Talk:Colombia: Difference between revisions

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Alooperezz98.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017

The new Vice President is Oscar Naranjo. Aguila289 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out the change! -- Irn (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Tourism

A section about tourism is a standard section of almost every country article we have on Wikipedia, from Bhutan to Uruguay. It would be ridiculous to actively exclude any tourism section in this country article. The tourist industry of Colombia is compared to many other Latin American countries still relatively small, but growing, and that has been well described by SeminoleNation. There may be better references to find, but that is then a constructive task for improvement. Just brutally removing the whole Tourism section of Colombia is not constructive at all and completely opposing any other country article on Wikipedia. The examples listed are good, the link to the main article well included, the images are relevant, the length is ok, not too long, not too short, there really is no argument for a complete exclusion of tourism in this article. @Richard3120:, @SeminoleNation:, @ControlCorV:, and others are welcome to comment. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Colombia's economy is not dependent on exports, imports, tourism or mining. In fact, if you look at the overall breakdown, Colombia's economy is amazingly well distributed. Colombia doesn't depend on any individual sector for its economy to survive.

Colombia's gross domestic product by sector

--JShark (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Who is claiming that "Colombia depends on tourism"? Nobody. The tourism sector is 12% according to the diagram you posted. That is what you'd call "substantial". Not "the only thing" or "Colombia collapses without tourism" or "completely irrelevant" or any other black-and-white definition. It is a part of the economy and thus should definitely be included in the country article. "Media" and "Sports" are also included as sections in the Colombia article, they don't provide that much GDP either. Is that a reason to remove those sections? No, they belong to the country, just like any country. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Trade, hotels, restaurants and repairs - Not only tourism --JShark (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles about the United States, Australia or New Zealand do not have within its content too much information about tourism.

Excessive content harms good articles. An article is not good just for being very extensive. --JShark (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The country's economic production is dominated by its strong domestic demand. Consumption expenditure by households is the largest component of GDP. http://www.dinero.com/economia/articulo/composicion-economia-colombiana-2015/214054 --JShark (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Colombia's economy is not dependent on exports, imports or tourism. All those sectors exist, of course, but none of them represent a disproportionate part of the economy. There are more important sectors for the Colombian economy such as the financial sector and the social services sector.

Too much unnecessary information. It is good to be concise in this article. If you want to add more information you should add it in other articles about tourism in Colombia.

Articles about Australia and New Zealand are good articles and at the same time, these articles have clear and concise information. --JShark (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

See also => Australia#Economy and New_Zealand#Economy --JShark (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

1. you seem not to get what "concise" means. Concise means "compact", "not too extensive", "summarised". Not a 10 page piece of text, but a few paragraphs. That is concise. And I agree, it should be concise. And that is exactly what SeminoleNation has done for the tourism section.
2. you seem to measure a country ONLY by GDP. GDP is 1 way to measure a country but there are many more methods to measure countries.
3. if I go on a trip to Villa de Leyva, one of the most touristic towns in Colombia, I do that as a tourist. I don't live there, have no family there, I go there for tourism. When I extract money from a cajero, I use "financial services", but I wouldn't do that if it weren't for my touristic trip. I eat an arepa, which is made from corn, produced by agriculture. But that specific arepa is only sold to me because I am a tourist there. I use buses that use oil, mining products (iron ore), imported goods etc. etc. etc. But, I use that as a tourist. You cannot separate those things out.
4. indeed I think those articles about Australia and New Zealand lack a section about tourism, as tourism is an essential part of (almost) any country. FA Chad lacks that section understandably, but would you want to actively exclude mentioning Machu Picchu in an article about Peru? WHY?
5. keep the discussion here, not on my talk page. It's not a discussion between you and me, it's a discussion about the article Colombia.
6. I have made my arguments, you just play or seem deaf to them, so others can contribute, and I am sure they will agree with me that Colombia needs a concise (2.5% was the amount you brutally deleted) section about tourism. Tisquesusa (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

1.If you check the article about Colombia you can notice that many tourist attractions about Colombia are already addressed. --JShark (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

2.The information written by the user (@SeminoleNation) contributes nothing to the article. That information makes the article a place where you can add information without clarity and very extensive. --JShark (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

3.Articles about Australia and New Zealand do not lack anything. Those articles are featured articles because its editors know to write with clarity and without using too much unnecessary information. --JShark (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

4.The financial sector in Colombia does not grow exclusively by tourism but by the projects of infrastructure, credit, among other variables.--JShark (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

5. Economists use real GDP when they want to monitor the growth of output in an economy. (The gross domestic product (GDP) is one of the primary indicators used to gauge the health of a country's economy. As one can imagine, economic production and growth - what GDP represents - has a large impact on nearly everyone within that economy. A significant change in GDP, whether up or down, usually has a significant effect on the stock market.). If we extend the section about tourism then we will end up extending other major sectors such as the financial sector. Information about the Colombian economy already is well summarized with reliable sources. --JShark (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

6.The user (@SeminoleNation) was the one who brutally added too much unnecessary information about tourism without reaching an agreed.--JShark (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

7. I don't want to exclude anything in the article about Peru and if you check the article about Peru you will notice that its editors know how to summarize it all. Read the article about Peru and you will notice that in the section about its history and its culture section they already are talking about Machu Picchu. --JShark (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If you read the section about the economy of Colombia you will notice that already deals with the subject of tourism in Colombia. Information about tourism is well summarized taking into account that the Colombian economy is not dependent on tourism. --JShark (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It is important to highlight that the information about tourism in the section about the economy of Colombia used credible sources. See the credible source = > http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145 --JShark (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If you check the article about Colombia you can notice that many tourist attractions about Colombia are already addressed. In many sections of the article about Colombia is addressed the issue of the tourist attractions in the country. --JShark (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Examples:

1. Colombia#Pre-Columbian era => San Agustín Archaeological Park, Lost City, El Abra and Tequendama in Cundinamarca, Puerto Hormiga, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta.

2. Colombia#Spanish rule => Gulf of Urabá, Santa Marta, Cartagena, Santa Fe de Bogotá, Cali, Popayán, Llanos Orientales.

3. Colombia#Independence => Socorro Province(Santander Department), The Boyaca Bridge, Cartagena.

4. Colombia#20th century => the Amazonas department and its capital Leticia, Bogotá --JShark (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

5. Colombia#Geography => Andes, the cities of Medellín, Manizales, Pereira and Armenia, the Guajira Peninsula and including Bogotá, Bucaramanga and Cúcuta, the Orinoco River basin, the jungle of the Amazon rainforest, the major port cities of Barranquilla and Cartagena, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountain range, which includes the country's tallest peaks (Pico Cristóbal Colón and Pico Simón Bolívar), and the La Guajira Desert. The Serranía de Baudó mountains, Buenaventura, The main rivers of Colombia are Magdalena, Cauca, Guaviare, Atrato, Meta, Putumayo and Caquetá, National Park System --JShark (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

6. Colombia#Climate => Nevado del Ruiz, Sumapaz Paramo, Tota Lake, Villa de Leyva, Serranía de Chiribiquete, Boyacá Department, Amazon Rainforest, Los Llanos, the Guajira Peninsula, San Andrés y Providencia, Caño Cristales, Cordillera Occidental --JShark (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

7. Colombia#Religion => Salt Cathedral of Zipaquirá --JShark (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

8. Colombia#Architecture => Monumental hypogea of the Tierradentro culture, Guatavita La Nueva, Rogelio Salmona’s Torres del Parque, Tequendama, San Agustín, Lost city, National Capitol, Teatro Colón --JShark (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "brutally add unnecessary information" in the article. Everything was sourced and clarified.--SeminoleNation (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with anything that you are saying JShark. It was pretty concise. There's only four paragraphs aabout tourism which is the third largest sector of the GDP of Colombia.--SeminoleNation (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

SeminoleNation (talk) You added too much information without reaching an agreement with the other editors of this page. Your references are not credible and do not come from a tourist authority. You have copied the information in the article. --JShark (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

SeminoleNation (talk) http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145 => UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2016 Edition. This reference is credible, recent and comes from a tourist authority. --JShark (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

JShark, you are flat-out wrong

You see Tourism ONLY as an economic sector. That is not true. Yes, it is part of economy, but it's also something by itself; tourism. Travel, a reason to visit Colombia. You completely ignore that. If you deem references "not credible", you need to add new references, not just deleting the text a fellow contributor added (did work on that). There is no shame in multiple mentioning of the various touristic sites. Yes, the Teatro Colón is under architecture and it belongs there. But it ALSO belongs under touristic locations. Same for the others. Machu Picchu is BOTH an Inca city (belongs under "Pre-Columbian history" AND a tourist hotspot (needs mentioning under "Tourism"). Just as Ciudad Perdida (I don't like the translations, certainly not as main, they can be placed between parentheses afterwards, but the Spanish name should be leading. Only world famous landmarks are exceptions. We call it the Eiffel Tower, not the Tour d'Eiffel. But for Ciudad Perdida it's "Ciudad Perdida ("The Lost City")". YOU cannot define "unnecessary information". Information is just that; information. YOU (your POV) see it as "unnecessary", but you have no right to push your POV on the reader. The reader decides what he/she finds "(un)necessary", not you. Or me. The "Featured Article" argument is moot. I've seen far too many far too low-quality FAs and that an article is FA does not mean it's complete and no sections are missing. Tourism is an essential part of countries, not ONLY as an economic factor (the only factor you seem to see), but also as something of own, intrinsic, value. No, there shouldn't be a full-page Lonely Planet guide for tourism in a country article and no, nobody says there should be. The section added by SeminoleNation is neat, concise and relevant. Those readers that agree with you that any tourism information is "unnecessary" can simply skip that section. The problem is with pushing your POV; the readers who DO see it as necessary are now denied service. Tisquesusa (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Tisquesusa, you are flat-out wrong - The clarity of an article deteriorates when there is too much poorly referenced and extensive information.

Tisquesusa (talk) I disagree with you on many things. There are many sections where the subject of tourist attractions is addressed. In addition the article also addresses the issue of tourism and there is even a link that redirects to the article about tourism.

The clarity of an article deteriorates when there is too much poorly referenced and extensive information. Not researched the topic because he (SeminoleNation) just had to copy this information from the main article.--JShark (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If you add too much information without any order then the size of the article will be too large.--JShark (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We will have to add to the article the following message if the article is saturated with information:

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JShark (talk • contribs) 05:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose (for now at least). There are an excessive number of images (and too many galleries), many of which are forced into sections which creates large area of white space. There are a lot of out-sized images and too much sandwiched text between two images.

@Tisquesusa Do you remember this phrase?. You have not learned that an article full of exaggerated things is not a good article. --JShark (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Well what's the consensus on this? To leave it or no? I support this tourism section 100% however it can be crunched down a bit if JShark is willing to compromise.--SeminoleNation (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

SeminoleNation (talk) You added too much information copied from the article about tourism in Colombia without having researched the subject and without recent sources of an authority in the field of tourism. You have to remember that there are editors committed to the quality of the information in this article.

Colombia's economy is not dependent on exports, imports or tourism. All those sectors exist, of course, but none of them represent a disproportionate part of the economy. There are more important sectors for the Colombian economy such as the financial sector and the social services sector. --JShark (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC) If we extend the section about tourism then we will end up extending other major sectors such as the financial sector. Information about the Colombian economy already is well summarized with reliable sources. --JShark (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

SeminoleNation (talk) If you check the article about Colombia you can notice that many tourist attractions about Colombia are already addressed. In many sections of the article about Colombia is addressed the issue of the tourist attractions in the country.

1. Colombia#Pre-Columbian era => San Agustín Archaeological Park, Lost City, El Abra and Tequendama in Cundinamarca, Puerto Hormiga, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta.

2. Colombia#Spanish rule => Gulf of Urabá, Santa Marta, Cartagena, Santa Fe de Bogotá, Cali, Popayán, Llanos Orientales.

3. Colombia#Independence => Socorro Province(Santander Department), The Boyaca Bridge, Cartagena.

4. Colombia#20th century => the Amazonas department and its capital Leticia, Bogotá --JShark (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

5. Colombia#Geography => Andes, the cities of Medellín, Manizales, Pereira and Armenia, the Guajira Peninsula and including Bogotá, Bucaramanga and Cúcuta, the Orinoco River basin, the jungle of the Amazon rainforest, the major port cities of Barranquilla and Cartagena, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountain range, which includes the country's tallest peaks (Pico Cristóbal Colón and Pico Simón Bolívar), and the La Guajira Desert. The Serranía de Baudó mountains, Buenaventura, The main rivers of Colombia are Magdalena, Cauca, Guaviare, Atrato, Meta, Putumayo and Caquetá, National Park System --JShark (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

6. Colombia#Climate => Nevado del Ruiz, Sumapaz Paramo, Tota Lake, Villa de Leyva, Serranía de Chiribiquete, Boyacá Department, Amazon Rainforest, Los Llanos, the Guajira Peninsula, San Andrés y Providencia, Caño Cristales, Cordillera Occidental --JShark (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

7. Colombia#Religion => Salt Cathedral of Zipaquirá --JShark (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

8. Colombia#Architecture => Monumental hypogea of the Tierradentro culture, Guatavita La Nueva, Rogelio Salmona’s Torres del Parque, Tequendama, San Agustín, Lost city, National Capitol, Teatro Colón --JShark (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

--JShark (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the consensus on this?

There needs to be a vote on this. To leave tourism information or no.--SeminoleNation (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There is tourist information about Colombia at this time with information and credible sources. The information is well summarized and is credible => Colombia#Economy Tourism in Colombia is an important sector in the country's economy. Foreign tourist visits were predicted to have risen from 0.6 million in 2007 to 2.98 million in 2015.

http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145 - Source of an authority in the field of tourism

In addition there is tourist information in the rest of the sections of the article where is documented many tourist attractions in Colombia. The article is fine and it is best to keep it that way for not compromising the quality of the article. --JShark (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight in Infrastructure section

Per the guideline "Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not" an article should be a "summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight". I find the current status of the "Infrastructure" section being only a partial summary of accepted knowledge regarding infrastructure in Colombia. In my opinion unduly weight is being given to public government announcements of infrastructure investments. They deserve a mention in the Infrastructure section but they should not receive undue weight. The guideline "Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View" has some criteria on what is due weight:

1) "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

2)"Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

3)"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"

Comment on criteria 1 and 3: the current infrastructure section does not fairly represent a viewpoint on the quality of the productive infrastructure in Colombia. There are many reliable sources that claim that Colombia's productive infrastructure is notable for having "the second-fewest vehicle per person in South America", "isolation", "weak infrastructure", infrastructure that "still does not meet general needs", "overall backwardness of the road infrastructure", and lagging "significantly behind its peers in the creation of productive infrastructure".

Comment on criterium 2: There is too much depth of detail given to describe the bureaucracy in charge of infrastructure in Colombia. Also, the proportion of quantity of text dedicated to actually describe the characteristics of the infrastructure itself is very low compared to the proportion dedicated to the governmental organizational chart. Prominence of placement is also indicative of undue weight: the list of government agencies responsible for infrastructure is placed in the beginning of the section, and in the start of the first paragraph, with the only data on actual infrastructure relegated to the end of the paragraph.

Lastly, per the guideline "What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball", and the advice that "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view" I think that the following statements violate the guideline:

"The target of Colombia’s government is to build 7,000 km of roads for the 2016–2020 period and reduce travel times by 30 per cent and transport costs by 20 per cent. A toll road concession programme will comprise 40 projects, and is part of a larger strategic goal to invest nearly $50bn in transport infrastructure, including: railway systems; making the Magdalena river navigable again; improving port facilities; as well as an expansion of Bogotá’s airport"

In my opinion, stating these predictions is fair, as long as a reader gets the complete picture of the infrastructure in Colombia: the productive transport infrastructure is deficient, and there are some government announcements of improvements, which should be taken with a grain of salt, given the history of the country of not meeting its infrastructure goals.--Forich (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Forich (talk). The information available in the infrastructure section is correct and appropriate. There are no predictions because those are serious plans for the construction of infrastructure where many companies are investing. Moreover, the information is from a reliable source ( Financial Times.) Instead of putting allegations from unreliable sources against the infrastructure of Colombia, it is necessary to speak of serious projects of infrastructure construction. --ControlCorV (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting ControlCorV. Please do not misrepresent my point: those plans for the construction of infrastructure are not flawed because of reliability (that is what you suggest by pointig out the Financial Times) but because of the 'undue weight' and because, in my opinion, they do not provide the whole picture of the current status of infrastructure to a naive reader.

I am going to have to ask yo to please stop with your claim that I want to "put 'allegations' from unreliable sources against the infrastructure of Colombia", my argument can be read by anyone and it do not supports in any way, shape of form, the inclusion of unreliable sources.

Finally, let me ask you if you are aware of the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" guideline? If not, please read it and understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda. In your argument and the arguments you made when reverting other people's edits it seems you are unwawre of this policy, and you keep bringin up a spirit of "defending the infrastructure" of Colombia, as if it were being 'attacked' by good faith editors. Lets wait for the input of some more editors on the points I made of undue weight. If I receive support I will procede to edit the article, otherwise I will be happy to read counterarguments. --Forich (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Forich (talk) Nothing of what you say makes sense. There are correct ways to talk about the infrastructure that exists in the country and you just want to highlight the infrastructure that does not exist. Say that there are infrastructure projects is very different to say that certain types of infrastructure does not exist in the country. When we talk about serious projects of infrastructure, we can infer that the country needs more infrastructure.

Hi ControlCorV. I do not understand what you mean by 'correct' ways of talking about the infrastructure. First, please note that my argument explicitely follows the guidelines of Wikipedia, not 'correctness'. For any piece of content to be valuable to Wikipedia it needs to cover: a) what most reliable sources say when they characterize a topic; b) in case of dispute or minority views, a weighted approach to both parts should be included. Please become familiar with this simple rule so that we can get on the same page.

Second, you keep misquoting my position: I do not want to "highlight" the infrastructure that does not exist. I cited four very reliable sources that specifically say that a notable characteristic of Colombia's infrastrcture is its weakness, backwardness, and lack of appropiate development. I am not saying that this is the true, just that it is a view that deserves to be included in an encyclopedia. Everytime I do an edit in that sense you revert it, and each time you use different justifications for the reverts, often contradictory ones. Note that I am going out of my way explaining everything in this Talk section so that we can avoid an edit war.

Finally, and by the way, I am warning that your comment "Nothing of what you say makes sense" is considered direct rudeness and is not constructive. Please refrain from using that tone of commenting. --Forich (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Forich (talk) You want to include your point of view in the section about the infrastructure of Colombia. Instead of including only your opinions the best thing you can do is to allow infrastructure experts to edit the information with sources more credible and without personal opinions about the infrastructure of Colombia. You should write about facts or serious projects of infrastructure construction, and you should not write only about your personal opinions.--ControlCorV (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Read the main article about the infrastructure of the country and you will see how to talk about the infrastructure of the country. It is also important to highlight that the main article about Colombia is not an article to speak exclusively of infrastructure in the country. We can not put too much information in this article, and for that reason there are the subarticles.--ControlCorV (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The article you are citing is full of references to railroads in Colombia. If that is a role model of "how to talk about the infrastructure of the country" explain why you reverted my attempt of including data on railroads on the Infrastructure section of the Colombia entry in the first place. If it was a mistake, we can turn the page and discuss the content, no hard feelings. I even propose that we write a draft here in the talk section first.

On your second point, I agree that we can not put too much information in the "Colombia" article, that is one of the reasons to reduce the current excessive information on official announcements that read like propaganda, and the in-depth description of the organization chart of the infrastructure sector in Colombia.--Forich (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Transportation

Main article: Transport in Colombia

Railways

Main article: Rail transport in Colombia

Railroads of Colombia

Colombia has 3,034 kilometers (1,885 mi) of rail lines, 150 kilometers (93 mi) of which are 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) gauge and 3,154 kilometers (1,960 mi) of which are 914 mm (3 ft) gauge. However, only 2,611 kilometers (1,622 mi) of lines are still in use. The national railroad system, once the country's main mode of transport for freight, has been neglected in favor of road development and now accounts for only about a quarter of freight transport. Passenger-rail use was suspended in 1992 and resumed at the end of the 1990s. However, fewer than 165,000 passenger journeys were made in 1999, as compared with more than 5 million in 1972, and the figure was only 160,130 in 2005. Short sections of railroad, mainly the Bogotá-Atlantic rim, are used to haul goods, mostly coal, to the Caribbean and Pacific ports. In 2005 a total of 27.5 million metric tons of cargo were transported by rail. The nation's rail network links seven of the country's 10 major cities. During 2004–6, approximately 2,000 kilometers of the country's rail lines underwent refurbishment. This upgrade involved two main projects: the 1,484-kilometer line linking Bogotá to the Caribbean Coast and the 499-kilometer Pacific coastal network that links the industrial city of Cali and the surrounding coffee-growing region to the port of Buenaventura.

Roads

See also: Highways in Colombia

Main roads in Colombia

The three main north-south highways are the Caribbean, Eastern, and Central Trunk Highways (troncales). Estimates of the length of Colombia's road system in 2004 ranged from 115,000 kilometers to 145,000 kilometers. However, according to 2005 data reported by the Colombian government, the road network totaled 163,000 kilometers, 68 percent of which were paved and in good condition. The increase may reflect some newly built roads. President Uribe has vowed to pave more than 2,500 kilometers of roads during his administration, and about 5,000 kilometers of new secondary roads were being built in the 2003–6 period. Despite serious terrain obstacles, almost three-quarters of all cross-border dry cargo is now transported by road, 105,251 metric tons in 2005.

Highways are managed by the Colombian Ministry of Transport through the National Roads Institute. The security of the highways in Colombia is managed by the Highway Police unit of the Colombian National Police. Colombia is crossed by the Panamerican Highway.

Ports, waterways, and merchant marine

Rivers of Colombia

Seaports handle around 80 percent of international cargo. In 2005 a total of 105,251 metric tons of cargo were transported by water. Colombia's most important ocean terminals are Barranquilla, Cartagena, and Santa Marta on the Caribbean Coast and Buenaventura and Tumaco on the Pacific Coast. Exports mostly pass through the Caribbean ports of Cartagena and Santa Marta, while 65 percent of imports arrive at the port of Buenaventura. Other important ports and harbors are Bahía de Portete, Leticia, Puerto Bolívar, San Andrés, Santa Marta, and Turbo. Since privatization was implemented in 1993, the efficiency of port handling has increased greatly.

The main inland waterways total about 18,200 kilometers, 11,000 kilometers of which are navigable by riverboats. A well-developed and important form of transport for both cargo and passengers, inland waterways transport approximately 3.8 million metric tons of freight and more than 5.5 million passengers annually. Main inland waterways are the Magdalena–Cauca River system, which is navigable for 1,500 kilometers; the Atrato, which is navigable for 687 kilometers; the Orinoco system of more than five navigable rivers, which total more than 4,000 kilometers of potential navigation (mainly through Venezuela); and the Amazonas system, which has four main rivers totaling 3,000 navigable kilometers (mainly through Brazil). The government is planning an ambitious program to more fully utilize the main rivers for transport. In addition, the navy's riverine brigade has been patrolling waterways more aggressively in order to establish safer river transport in the more remote areas in the south and east of the country.

The merchant marine totals 17 ships (1,000 gross registered tons or more), including four bulk, 13 cargo, one container, one liquefied gas, and three petroleum tanker ships. Colombia also has seven ships registered in other countries (Antigua and Barbuda, two; Panama, five).

Aviation

See also: List of airports in Colombia

El Dorado International Airport of Bogotá

All public airports in Colombia are managed and controlled by the Special Administrative Unit of Civil Aeronautics.

Colombia has well-developed air routes and an estimated total of 984 airports, 100 of which have paved runways, plus two heliports. Of the 74 main airports, 20 can accommodate jet aircraft. Two airports are more than 3,047 meters in length, nine are 2,438–3,047 meters, 39 are 1,524–2,437 meters, 38 are 914–1,523 meters, 12 are shorter than 914 meters, and 880 have unpaved runways. The government has been selling its stake in local airports in order to allow their privatization. The country has 40 regional airports, and the cities of Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Barranquilla, Bucaramanga, Cartagena, Cúcuta, Leticia, Pereira, San Andrés, and Santa Marta have international airports. Bogotá's El Dorado International Airport handles 550 million metric tons of cargo and 22 million passengers a year, making it the largest airport in Latin America in terms of cargo and the third largest in passenger numbers.

