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, cuando no fui yo mismo el que las creó directamente. Sólo tenía que ponerse en contacto conmigo (o con la comunidad) y le habría dicho que bienvenido, que falta medio Zaragoza y casi todo Teruel, y que no vea el trabajo que me ahorra. Le hubiera aplaudido, directamente. Y hubiera colaborado con usted encantado. Pero así, no. Reciba un cordial saludo, Diego El sáb., 18 ene. 2020 a las 23:13, Philippe Verdy (<[email protected]>) escribió: > 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, the mancommunidades are easy to map, I think, and > cover now almost all Spain > > (except possibly depopulated areas that are managed by specific > comarca-like groups, or "hermandas" grouping several municipatities > managing them and owning them in an indivision, when their members are not > in the same mancommunidades; this occurs sometimes at linguistic boundaries > in regions that are officially multilingual (Castillian Spanish, plus one > or two regional languages : this occurs in Navarra with its complex and > evolving 3 linguistic areas which changed in 2006). > > I also know that some traditional comarcas evolved later to become a > single municipalitiy but kept their comarcal designation (including > "Hermanda") while also joining newer/larger comarcas (this also forced the > change of delimitation of traditional comarcas to include the additional > areas of the merged municipality... > > As well this situation is similar in France (there are even cases where > municipalities had to change from one departement to another, and other > official divisons were updated). > > It is hard in OSM to manage "traditional comarcas" because they have no > well defined timeframe of reference and mapping them today using today's > delimitation of municipalities is just an approximation that would not > match the historic grouping of villages and hamlets or today's depopulated > areas before the creation of today's municipalities. > > But regional (or agrarian otherwise) comarcas are well defined. > Provincial comarcas ("touristic") are quite fuzzy but should not be > considered "adminsitrative" at all (not suitable for admin_level 7): I've > kept them but reclassified them wometimes to avoid conflicts with the > regional comarcas, unless there are rules that provinces can still make on > them, for some purpose that provinces can legally decide themselves > independantly of the region. > > Note: I've used "region" and "regional" for short of "autonomous > community", but the Spanish users I spoke to were also using this short > term (in Spanish). > > Thanks. > > > > > Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 22:13, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo < > [email protected]> a écrit : > >> 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 <[email protected]> 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. 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 to accept these views, notably when they are >>> established by national or regional laws and regulations and projects of >>> public interest or by common local knowledge and use, that can be tracked >>> from a reliable and stable source. This is the case of Spanish comarcas >>> (well most of them, those only of historical interest may not be relevant >>> if they were based on a group of municipalities whose borders have change >>> or that no longer exist after merges and splits). >>> >>> The good question for OSM is: are they in use today ? or are they kept >>> for legal reasons even if they are no longer used for new laws/regulations >>> (e.g. for legal records of living people or registered organisation or for >>> management of historic rights, including property rights, contracts, or >>> legacy laws that have not been rewritten/updated to take into account other >>> legal changes) ? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-es mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-es mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es >> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-es mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es >
_______________________________________________ Talk-es mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
