted and there are lot of works as all kinds of comarcas are also described, documented, but not properly sorted by kind; the variosu images and annexes present different point of views based on one definition or another or different times). I just used what is the currrent best classification (on which contributors find things easily, but I do not exclude the existence of others. But not sorting the municipalities in Spain does not help to locate them: they have conflicting names, so they use various suffixes to disambiguate them, and this is also complicated by the linguistic divisions (mainly: the national official Spanish/Castillian language, plus Galician, Estremaduran, Asturian, Basque, Catalan, and its minor Valencian and Balearic variants) which is used in official names of municipalities (showing dual languages: Spanish+regional, and some smaller parts with Occitan, or French in Val d'Aran) and in some comarcas officialized by the region (this is the case in Aragon). Also what I did was to check the municipalities to make sure they don't have broken holes (there's a complicate case in one of them, Xativa in the Valencian community, is repeatedly broken as it is highly fragmented in a "patchwork" way with many small fragments), ordering them, completing the lists (there were some municipalities forgotten in provinces). Sorting them allowed easier identification and was a step prior to classifying them and making sure nothing was forgotten. There's a case in Aragon where the law of comarcalization and end of 2006 forgets one municipality separated from Zaragoza some months before, i.e. Villamayor de Gallego; the law lists Villanueva de Gallego only). But there was a correction published in a later addenda by the region of Aragon in its bulletin. I had to fix that as well by searches and verifications. Even outside comarcas,
Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
Estimado Philippe, Lo primero de todo es agradecerte el esfuerzo en atender este asunto y unirte a la discusión sobre el tema de la comarcas que se ha iniciado por tus ediciones en diferentes comunidades autónomas de España. Te escribo en español pues nos comentas que lo entiendes y quiero ser más preciso que en un tercer idioma que no es ninguno de los nuestros. El tema de la división comarcal (por comarcas) es particular en España tal y como te comenté en en uno de tus changesets . En realidad la situación es diferente dependiendo de cada comunidad autónoma y no ha sido hasta muy recientemente que se ha empezado a trasladar a OpenStreetMap y solo en aquellos casos en los que se tenía buen conocimiento del mismo. La verdad es que deberíamos haberlo documentado más concienzudamente en la Wiki. Desde el punto de vista general de la organización territorial en España se pasa del Estado a la Comunidad Autónoma y de esta a provincia y después al municipio. La construcción de las comarcas y su desarrollo normativo ha venido de la mano de las comunidades autónomas. Aragón y Cataluña han sido las que realizaron una división comarcal en un principio y son las que mejor conozco. Aunque la Wikipedia es una fuente adecuada en muchos casos, para este, en particular, creo que puede llevar a confusión. Ya nos ha pasado con anterioridad que para algunos aspectos las definiciones enciclopédicas de los colegas de Wikipedia no pueden transponer al mapa. Cuidado con esto. Es mejor que consultes con nosotros pues somos una comunidad diferente. Tradicionalmente han existido otras divisiones comarcales ligadas, especialmente al temas agrarios, pero estas divisiones no son comparables ni coinciden con las divisiones comarcales que se han desarrollado o se están desarrollando dentro de casa comunidad autónoma. En fin, es complicado y creo que no es comparable con la situación con otros paises como Francia. El que unilateralmente iniciaras algunas ediciones y no atendieras a los criterios de los colaboradores locales ha desatado el malestar de la comunidad y esto ha llevado a que la WDG terminara bloqueándote. Espero que puedas entenderlo. Te animo a leer lo que se ha escrito y recopilado sobre tus ediciones y la polémica que has suscitado en esta misma lista de correos y espero que este malentendido podamos solucionarlo con una mejora sustancial de la calidad de nuestro mapa. Sigue y lee este hilo: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-es/2020-January/017147.html Recibe un cordial saludo. -- *Miguel Sevilla-Callejo* Doctor en Geografía PD. Si tienes problemas con la lista de correo puedes escribirme personalmente para ponerte en contacto con la comunidad. On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 21:34, Philippe Verdy wrote: > Hello, I'd like to follow up on the discussion started here about me. > > Note: I can read perfectly Spanish, but I won't talk in Spanish as my > writing level is too poor and could lead to more misinterpretations. > > I was told by a Spanish user to map missing comarcas in Aragon and then I > was blocked for that, even if there was no "error", and there was an > ongoing talk with existing users that did not contacted me directly on OSM > but prefer to complain to the DWG. > > It is clear from the talks (and it was agreed by the comments sent to the > changeset) that this was only a misunderstanding. And that I did not break > anything. > > I talked also bout the fact that there are several competing comarcal > delimitations. They do not exist officially at national level, but are > effective by laws and regulations in each region (short for autonomous > community), and that for regions that are separated in different provinces, > the comarcal decided by regions in their official bulletin of laws does not > take into consideration the existing province boundaries. > > But there were several existing consensus for this topic in related > projects (including, but not only, Wikidata, Spnish Wikipedia, and > Commons). And the situation is not clear as all kinds of