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descriptive, just like the name given to "Enclave de Treviño", they are documented with similar but varying names in historical documents as such "enclaves", but not administrative today by themselves as they have no form of autonomy.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 <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 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 (<dgerv...@gmail.com>) > 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 (<ginkar...@gmail.com>) >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
