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 <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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