Urban transport

Medellín Metro

Urban transport systems have been developed in Bogotá, Medellín, Cali and Barranquilla. Traffic congestion in Bogotá has been greatly exacerbated by the lack of rail transport. However, this problem has been alleviated somewhat by the development of one of the world's largest and highest capacity Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Systems, known as the TransMilenio (opened 2000), and the restriction of vehicles through a daily, rotating ban on private cars depending on plate numbers. Bogotá's system consists of bus and minibus services managed by both private- and public-sector enterprises. Since 1995 Medellín has had a modern urban railway referred to as the Metro de Medellín, which also connects with the cities of Itagüí, Envigado, and Bello. A BRT line called Transmetro began operating in 2011, with a second line added in 2013. Other cities have also installed BRT systems such as Cali with a six line system (opened 2008), Barranquilla with two lines (opened 2010), Bucaramanga with one line (opened 2010) and Pereira with three lines (opened 2006). --ControlCorV (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Forich (talk). The infrastructure that is being built is important to the economy of Colombia and infrastructure construction projects contribute to the gross domestic product of Colombia. --ControlCorV (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi ControlCorV. I do not understand your point with this statement, since it do not address the undue weight argument I made, but I will let you know of an apparent contradiction in your views: recently you reverted one of my edits with the explanation that "The information in the main article about Colombia should focus on the means of transport available in the country and not the non-existent means of transport". However you are here advocating for the inclusion of info on infrastructure that is announced to be built and hence, does not exist yet. Did you change your mind? --Forich (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Forich (talk) Nothing of what you say makes sense. There are correct ways to talk about the infrastructure that exists in the country and you just want to highlight the infrastructure that does not exist. Say that there are infrastructure projects is very different to say that certain types of infrastructure does not exist in the country. When we talk about serious projects of infrastructure, we can infer that the country needs more infrastructure.

Read the main article about the infrastructure of the country and you will see how to talk about the infrastructure of the country. It is also important to highlight that the main article about Colombia is not an article to speak exclusively of infrastructure in the country. We can not put too much information in this article, and for that reason there are the subarticles. --ControlCorV (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Colombia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.alcaldiabogota.gov.co/sColombiaColombiaisjur/normas/Norma1.jsp?i=2780
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150327033803/http://unilibrepereira.edu.co/catehortua/posgrados/archivos2/HISTORIA%20CONSTITUCIONAL%20COLOMBIANA.pdf to http://unilibrepereira.edu.co/catehortua/posgrados/archivos2/HISTORIA%20CONSTITUCIONAL%20COLOMBIANA.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564636_10/Colombia.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unidadvictimas.gov.co/normatividad/LEY%2BDE%2BVICTIMAS.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/PNN/portel/libreria/php/frame_detalle.php?h_id=5274
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140705232552/http://www3.registraduria.gov.co/presidente2014/preconteo/2v/99PR2/DPR9999999_L1.htm to http://www3.registraduria.gov.co/presidente2014/preconteo/2v/99PR2/DPR9999999_L1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209012507/http://dane.gov.co/Divipola/ to http://www.dane.gov.co/Divipola/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150413170259/http://legacy.intracen.org/appli1/TradeCom/TP_EP_CI.aspx?RP=170&YR=2013 to http://legacy.intracen.org/appli1/TradeCom/TP_EP_CI.aspx?RP=170&YR=2013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160509183603/http://historico.unperiodico.unal.edu.co/ediciones/103/08.html to http://historico.unperiodico.unal.edu.co/ediciones/103/08.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005012618/http://www.udea.edu.co/portal/page/portal/bActualidad/Principal_UdeA/News/Tab/AEF4F8549743CF0AE04018C8341F754F to http://www.udea.edu.co/portal/page/portal/bActualidad/Principal_UdeA/News/Tab/AEF4F8549743CF0AE04018C8341F754F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617204901/http://historico.unperiodico.unal.edu.co/ediciones/105/15.html to http://historico.unperiodico.unal.edu.co/ediciones/105/15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311233941/http://www.facartes.unal.edu.co/muvirt/cronologia/index.html to http://facartes.unal.edu.co/muvirt/cronologia/index.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20161111113646/http://www.fiapf.org/intfilmfestivals_2016_sites02.asp to http://www.fiapf.org/intfilmfestivals_2016_sites02.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lafm.com.co/noticias/colombia-vive-esplendor-166408

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)