Changeset: 79639164
sorting comarcas in Aragon by province, and municipalities in them before adding missing comarcas
Closed by Verdy_p
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (15625 fr) |
---|
Discussion
-
Comment from DGerveno
La comarca de la Hoya, así como varias más de Aragón, ya estaban en el mapa, y estaban totalmente correctas. Con su edición ha duplicado usted alguna de ellas, por lo que voy a revertirla. Un saludo,
-
Comment from Verdy_p
No duplication, it is split in two parts over two provinces. This is what I am mapping
-
Comment from DGerveno
Las comarcas en Aragón son una entidad que se sitúa por encima del nivel de municipio, al margen de la provincia, por loq ue el estado anterior de límites era correcto. En todo caso, ha duplicado usted alguna de las comarcas con ese cambio, lo que ya era motivo para revertir. Un saludo.
-
Comment from Verdy_p
I will revert your dseletion. You've broken thjings you did not understand, and did not even read the note tag.
Your revert was clearly abusive, totally unjustified -
Comment from Verdy_p
There was NO duplicate a
-
Comment from Verdy_p
that comarca is NOT totlally inside the province of Huesca, it has a prt in the province of Saragoose. This case also occurs for 3 other comarcas split each in tow parts over the provinces of Huesca and Zaragoza.
-
Comment from DGerveno
Le estoy intentando explicar cómo son y cómo funcionan los límites políticos de Aragón, que es el lugar donde he nacido y resido desde hace cincuenta años. Si no quiere entender, me parece bien, pero no debería editar zonas y temas que no conoce, ya que puede cometer errores importantes, como así ha sido. Un saludo.
-
Comment from ikanian
Yes, you do have duplicated the comarcas. This was mapped already, and you have duplicated or divided in a manner that has nothing to do with how does the comarcas work in Aragón. Take in account that every autonomous community may have (or not, as the majority does not have any comarcas) different laws for describing the comarcas, and Aragón definetily does not divide any comarca in provinces. They are different things.
Moreover, you have written Zaragoza incorrectly in some of your edits
-
Comment from Verdy_p
I wrote them correctly except in this comment above, as the web fomr has bugs and submits too early while editing, not allowing correcting the text in some cases (keyboard shortcuts)
And I do understand that comarcas and provinces are separate divisions of the region. I have not "created" any comarcas the fractions were NOT tagged as comarcas and clearly distinguished as "fractions", corret distinctive names and notes. This then allowed chking the lsits of municipalities and various one were not mapped where they should be. This was a necesdsary step before adding the missing comarcas in the rest of the province of Zaragoza (yes I wrote above "saragoose" but it was a typo I could not fix and was sent "as is" in the web form; I could have written "Saragossa" or "Saragosse" as well, all correct depending on language) -
Comment from ikanian
I think you are just ignoring what is a collaborative community. Moreover, you have entered in an edition war. You are ignoring all of what the people of the spanish osm community have told you (since I know, I am not nor the first person nor the last that have talked to you about the spanish' comarcas that you are editing) and just doing what you want, when you want and how you want.
I think that this is not definitely the way editing in osm works.
Btw, yes, you wrote Zaragoza wrong, both in Spanish and in Aragonese:
-
Comment from Verdy_p
This was already fixed in that subrelation.
And no, other Spanish users contacted me to say thanks.
I was asked to compelte the work in Aragon, and this revert just complicated the task, These subrelations were needed at least as an intermediate step to fix various things, including dixing many names, missing admin_centers, adding references (wikidata and so on), and debreaking some broken boundaries (I checked them in the Spanish cadasdtre to see if the conflations were correct as these limits are still approximative and deviate frequently between two neighbouring municipalities, sometimes creating articficial holes.
The coverage has grown. And I use the msot relevant sources agreed on several Spanish communities (OSM wiki, Spanish Wikipedia, and Wm Commons, checking the dates as they have changed over time or because some of them are different proposals of comarcalisation or because they are traditional and not endorsed by the agriculture ministry, or the juntas and deputations of provinces or regions which use different definitions; I was told to use iun preference the agrarian comarcas when there are conflicts, instead of touristic comarcas proposed/promoted by provinces, differently from the regional comarcas and also differently from multiple layers of traditional comarcas, various ones being in fact subcomarcas of another traditional but newer and larger comarca). -
Comment from Verdy_p
So in conclusion I do not ignore the community, I take their input in consideration; beside the minor name incorrect in the subrelation that could have been fixed, but was blindly removed with everything else, without any prior talk to suggest easy fixes and explain what we can do...
