Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

Another reading if you've missed that Aragonese law:

(Boletín Oficial de Aragón n°149, 2006-12-30, Gobierno de Aragón).

Decreto legislativo 2/2006 de 27 de diciembre del Gobierno de Aragón por el
que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Comarcalización de Aragón

http://www.boa.aragon.es/cgi-bin/BRSCGI?CMD=VEROBJ=167404590505

Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 03:01, Alejandro S.  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.
>>>
>>
These evidences above (including the names of documents, their dates, and
assertable links that any one can see easily) were already made before, but
you did not care about reading them. Think twice before accusing someone of
"trolling".

So I supposed you just lived in Aragon *before* February 2006 and have not
seen what happened there after you left. Or you are not jut interested
yourself by this subject which others consider useful and are legitimate in
OSM (and if you still don't trust what was put in OSM, you can compare with
the published open data of these administrations).

An official comarcalization occured also in Galicia, but Catalunya was the
first to make it official at regional level.
The juntas of provinces have still not understood that, they contiunue to
use their own touristic comarcas, or may maintain them only as statistical
units for reasons of continuity over a period long enough to be able to
report analyze the evolutions. But provinces have no statistics intitutes.
Aragon has its own official statistics institute (IEAST, whose website is
for now the same as the Gobernatio).

The Spanish State government is also late on this in its ministerios and
othert state agencies (but the state government make that for other
planning purposes, not to rule what and how comarcas are regionally
organized, because it is not the competence of these adminsitrations, they
have no power to create or change them officially and give them a judicial
identity or any form of autonomy; only the Spanish parliament *may*
eventually do that, but it won't be consititutionally able to legiferate on
domains whose competence were transfered to the autonomous communities,
without negociating with their respective governments).

The question is not if those comarcas should exist or not. Of course they
should be there. It's only a problem for defining a tagging system, and
using it coherently (something that is incoherent today, but there's no
alternative documentation: someone must do the hard job of first sorting
things to avoid incoherences, then apply the tags, that this list may
discuss, but has to document somewhere without just placing an informal
link to the Spanish Wikipedia article where nothing is coherent or well
defined as the topic is clearly still not understood by most Spaniards that
have contributed to it; the situation is even worse in Wikimedia Commons
with lot of incohrent and undated "maps" and that was then transfered as is
from Commons to Wikidata which also includes various incoherent
categorization from ES.WP where all is mixed, including historical units
that certainly have their place in Wikipedia but not in OSM which should
*first* reflect what is in current use today).
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

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  a écrit :

> https://www.aragon.es/-/comarcas
>
> A troll made by Aragon itself ?
>
> Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 03:01, Alejandro S.  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 tha

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

https://www.aragon.es/-/comarcas

A troll made by Aragon itself ?

Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 03:01, Alejandro S.  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, inste

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

 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 <
pcvalve...@gmail.com> 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  escribió:
>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 20:57, Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso 
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> No he dicho que te inventaras "Enclave de Treviño", sino que el que este
>>> ese bien o mal puesto

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 20:57, Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso 
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
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

OK this object is removed (it had no tags qualifying it as a "comarca", il
was made essentially temporarily while seeing the duplicate admin_level 7
for Treviño only, when it is only the eastern part of a comarca at level 7
too)

Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 16:33, Diego Cruz Alonso  a
écrit :

> Dear Philippe,
>
> Exactly, the situation is so messed up in Wikipedia and in the map because
> this has never been addressed properly before in Spain. Please stop adding
> things until borders are sorted out in the community. You are not allowed
> to sort this out on your own and we are not accepting undebated
> impositions. If you have a clear plan on how to do things, explain it here
> BEFORE implementing it in the map.
>
> By the way, you *are* inventing things: «Enclaves burgueses de Miranda de
> Ebro» is nothing that exists in reality. Please remove that limit.
>
> Best regards
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-es] Unidades Administrativas - Castilla y León [debate]

[Philippe Verdy]

including overlaps ??? How can you use this inconsistant "OSM data" ?