comarcas are mixed > together or confused (sometimes with the same name depending on their type). > > Anyway there was a "most common" practice existing in relevant commnities > about what was the more relevant (the situation is complicated by the fact > that there are "natural comarcas" or "traditional comarcas" which have > today no official status, of that sometimes coexist at several levels (a > traditional "comarca" may be seen as a subcomarca of another traditional > comarca). > > I did not want to promote one kind of comarcas for another, but at least > make the existing set consistent with itself for the most common use seen > and discussed since long in various opendata projects). Allowing then the > separate creation of these comarcas and properly tagging them to > differentiate them when needed was what I started. > > But at least one comarcal division should exist in each region. > > I had proposed several things, I was talking
[Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
Hello, I'd like to follow up on the discussion started here about me. Note: I can read perfectly Spanish, but I won't talk in Spanish as my writing level is too poor and could lead to more misinterpretations. I was told by a Spanish user to map missing comarcas in Aragon and then I was blocked for that, even if there was no "error", and there was an ongoing talk with existing users that did not contacted me directly on OSM but prefer to complain to the DWG. It is clear from the talks (and it was agreed by the comments sent to the changeset) that this was only a misunderstanding. And that I did not break anything. I talked also bout the fact that there are several competing comarcal delimitations. They do not exist officially at national level, but are effective by laws and regulations in each region (short for autonomous community), and that for regions that are separated in different provinces, the comarcal decided by regions in their official bulletin of laws does not take into consideration the existing province boundaries. But there were several existing consensus for this topic in related projects (including, but not only, Wikidata, Spnish Wikipedia, and Commons). And the situation is not clear as all kinds of comarcas are mixed together or confused (sometimes with the same name depending on their type). Anyway there was a "most common" practice existing in relevant commnities about what was the more relevant (the situation is complicated by the fact that there are "natural comarcas" or "traditional comarcas" which have today no official status, of that sometimes coexist at several levels (a traditional "comarca" may be seen as a subcomarca of another traditional comarca). I did not want to promote one kind of comarcas for another, but at least make the existing set consistent with itself for the most common use seen and discussed since long in various opendata projects). Allowing then the separate creation of these comarcas and properly tagging them to differentiate them when needed was what I started. But at least one comarcal division should exist in each region. I had proposed several things, I was talking about them, but I was blocked twice in a row during these talks (and was even blocked from continuing these talks or even read the comments). Now I've tried several times to join this list, but the OSM MLM has technical problems as it does not comply to the enforcement measures taken by various ISP (including very large ones): since about one year (March 2019) many ISP have enforced these rules, notably DKIM and DMARC for their mails, but the OSM MLM breaks the DKIM and DMARC digital signatures (by modifying digitally signed parts of emails: some MIME headers, the mail subject line and/or the content body. To do that on messages signed with DKIM or DMARC by their original sender, the MLLM must take some care: it must sign again its own modifications and update its DNS to conform to DKIM and DMARC. But it does not, only the SPF protocol is used, and then the SPF protocol breaks again because the OSM MLM is not the original sender. Mails sent for the OSM MLM are then bouncing. And now recently the OSM MLM has been *silently* dropping subscriptions from their lists. It has done that massively. Many users can no longer communicate on the OSM lists. Worse, now they want to block users because their mails are "bouncing". This makes communication in OMS tlak list very dangerous if not impossible. People are blocked unfairly even if they did not usurpate anyone. They are forced to change their email, can no longer choose their provider or loose messages from the lists that they expected to see. I was blocked in OSM because of repeated failure to join this list to continue this discussion. This is very unfair. I was ready to propose things. But the DWG overrreacted and took its own decision very fast, ignoring the complete facts. About the case of Avila, there are were two different kinds of comarcas in the same province and they would have overlapped. I'm not opposed at all (in fact I'm in favour of this) to have these two comarcal delimitations, provided they are distinguished (not use the same kind of tags). As well I proposed to add a separate delimitation of mancommunidades, using a model simialr to the intercommunalities used in France (i.e. boundary=local_authority plus some Spanish specific tags like in France with admin_type:FR=*). These are also important in Spain, for legal and fiscal reasons and important in the day life of Spnish residents. Spin is not more complicate than France or other countries. The pure hierarchical of admin_levels is not entirely satisfied in any country, there are exceptions everywhere fro different purposes. It's just a convenient first kind of sorting things and getting consistant results in searches or in statistics data, graphs and maps). OSM should be open to various uses and not require a single view. OMS is open and should be able
