As we said I'm thinking about starting to improve a bit the french areas pages. Comparing the disproportioned amount of objects located in the Bigorre and the Luchon area, something came into my mind.
The Bigorre is a region extremely wide, which gathers most famous peaks of the Hautes Pyrénées, correspondly roughly to the department "65".
On the opposite the Luchon area is very small in superficy compared to it (the french department 31, Haute Garonne).
The goal would be to "unload" a bit the Bigorre by transfering some of the peaks to Luchon (we already can't see the whole peak list in the left pannel, there is "5 more" in the bottom !). This is partly due to the fact that the whole Vignemale group was wrongly attached to the Béarn and I corrected it few days ago.
Since the peaks located in the Aure/Louron area (Batoua, Lustou, etc) are more connected to the Luchon group than The Monte Perdido group, I thought about renaming "Luchon" into "Aure/Luchonnais", and Bigorre into "Adour-Bigorre".
It also makes senses in the way that the separation between these 2 regions is the water-divide between the Adour river and the Garonne river, as it is already for the borders of the "Ariège" with the basin of the eponymous river, and is also for "Bearn" with the water-area of the Gave d'Aspe and Gave d'Ossau. In this way, water divides would help SP contributors to sort out easily the appartenance of each peak to a group on the north side, and having areas with proportional amount of peaks.
What do you think ?
I will think about it. In my opinion the most important thing is the trailhead and not the correct situation of the peak. If a trailhead of a peak it's in an area I think that the peak must be appear in the area, even the peak will be in two areas. It's not really very important if an area is bigger or smaller than other, the most important thing is the roads and the trailheads to visit a peak. The people need to know the peaks to climb from Bujaruelo even if you go out of the area.
Vignemale is the most difficult to add correctly, but the trailhead must decide it. If a mountaineer can climb from Bigorre, Tena (valley of Ara to coulouir of Cerbillona or Moskowa) and Ordesa (Bujaruelo for Grand Tapou)... maybe it's possible to attach to different areas: in Bigorre: Grand Vigenale, Clot de la Hount, P.Carré, Chausenque and Petit Vignemale. In Tena: Cerbillona, Central and Montferrat. In Ordesa: Grand Tapou. What do you think about it?
It's normal the confluence of a lot of peaks in the center of Pyrenees because the range has the most higher peaks in that zona. It's the reality, Benasque, Bigorre or Ordesa/Gavarnie have a lot of peaks and Luchon has less peaks.
Sure, if we take water divides to define zones, then peaks tend to be located on borders of 2 zones: then the most logic is to attach the peak to the two zones as often as the peak is accessed from both sides.
The same way exactly when a peak is on the international border, when we attach it both to spain and france.
As for Bigorre/Luchon, I'll try to implement the repartition I proposed just to have a look; if it is too confusing we can always come back to the initial zones as they are now.
Indeed, I carried few researches about the origins of the "Bigorre", and found out the Nestes valleys (Aure and Louron) were not always a part of the Bigorre Kingdom (when they were, only an unsignificant part).
In fact the confusion might come from the fact the Aure & Louron belong to the "65" departement (Haute Pyrénées) and not "31" (Haute Garonne, Luchon).
Then, if we respect this definition, the small group of Lustou, Batoua, pic d'Estos, Montious, goes to Luchon. On the other hand, Néouvielle and neighbours remain in the Bigorre.
To make it more clear, I renamed "Luchon" as "Luchonnais & Nestes", the names we usually give to these regions in French (Luchon being only one town).
The number of peaks become also less disproportioned. Have a look and tell me how you find it.
thank you very much for your work. I like it.