Beside that, the laws in Spain speak about comarcas... without defining
them properly with a reliable definition and a designated authority, so
each administration can define its own definitions.

If we need to relate to them, we must be able to cite them as sources and
get consistant data with each of them.

That's the purpose of "open data" (and these adminstrations also publish
open data... that we can't use in OSM as they are not properly defined).
Not being able to cross reference these means that data checking in OSM is
more difficult, data integrity and correctness in Spain is more difficult
to assert. It's not sufficient to just check objects "one by one", too much
errorprone, and too much work to do for every reuser of OSM data.

Note: the talk is not just for OSM, it has to be followed as well in
Wikimedia (Spanish Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons) where all concepts for
comarcas are mixed as well with lot of confusions.

Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 15:29, David Marín Carreño  a
écrit :

> Philippe: Hay partes de España que NO tiene definidas fronteras comarcales
> oficiales.
>
> Aunque ese mapa muestre huecos, eso NO es un error. Es la realidad
> política de este país. No debe ser ningún objetivo el hacer que ese mapa se
> vea bonito y sin huecos con nivel administrativo 7.
>
> --
> David Marín Carreño 
>
>
>
> El mié., 22 ene. 2020 a las 14:45, Philippe Verdy ()
> escribió:
>
>> Also I indicated to one Spanish user this tool:
>>
>>
>> http://layers.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=7=40.72046=0.22036=0B000TF
>>
>>
>> It works worldwide and checks for admin_level overlaps, locates holes and
>> inconsistencies, and broken boundaries (the map is not updated instantly,
>> but on request abount once per hour (several minutes after the last diff
>> processed by the internal database); you may need to for a "/dirty" for
>> some areas that have changed but still not reflected for a given zoom
>> level, and then refresh the tiles in your browser (clearing the browser
>> cache of web contents sometimes help. If not, just wait for the next hour).
>>
>> You can select the colored layer to show with the side menu (the layers
>> can be stacked with distinctive semi-transparent colors).
>>
>> Note: a recent bug causes non-ASCII characters encoded in UTF-8 to be no
>> longer displayed correctly (they were displayed before in a past version);
>> so letters with accents may look like question marks in diamonds in the
>> displayed labels which reflects only the default "name=*" tag, positioned
>> arbitrarily in the largest closed polygon of each boundary, arbitrarily at
>> the geometric center of its rectangular bounding box. This is a minor bug,
>> these map layers were not developed to create a map for general use, but
>> only as QA tool. As well non-Latin letters (notably Arabic, Chinese, and
>> scripts of India) will not be displayed so the labels are not readable at
>> all in this case if they are not romanized. I suppose this bug was a
>> problem in the installation of fonts, or they caused a bug in the renderer
>> or a performance/resource problem in the tile rendering server. This recent
>> bug is already signaled.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 12:35, Crashillo  a écrit :
>>
>>> Con el objetivo de determinar qué limites (boundaries) deben ser
>>> añadidos al
>>> mapa, tenemos que establecer  cuáles van a ser las etiquetas adecuadas
>>> para
>>> identificarlos, y posteriormente documentarlos en la wiki.
>>>
>>> En este  link
>>> <
>>> https://idecyl.jcyl.es/geonetwork/srv/spa/catalog.search#/search?facet.q=inspireThemeURI%2Fhttp%253A%252F%252Finspire.ec.europa.eu%252Ftheme%252Fau>
>>>
>>> se pueden encontrar una serie de datasets que pueden servirnos como
>>> orientación de cuál mapear.
>>>
>>> Según la  wiki en inglés <
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary>
>>> para unidades de carácter administrativos se utiliza
>>> *boundary=administrative* junto con *admin_level*. La lista de "niveles"
>>> la
>>> podemos encontrar  aquí
>>> <
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries>
>>>
>>> . No sé si seguimos las mismas convicciones que ahí están indicadas.
>>>
>>> También sería tema de discusión, cuáles faltan, por ejemplo, /comarcas
>>> agragarias/ y cómo podem