I have various messages in my talk page here about these, they were positive and did not go to an unexplained blind revert (which also restored many errors I had fixed) but only to some fixes. -
Comment from sanchi
Para no ignorar a la comunidad hay que hablar con ella como se te ha comentado y pedido. Eso no ha sucedido. Es el principal problema.
Para los límites administrativos no es correcto usar Catastro, hay que mirar el IGN.
Por lo demás reiterar lo que ya se te ha comentado. -
Comment from msevilla00
Dear Verdy_p, I guess you are ignoring how are the correct limits of "comarcas" in Aragón (which are different than agrarian old ones) and you were wrong doing your editions against other user contributions. This start a big argument which is moving to the talk-es mailing list, Spanish OSM mailing list, and we are considering to sent a banned report to the OSM Working Data Group [1]. Please, take note of Spanish community considerations and stop doing wrong editions.
Best regards.
[1] http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Ediciones-del-usuario-Verdy-p-sin-consenso-con-la-comunidad-espa-ola-de-OSM-td5956308.html -
Comment from Verdy_p
No I do not ignore that. I spoke about the agrarian ones but not for Aragon.
I use the same sources that the Spanish community has developed in OSM, in Wikidata, in es.Wikipedia, I look at them, search the official sites, look for legal texts. These are thousands of clicks and hours of searches.
And I was really talking with other Spanish users (the DWG can even consult my talk page here on the OSM site)
I've not "invented" new borders, just created a few separate objects to manage the creation of missing borders and correct classification of municipalities. This is a step to check them (even the existing comarcas are not complete everywhere as you think).
Now the minor name error you talk is not even in the boundaries that you have kept, only in the temporary subjects (that are clearly not "duplicates" and were tagged specifically and differently from comarcas, and not described as comarcas, with additional note to exhibit it more clearly, but you ignore that). -
Comment from unodecrespos
Dear Verdy_p,
First and foremost, I told you to get in touch with the Spanish community before continuing the delicate task of altering borders in Spain. You ignored me twice, so yes, you ignored the Spanish community. It's no surprise that you have ended up making mistakes elsewhere when you didn't take into account local mappers to reach a consensus.
I thanked you for your interest in improving the map in Spain, but that doesn't mean that I condone your methods. And I repeatedly told you that comarcas are quite a complex matter that have different difficulties depending on the region. In Ávila, specifically, I (personally) prefer the agrarian comarcas to the deputation limits, but that doesn't mean you can take my opinion and implement it throughout the country without getting in touch with the community first. I also told you that I, being a local, wouldn't even dare map comarcas in neighbouring provinces and yet you assume the task yourself without making the necessary research (which is a difficult task in itself). If comarcas haven't been mapped locally it may be because users believe they shouldn't or because it is too difficult. What makes you think that you know better? -
Comment from Verdy_p
And may you don't know but I have the legal document named "DECRETO LEGISLATIVO 2/2006, de 27 de diciembre, del Gobierno de Aragón, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Delimitación Comarcal de Aragón", published on 30 December 2006 in BOA n° 149. I use it to find decrepencies (e.g. missing "alt names" used by the region, different from those used by IDEE, and forgotten in OSM).
There are various municipalities that don't have their admin_center node linked which I fix too (this really helps creating other divisions and locating items on the map data). I add the missing wikidata items (or create them as needed, making also links in Wikidata for some relevant wikis and adding the missing classification or fixing a few declarations, already signaled in Wikidata as they reference the incorrect object not of the correct datatype). I consolidate all that together, and mlake sure that all relevant sources are linked together and easily verifiable. -
Comment from Verdy_p
Also the difficulty of the task is not a problem for me. Of course it requires patience and lot of work. I can do that, patiently, calmly.
There may be some intermediate errors but that's not worse than when there's nothing before. Yes the boundaries in Spain are very complex, I do not challenge that. It does not mean they cannot be represented. I do not destroy anything. I'm not spamming arebitrary data, all is checked many times by various methods and lot of searches.
And I've tried to join the talk-es list, this failed, I never received any message (because of installation bugs in the OSM maliling list manager that causes the MLM to receive lot of bounces: the OSM servers are not properly installed and they forcibly unsubscribe many people) -
Comment from unodecrespos
I believe nobody here is underestimating your efforts. The problem is your lack of communication with the community. When you don't inform about such delicate modifications, you may be editing things like an elephant in a china shop without even noticing it.
-
Comment from Verdy_p
Note: I have no problem for reading Spanish, I just avoid writing talks in Spanish. And not all spanish users even talk Spanish as the country is highly multilingual, including in Aragon (I would have much more problems reading Catalan or Basque, I may interpret Aragonese incorrectly). To limit errors when I write something I just use English but you can reply in Spanish if you prefer, it's not a problem. I have consulted only the talk-es archives but cannot subscribe it.
