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
Re: [Talk-es] Ediciones del usuario Verdy_p, sin consenso con la comunidad española de OSM
Just for info, Verdy_p started editing near Zaragosa again so I've blocked them again, and again asked that they join this mailing list to discuss everything here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3386 Best Regards, Andy Townsend (from OSM's Data Working Group) Solo para información, Verdy_p comenzó a editar cerca de Zaragosa nuevamente, así que los bloqueé nuevamente, y nuevamente les pedí que se unieran a esta lista de correo para discutir todo aquí: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3386 Atentamente, Andy Townsend (del Grupo de trabajo de datos de OSM) ___ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
Re: [Talk-es] Ediciones del usuario Verdy_p, sin consenso con la comunidad española de OSM
Hola buenas, sin ánimo de polemizar y solo por seguir el criterio que mantiene osm en este asunto del ordenamiento territorial y que no es otro que el marco legal que para ello se establece en cada País, en España y segun la ley de bases de régimen local (legislación que es de aplicación a nivel general) se establecen oficialmente 4 niveles de division del territorio por debajo de las propias fronteras del Estado, a saber, Comunidad Autónoma, Provincia, Municipio, Entidad local menor. Eso es lo oficial y asi gráficamente lo representa la cartografia del organismo responsable, aqui el CNIG o IGN antes. Entes administrativos y jurídicamente independientes por tanto, con sus competencias definidas, gestión y recursos propios. Pero, y aqui viene el lio, el propio legislador deja abierta (art 42) a criterio de comunidades autónomas y ayuntamientos la creacion de otras figuras en su territorio de caracter supramunipal. Pueden ser mancomunudades, para prestacion de servicios, no tienen marco territorial propio, sino que es el de cada municipio que la integra pudiendo pertenecer en algun caso a distintas CCAA o provincias distintas y tienen la duración del propio servicio. Tambien en este mismo "nivel" estarian las areas metropolitanas de similares propiesades de las anteriores. Por ultimo, las comarcas, repito que no existen como tal entidad juridica con caracter homogeneo en España. Oficialmente, por ejemplo, en Castilla y León solo hay una y no tienen intención de permitir que se cree ninguna más. En cambio en Aragón, su parlamento autonómico ha decidido comarcalizar todo su territorio. Por tanto, en OSM solo debe aparecer como tag o division territorial, las que lo son legalmente como El Bierzo, el resto no lo son. Todas las demás divisiones administrativas que existen para la gestion de servicios publicos de las administraciones NO SON COMARCAS, son areas de competencias e intereses aunque tengan ese nombre. Dicho con un ejemplo, podemos dividir el territorio en comarcas agrarias, ganaderas, en diócesis, en arciprestazgos, en grupos de accion local, en comarcas sanitarias, en comarcas forestales o como en este caso se le ponga en su capricho al editor de turno, pero NO SERAN COMARCAS. Esto es lo oficial, el resto si se quiere hacer un mapa continuo, se deberia establecer un consenso entre todo el colectivo. Esa es mi modesta opinión, primero lo oficial y para cuando no exista oficialidad, un criterio establecido por la propia asociacion, el resto se deberia revertir como se hace con otras cosas. Saludos Pepe El vie., 17 ene. 2020 19:39, Diego García escribió: > Buenas tardes. > > En España, las comarcas son una división del territorio que agrupa a > varios municipios. Se intenta, me temo que a veces sin conseguirlo, que se > correspondan a la definición de comarca, englobando una zona geográfica que > comparte características naturales y humanas comunes, en una jerarquía por > debajo de la región. Como tal agrupación de municipios, y establecidas por > separado en cada comunidad, se trata de una entidad por encima del > municipio pero por debajo de autonomía, al margen de las provincias. Se da > el caso de que hay comarcas que incluyen municipios de diferentes > provincias, lo que no supone ningún problema a la hora de editar, siempre > que dejemos de lado las provincias al trabajar el tema. > > Por ejemplo, la comarca de la Hoya de Huesca, o la de los Monegros (en su > mayor parte dentro de la provincia de Huesca), comprenden municipios de > Zaragoza, sin que eso suponga un problema. No es necesario fraccionar nada, > ni tocar las provincias, ya que son una entidad aparte, que no mantiene una > jerarquía con las comarcas. Simplemente establecemos la frontera de las > comarcas y las incluímos en la entidad superior, que es la autonomía. Esto > es algo que funciona, que es como debe hacerse, y que asumimos así por > consenso desde hace años en la comunidad española de OSM. > > Desde hace un par de semanas se vienen sucediendo ediciones del usuario > Verdy_p que no están teniendo en cuenta la jerarquía que tienen las > comarcas en España. Por ejemplo, en el caso de la comarca de la Hoya de > Huesca la ha dividido en dos, estableciendo una "Hoya de Huesca (Zaragoza)" > y otra "Hoya de Huesca (Huesca)", que a su vez ha incluído como partes de > la relación que ya existía. A todas ellas les ha dado admin_level 7. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79639164 > > Podemos decir: "bueno, es una forma de verlo, la edición es correcta". > Pero en realidad no lo es, por tres razones: > > - En primer lugar, al establecer varias relaciones con el mismo > admin_level triplica la comarca > - En segundo lugar, se está inventando el name de las relaciones creadas. > "Hoya de Huesca (Zaragoza)" no es algo que exista en ninguna parte. > - En tercer lugar, es totalmente innecesario. El mapa funciona igual de > cara a las búsquedas o a la jerarquía de territorios. De hecho, antes > funcionaba mejor. Si ahora
Re: [Talk-es] Ediciones del usuario Verdy_p, sin consenso con la comunidad española de OSM
Buenas Una pequeña recopilación de lo que pueda faltar y ha pasado. El tema de las comarcas en España es una cosa compleja y no homogénea. Tampoco soy experto en la materia. Se que hay zonas que son oficiales (pocas) y en la mayoría que no existen y no tienen uso real ni administrativo ni nada. Si algo me equivoco decírmelo. Creo que es una cosa que hay que consensuar antes de editar toda España sin la información necesaria y tocando en algunos casos lo que ya hay. El problema es que se ha empezado por zonas donde no había nada que romper. En este caso ya intento hablar una persona con el de que era mejor hablarlo primero. Y en vez de eso ha continuado hasta empezar a tocar zonas donde ya hay información y se ha agravado el problema. Ahora esta indicando verdy_p unas posibles soluciones a algunos de los problemas aunque no ha todos, en el changeset. No sé si mejores o peores pero que se podían hablar. El problema es que como el mismo ha indicado no es el medio correcto para hacerlo. Y se le ha indicado varias maneras de comunicarse con la comunidad. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79639164 En vez de hablarlo con la comunidad parece que sigue editando. Comenta problemas para entrar en la lista, pero problemas que creo que si se quiere se pueden solucionar. Y también se le ha dado opción de usar otros medios como Telegram y Matrix. Yo no lo veo tan complicado hablar las cosas en vez de seguir erre que erre. Espero que me lea esto, ya que se te ha vuelto a remitir a esta lista a este hilo en particular. Las cosas se solucionan hablando y pido de nuevo que hables con la comunidad por alguno de los diferentes medios pensados para ello. Saludos. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Spain-f5409873.html ___ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
