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
<pcvalve...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <ver...@gmail.com
<mailto:ver...@gmail.com>> escribió:
Le mer. 22 janv. 2020 à 20:57, Jorge Sanz Sanfructuoso
<sanc...@gmail.com <mailto:sanc...@gmail.com>> 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 <mailto:Talk-es@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
_______________________________________________
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________
Talk-es mailing list
Talk-es@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