-
Comment from Verdy_p
Also you talked with me positively, so after thinking and searching I started to do the job (I was instructed to do that by someone that told me he had ionformed the Spanish community in messages in Spanish).
I received no message at all, I was just blindly reverted without notice, and even reported in an attempt to block me, even if I had made absolutely no damage at all. -
Comment from SomeoneElse
(somewhat offtopic, but related to talk-es)
> And I've tried to join the talk-es list, this failed, I never received any message (because of installation bugs in the OSM maliling list manager
To be clear, I have just successfully joined the talk-es mailing list. From recent IRC discussions, it is likely to be the way that you are bouncing messages between providers that is causing the problem. Pick an email provider and use it. Don't try and bounce between a historic wanadoo address and gmail. -
Comment from unodecrespos
Of course I talked with you positively, same as I'm doing right now. But the point of my messages was: "join the community and open a discussion about comarcas before doing anything else". You didn't start any open dialogue and you continued editing province after province. And if you experienced technical problems in joining the mailing list, you never mentioned it.
Apart from that, I didn't 'instruct' you to do anything and I'm not your spokesman in the Spanish community. I merely notified that there was someone meddling with borders without informing. -
Comment from Verdy_p
The technical problem of the OSM list server is in their DNS, and the fact the MLM breaks DKIM, and DMARC, leaving only SPF. Not all mail providers support SPF (note: Wanadoo is NOT historic, it is a brand of Orange, a major ISP in France, and lot of French users are forcibly unsubscribed without notice as the mails sent by the OSM MLM are bouncing systematically. Technically the digital signatures for DKIM and DMARC are broken, so the recipient service provider try to check if these mails were usurpated or modified. As all supported check fail because of incorrect installation of OSM MLM servers, the talking tools are not working as they should by mail, there are also many other places and OSM has still not worked seriously on consolidating them; tons of OSM users get then blocked unfairly even if they had some talks, they can't reach everyone they'd like to join).
Only this channel (changeset talks) seems stable for now, as well as the private messages on the OSM account of this site. But they are interpersonal tools, not appropriate for mass delivery to all concerned people. -
Comment from msevilla00
Dear Verdy_p, It seems that all is a lack of communication or/and misinterpretation. Please, try to communicate with us and work together following local collaborators knowledge.
You could also join the community via Telegram group or Riot/Matrix connection: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:ES:Espa%C3%B1a/Contacto
All we are trying to improve the map... do it together. Cheers -
Comment from Verdy_p
Note that even if there are multiple comarcal delimitations in regions that still don't have their own official ione, and still use traditional comarcas (still used) and "touristic" comarcas promoted by the deputation of the provincial junta, all of them can coexist in OSM; this is just a matter of distinctive tags.
For those qualified as "boundary=administrative", this should be the regional definition according to the regional law if it exists. Others can be tagged as "boundary=traditional" or similar (with a specific case for older comarcas that are actually subcomarcas of more recent or larger traditional comarcas.
provincial/touristic comarcas may also have their distinctive tag like "boundary=touristic".
In all these case we can also add a more explicit tag like "admin_type=*" (to be chosen by the Spanish community).And a "description=*" filed to exhibit this in human language (possibly translated in several languages, including regional languages spoken in Spain, notably Galician, Asturian, Extremaduran, Aragonese, and Catalan with a relevant language suffix like "description:ca=*")
I do not see that as a big problem.
some comarcas may have identical definitions, from the region or the province and in that case they still qualify as administrative. The "administrative" level 7 should still be complete, even if for now it is fixed in some regions by the agrarian definition (which is also administrative but for a limited purpose but still commonly used as long as the region does not officialize its own delimitation).
Other comarcal delimitations dintinguished from the official regional one will no longer use the "administrative" type, but a different type (boundary=traditional is not convenient, we could have boundary=agrarian for them). -
Comment from Verdy_p
I know it is difficult (and the categories used in Wikipedia or Commons or in Wikidata are not making the distinction easy, as all comarcal types are mixed, except in some regions).
This is lot of work to do in several incremental steps to sort all these correctly. This changeset was one of the incremental step needed to help building these distinctions.
The next step will be to map the mancommunidad (cooperations of municipalitiies) and this is exactly similar to French intercommunalities, tagged using "boundary=local_authority, plus some distinctive "admin_type=*" for them).
Spain is not more complex than France, it just requires clarification and extensive work to sort all this.
