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 to accept these views, notably when they are established by national or regional laws and regulations and projects of public interest or by common local knowledge and use, that can be tracked from a reliable and stable source. This is the case of Spanish comarcas (well most of them, those only of historical interest may not be relevant if they were based on a group of municipalities whose borders have change or that no longer exist after merges and splits). The good question for OSM is: are they in use today ? or are they kept for legal reasons even if they are no longer used for new laws/regulations (e.g. for legal records of living people or registered organisation or for management of historic rights, including property rights, contracts, or legacy laws that have not been rewritten/updated to take into account other legal changes) ?
_______________________________________________ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