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 14:45, Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso 
a écrit :

> Si nos vamos a la documentación de la wiki
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary
> Pone que los enclaves se hace en la misma relación y solucionado. No pone
> que se tengan que crear nuevas relaciones, subrelaciones y cosas parecidas.
>
> ¿Qué el "Enclave de Treviño" puede que se tenga que etiquetar de otra
> manera?
>

I did not invent that name, it was already present in OSM !


> Puede ser, ante la duda habra que hablarlo, pero eso no da razón para
> inventarse nombres y cosas nuevas si no existen.
> "Enclave de Treviño" Tiene representación especial dentro de España por
> algunos conflictos que han existido que no comparten otras zonas. Se puede
> ver en qué tiene pagina especial en la wikipedia por ejemplo. Habra que ver
> cómo poner este caso especial.
>

But it's still not a "comarca" under the meaning intended by other comarcas
in the two autonomous communities involved.

>
> Por favor deja de editar fronteras hasta que se llegue a un consenso.
> Estamos abiertos a escuchar sugerencias y ver cómo solucionar los
> diferentes problemas que surgen en las diferentes zonas de España. Pero no
> llegar e imponer criterios.
>

All those existing boundaries at admin_level 7 were added without any prior
consensus of tagging. In fact there's no tagging at all documented for
them. the Wiki OSM just indicates "comarca" is at level 7, but this was an
informal proposal, never discussed, and the link goes to Wikipedia where
they are also not documented and sorted properly (this also applies to
Wikidata where the classification is still not made as well, and commons
where maps and categories are all mixed with ambiguous names). Seriously,
this is not consistant "data" in the OSM meaning.

There's a need to start creating something consistant (this does not mean
removing what was made, just retagging properly and avoid conflicts of
interpretation). And there, nothing is documented. We must still start by
the "hard way" trying to disambiguate things to get at least one consistant
view and then retag the rest with temporary tags that can be rediscussed to
get more views.

OSM is all about that: someone starts the hard job to separate the
concepts, fill holes, find overlaps; this requires much efforts to prepare
the field (what I'm doing, while avoiding to create too much conflicts).
Then there's a cleanup and maintenance step that occurs until the existing
schema is found to be insufficient.

Because of these inconsistancies the admin_level 7 was found to be unusable
and unused in OSM for Spain. So much opendata about these comarcas still
cannot be imported and checked. Being coherent is a great thing as it
really helps integrating more items and developing new methods to be more
precise and solve ambiguities, and develop new usages of OSM data for
derived cartography (notably statistical maps, related to many other open
data or private data, with enough granularity that people can understand;
but with just communities, provinces and municipalities, this is
insufficient: there are hundreds of municipalities in provinces or
autonomous communities and no way to use significant grouping that matches
verifiable sources; so each one has to recreate its own comarcal
delimitation, frequently with errors/omissions/overlaps or different
meanings, and the statistics map and aggregated data are not comparable
with each other).


> No se a que llamas mapa en mayusculas "MAPA"
>

MAPA was refereing to the *correct* and common Spanish abbreviation for the
full name of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food
("Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación") and I thought it was
implicit and wellknown to native Spanish users (like you?)

It's not the Spanish equivalent of "map" in English. The capitals were
correct in that case and really intended (and it would be a non-sense to
cite an unspecified anbd generic "mapa" as a source. The *lowercase* would
have been obviously wrong in the context I gave. And the sources in OSM
indicate the full Spanish name of the ministry, not this abbreviation I
used only in this talk thread.
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [Talk-es] Unidades Administrativas - Castilla y León [debate]

[Philippe Verdy]

Also I indicated to one Spanish user this tool:

http://layers.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=7=40.72046=0.22036=0B000TF


It works worldwide and checks for admin_level overlaps, locates holes and
inconsistencies, and broken boundaries (the map is not updated instantly,
but on request abount once per hour (several minutes after the last diff
processed by the internal database); you may need to for a "/dirty" for
some areas that have changed but still not reflected for a given zoom
level, and then refresh the tiles in your browser (clearing the browser
cache of web contents sometimes help. If not, just wait for the next hour).