But having only regions, provinces in Spain to group municipalities is clearly insufficient. -
Comment from unodecrespos
Dear Verdy_p, at this point nobody is discussing about tagging possibilities. If you want to do so, please open a discussion explaining your approach in the Spanish mailing list. That's how people around here like to do big changes. You will most likely get positive feedback if you make an interesting proposal, but you can't force your changes without having explained them beforehand through adequate channels (and comments to a changeset or messages to private users are not considered adequate channels).
-
Comment from Verdy_p
I'm not "forcing" changes, I'm adding what is missing. I still need some tags for these, and have just used what is currently available, not changing them.
But I do agree that there are several comarcal definitions and I have never contested that. This does not mean that they cannot be added at all and distinguished. Only one comarcal division is being made for now (where there is none in OSM and they are clearly missing). We can add more and it's not at all a problem for me and should not be a problem for you. Those are already used, referenced in other collabarative sites already linked by OSM (notably Wikimedia, Commons and Wikidata where there's also lot of work to sort these as all is mixed and confused).
I'm not expecting to work alone. But there's no contestation that I do not invent anything, and that I am just filling missing gaps of information, not destroying anything.
It's quite simpelr to change some tags if we need several definitions, it's a matter of a few seconds; but restoring or rebuilding completely from scratch is a severe loss of time for everyone. The work done or to do require lot of time, desctroying it gives only negative value. -
Comment from DGerveno
Vemos desde la comunidad española que sigue con sus ediciones, sin haber recibido un visto bueno por nuestra parte. Señor Verdy, por favor, diríjase a la lista talk-es, aquí es imposible seguir sus argumentos.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-es/2020-January/017147.html -
Comment from Verdy_p
You semm to have never seen that these were NOT the same type of relation.
You missed the distinctive tag which was not "boundary=administrative" but "boundary=administrative_fraction";"type=boundary+admin_level=*" alone is not enough to distinguish relations (see for example the religious boundaries which also have their admin_level...)
the "_fraction" type is different; applciations that just want to see full comarcas will ,not load the fractions which are separate kind of objects, not adminsitrative, but related to correctly represent the relation and partial containment of levels 6 and 7 in Spain, where it is not exact.
These relatiosn had differnt contents, coverd distinctive areas. The names indicated there are just indicative, I could have put none at all, but it's better for editing users trying to read it, and that's why these names had disambiguation suffixes (nont intended ot be rendered on any map, and not rendered at all in fact. But still useful in statistical reports. This just proves that I was really aware that provinces do not contain full comarcas, this is alsmot the case but not everywhere. There was no error at all, these are "building blocks" useful for data checkin, check unexpected overlaps or incompleteness, and also make relations easier to interpret while still permitting a containment: each "fraction" have two parents not just one, and not the same two parents (they stilll form a graph as a tree with common branches and a common ancestor, but the graph remains acyclic).
-
Comment from sanchi
"boundary=administrative_fraction" solo existen 19 en Todo el mundo y todas creadas por ti. No lo he visto tampoco documentado en la wiki. Lo veo etiquetado inventado que es innecesario
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/boundary=administrative_fraction
Volvemos a pedirte que te comuniques en la lista para dar tus puntos de vista. Como tú has dicho este no es el medio adecuado para solucionar esto.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-es/2020-January/017147.html
- France - España (37416060), v21
- France - España (37416062), v18
- France - España (37567200), v23
- France - España (37567530), v22
- France - España (38430768), v18
- France - España (38430772), v21
- France - España (38430773), v20
- France - España (38430775), v37
- France - España (38430776), v20
- France - España (38442552), v32
- France - España (40283500), v19
- France - España (40287422), v18
- France - España (40287425), v16
- Aragón - Navarra / Nafarroa (45316687), v4
- 45316754, v2
- Navarra / Nafarroa - Euskadi (45316755), v9
- 45316802, v4
- 45316854, v3
- 45316858, v2
- Huesca - Zaragoza (45317072), v2
- Los Monegros (Huesca) (10594432), v1
- Los Monegros (Zaragoza) (10594433), v1
- Hoya de Huesca (Zaragosa) (10594434), v1
- Hoya de Huesca (Huesca) (10594435), v1
- Bajo Cinca (Zaragoza) (10594436), v1
- Bajo Cinca (Huesca) (10594437), v1
- La Jacetania (Zaragoza) (10594438), v1
- La Jacetania (Huesca) (10594439), v1
- Alcolea de Cinca (339666), v7
- Velilla de Cinca (339811), v10
- Aragüés del Puerto (340015), v8
- Panticosa (340482), v13
- Monegrillo (340808), v8
- Monzón (340829), v12
- Chalamera (340971), v7
- Jasa (341120), v7
- Jaca (341121), v19
- Leciñena (341502), v10
- Fraga (341530), v9
- Fonz (341532), v10
Nodes (2)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |