https://www.aragon.es/-/comarcas
A troll made by Aragon itself ? Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 03:01, Alejandro S. <[email protected]> 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 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 the situation. > > And you'll also need to check how OSM objects are linked to Wikidata (and > to Wikipedias and Commons, including indirectly via Wikidata) and follow > the discussions in Wikimedia (but you don't necessarily need to reach a > simultaneous consensus there: just link OSM to Wikimedia wikis if their > definition matches correctly and unambiguously to what you want to see in > OSM; but in many cases, you can also fix at the same time the entries in > Wikidata, Wikipedia and Commons and their related categories, becasue > there's a lot of confusion there, much more than in OSM). > > In conclusion: the Spanish community largely don't really understand what > comarcas are, and does not perceive the distinction (that's why Spanish > Wikipedia is also a mess). That's why some people may think that comarcas > do not exist, and that's clearly wrong: these people only choose (it's > their opinion) to look only at the national Spanish law, which is however > only applicable for what the State is able to do itself, and they want to > ignore the status of autonomy of CCAAs even if it is full part of the > Spanish legislation (it's not an opinion, it's a fact, the status of > autonomy is enforceable in Spain, saying it does not exist would be a lie). > > > Le ven. 24 janv. 2020 à 12:49, Pepe Valverde de la Vera < > [email protected]> a écrit : > >> 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 <[email protected]> escribió: >> >>> >>> >>> Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 20:57, Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso < >>> [email protected]> 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 >>> [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 > [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
