Please note that 129 is about languages. It basicly doesn't allow
the communities to say what language should be used in Brussels
because it's bilingual.
And 127 is about another (larger) set of competences. The important
point: none of them defines the communities as a geographic region.
On Monday 25 November 2013 23:37:41 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
There should be a hole in the language area (which we don't have)
and the region
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53134), which seems
to be the case, and you can argue about the communitie
Article 127 defines the Dutch-speaking community as covering the
Dutch language area plus the Bilingual Brussels-Capital area, and
the French-speaking community as covering the French language area
and Bilingual Brussels-Capital area. So the Bilingual
Brussels-Capital is covered by 2
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 02:08:02PM +0100, Ben Laenen wrote:
On Monday 25 November 2013 23:37:41 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
There should be a hole in the language area (which we don't have)
and the region
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53134), which seems
to be the case, and you can
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 02:57:05PM +0100, Wouter Hamelinck wrote:
If you really want to use it as a geographical definition for the
communities, why would you use the one from art127 and not the ones
from articles 128 or 129? Especially 129 doesn't mention Brussels.
Please note that 129 is
Le 26/11/13 19:06, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I have always had a problem with
mapping the communities in the first place since they are about
the person and not the land. But there are people that want to
map that. And if we're going to map them than we should try
