The non-compliance with the general RF regulations of Chile was already explained in OP’s original thread, where the applicable regulation is quoted as the first item, before getting into the additional location specific concern as a second, distinct issue.
Probably the two threads need to be merged.
Not sure how or where you determined that - I see no ref to general regulations only a regulator request to limit in their specific case (because of location etc as explained later on)
Perhaps OP can clarify.
Chile has a significant TTN Community based around Santiago with 14 GWs and 78 contributors and I’m not personally aware of any issues being raised wrt General Regulations previously. (And I believe there are historically around 35-45 TTN GWs in country)
BTW I agree with some of your application driven Downlink adjustments as being impractial and also not then addressing network initiated DL from prior to your post edit 
I said much the same earlier. Change power per application DL simply wont work/be practical!
You need to re-read the other thread more carefully, because (for the third time) OP states two distinct issues: 1st they quote the general RF regulation that is not being complied with. Then they mention an additional concern about being near radio astronomy installations.
Even apart from that location specific concern they are quoting a general RF regulation that is allegedly not being complied with. Perhaps they are mistaken in some way, but they’ve made a very clear, specific, and regulatory language supported allegation.
Just claiming that the LoRa alliance handles this in no way refutes that claim, both because the regional settings are actually for an entirely different country to begin with, and because the LoRa Alliance explicitly disclaims accuracy in interpreting regulations even for the actual country, nevermind a “similar” one.
Chile has a significant TTN Community based around Santiago with 14 GWs and 78 contributors
This would be a good group of people to be discussing the apparent issue
I’m not personally aware of any issues being raised wrt General Regulations previously. (And I believe there are historically around 35-45 TTN GWs in country)
Not having gotten in trouble yet does not in any way mean that what’s being done is legal - accidental non-compliance is very much a thing, and at the power levels in question, discovery would likely only follow from investigation of some specific complaint. But illegal operation (if that’s what it is) is still illegal.
Someone is misreading the rules or unaware of recent changes - the question is, who.
Then that is something to bring to the attention of 1) the Lora Alliance and 2) TTN developers who do (as regular visitors know) not visit the forum daily.
@johan : it seems there is an issue for Chilean users which needs attention. Anything you (as a Lora Alliance member) can do to help them out?
Thanks to all for the great attention to this peculiarity,
in fact have I already contacted TTN’s Chilean user group, awaiting a reply.
As a matter of fact the 20mW limit is imposed by the Chilean authorities (ministry of transportation & telecommunication), I provide an excerpt of their regulations (translated by Google) Resolución 755 EXENTA of 2005:
…
Operate, inside real estate, in the TRANSPORTATION band
915 to 928 MHz with a maximum radiated power of 100 mW and, SINGLE Art. N° 2
to the outside of buildings with 20 mW, in both cases technical D.O. 13.06.2013
as: direct-sequence or hopping spread spectrum
of frequency, previous monitoring, dynamic selection of
channels or other digital modulation techniques that
operate with a minimum bandwidth of 5 MHz and allow
share frequencies.
…
Worth noting that since LoRaWAN hardware can’t spread or even hop (uplink) channels over a 5 MHz minimum bandwidth, I have to wonder if these are the correct option in the regs to be looking at.
But that doesn’t necessarily help the situation, since the rules for wideband (low power density) systems are usually more lenient than those for narrower ones.
Right or wrong, an occasional “hey, do we all agree that this is what our local regs mean?” is a healthy kind of question to be asking.
Sorry, I was merely recapping the regulations 
This still leaves the question, whether this radiated power is e.r.p. or e.i.r.p.
There is a difference of 2.1 dB.
good question: admittedly 2.1 dB compared to a difference of about 17 dB is quite neglectable…, though