You can select the colored layer to show with the side menu (the layers can
be stacked with distinctive semi-transparent colors).

Note: a recent bug causes non-ASCII characters encoded in UTF-8 to be no
longer displayed correctly (they were displayed before in a past version);
so letters with accents may look like question marks in diamonds in the
displayed labels which reflects only the default "name=*" tag, positioned
arbitrarily in the largest closed polygon of each boundary, arbitrarily at
the geometric center of its rectangular bounding box. This is a minor bug,
these map layers were not developed to create a map for general use, but
only as QA tool. As well non-Latin letters (notably Arabic, Chinese, and
scripts of India) will not be displayed so the labels are not readable at
all in this case if they are not romanized. I suppose this bug was a
problem in the installation of fonts, or they caused a bug in the renderer
or a performance/resource problem in the tile rendering server. This recent
bug is already signaled.






Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 12:35, Crashillo  a écrit :

> Con el objetivo de determinar qué limites (boundaries) deben ser añadidos
> al
> mapa, tenemos que establecer  cuáles van a ser las etiquetas adecuadas para
> identificarlos, y posteriormente documentarlos en la wiki.
>
> En este  link
> <
> https://idecyl.jcyl.es/geonetwork/srv/spa/catalog.search#/search?facet.q=inspireThemeURI%2Fhttp%253A%252F%252Finspire.ec.europa.eu%252Ftheme%252Fau>
>
> se pueden encontrar una serie de datasets que pueden servirnos como
> orientación de cuál mapear.
>
> Según la  wiki en inglés 
>
> para unidades de carácter administrativos se utiliza
> *boundary=administrative* junto con *admin_level*. La lista de "niveles" la
> podemos encontrar  aquí
> <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries>
>
> . No sé si seguimos las mismas convicciones que ahí están indicadas.
>
> También sería tema de discusión, cuáles faltan, por ejemplo, /comarcas
> agragarias/ y cómo podemos etiquetarlas. Hay  muchas definidas
>    ya.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
___
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

Note also that "political" boundaries are used in Spain for linguistic
areas, not just electoral constituencies.

There should be a subtag for the political=* type to distinguish them (and
there are multiple consituency types depending on the kind of elections,
including European elections for European deputies elected for Spain).

I just challenge here the fact that every concept is mixed, and there are
already collisions on the same classification tags for different things.
This does not allow easy searches and clear results (e.g. to create
statistical maps without doubly-counted overlaps).

So first we must solve these collisions, find holes that should be filled
for completeness (needed for statistics), and then apply consistent tagging
(which can be decided, for now it's not even documented anywhere, there are
just different assumptions by different users: it's a mess to find the
existing items in OSM and get consistant results).

Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 13:47, Francisco Javier Diez Rabanos <
diera...@jcyl.es> a écrit :

> De la mismas manera que las comarcas agrícolas se pueden incluir las
> comarcas forestales, que en Castilla y León están disponibles en el portal
> de datos abiertos.
>
>
> https://datosabiertos.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/set/es/medio-ambiente/comarcas-medio-ambiente-cyl/1284687310081
>
>
>
> *De:* Philippe Verdy [mailto:ver...@gmail.com]
> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 22 de enero de 2020 13:25
> *Para:* Discusión en Español de OpenStreetMap 
> *Asunto:* Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list
>
>
>
> 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 real

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

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 
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 etiquetarl

Re: [Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

nd 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 
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.
>
> --
> *

[Talk-es] hello, first message tried in this list

[Philippe Verdy]

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