<div dir="ltr"><div>"A bit busy" continuing to edit relations you were quite politely and pointedly asked to refrain from editing until you participated further in this discussion, but I digress...</div><div><br></div><div>1) "I ended up following how other First Nations with one reserve displayed on OSM" is problematic: we don't concern ourselves with how things are *displayed* on the map. Nor do all First Nations need to be mapped in the same way. Nor should they be.</div><div><br></div><div>2) It's entirely redundant to have two overlapping relations for what is essentially the same thing. It is entirely contrary to one of the most basic OSM good practices: "one feature, one OSM element". In the case of the Tsuut'ina, the nation and the land and the people all have the exact same name: Tsuut'ina Nation. Adding an additional, overlapping relation (erroneously) called "Tsuu T'ina Nation 145" adds nothing to the map.</div><div><br></div><div>3) We add wikipedia=* and wikidata=* tags to OSM elements which happen to have Wikipedia articles and wikidata codes for them; we don't add elements to OSM for the expressed purpose of adding wikipedia and wikidata tags to them. Or put another way, just because something has a wikidata tag and a Wikipedia page does not mean it merits being added to OSM, especially where it could have been represented with a single thing that's already on the map. (see point 2 above w.r.t. "one feature, one OSM element") With respect to the additional overlapping Tsuut'ina "reserve" relation you added, YOU MOVED THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE to suit your preferred (outdated...) spelling after someone else had already moved the article to the current spelling (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsuu_T%27ina_145&type=revision&diff=1124936360&oldid=1124525054">https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsuu_T%27ina_145&type=revision&diff=1124936360&oldid=1124525054</a>). You're editing Wikipedia to suit what you wanted to do on OSM; that is problematic...</div><div><br></div><div>I urge you to read the OSM wiki, especially as it concerns names and "truth". See <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth</a>. Geographical reality—"ground-truth"—is that "Tsuu T'ina Nation 145" is simply "the Tsuut'ina Nation". "Official-truth" isn't lost if we simply add official_name=*. This is precisely how the Tsuut'ina Nation was mapped in the first place, before you ever touched it. It was absolutely fine the way it was. You created a solution in search of a problem.</div><div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 2:03 AM Michael Stark <<a href="mailto:michael60634@gmail.com">michael60634@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hey, sorry for the delay in replying. I've been a bit busy between when I last wrote and now. Also, I hope I sent this correctly as I am not familiar with using the mailing list.<div><br></div><div>What I ended up doing is following what how other First Nations with one reserve are displayed on OSM. That would be a relation for the First Nation, and a relation for the reserve. It may sound redundant to have two separate relations, and I thought this at first too, but upon further consideration, I think it might be the right solution. The reason for this is that both the First Nation and the reserve have separate names, official names, Wikidata tags, Wikipedia tags, previous names, et cetera. So the existing relation is for the Tsuut'ina Nation and has all relevant tags, and I created a new relation for the reserve, which has all tags relevant to the reserve. </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 9:22 AM John Whelan <<a href="mailto:jwhelan0112@gmail.com" target="_blank">jwhelan0112@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>Even using the term "First Nations reserve"
maybe controversial.<br>
<br>
Not an easy one.<br>
<br>
Cheerio John<br>
<br>
<span>Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ca wrote on 12/3/2022 8:31 AM:</span><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>OSM object representing XYZ should carry the name of XYZ<br></div>
<div dir="auto"><br></div>
<div dir="auto">OSM object representing First Nations reserve should
carry name<br></div>
<div dir="auto">of First Nations reserve<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>2 gru 2022, 07:08 od <a href="mailto:michael60634@gmail.com" target="_blank">michael60634@gmail.com</a>:<br></div>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="ltr">How
should First Nations reserves be named? Is it best to use the name of
the reserve, or the name of the group that inhabits the reserve? I've
noticed that two mappers changed the names of many reserves across
Canada, and even the US, from the name of the reserve to the name of the
tribe inhabiting the reserve.</div></blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>