Not having the bandwidth to give it a proper examination at the moment, I would expect, based on description, that this would be a map of lands held in trust for various tribes (that which are the subject of the recent Cobell vs United States case) as opposed to national boundaries of tribes as they currently exist.<br>
<br>On Monday, December 17, 2012, Clifford Snow wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">You might check out <a href="http://nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html?openChapters=chpbound#chpbound" target="_blank">nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html?openChapters=chpbound#chpbound</a> for boundaries. They have Indian Lands listed. The data should be Public Domain. The layer shows areas of 640 acres or larger administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. <div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div>On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Charlotte Wolter <span dir="ltr"><<a>techlady@techlady.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Paul,<br><br>
<u></u> <u></u>Golly, I
have no idea. <br>
<u></u> <u></u>I would
think that the Bureau of Indian Affairs might be a good source.<br>
<u></u> <u></u>I just
took a quick look at the boundary between national forest and the Navajo
Reservation east of Flagstaff. Though the national forest is green under
the View tab, no boundary shows up under the Edit tab. I have no idea why
that is.<br>
<u></u> <u></u>Do you
have any suggestions?<br><br>
<br>
At 03:57 PM 12/17/2012, you wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">How do we handle tribal
administrative boundaries? This is kind of a big one for the US,
Canada and Australia..<br>
On Dec 17, 2012 2:51 PM, "Charlotte Wolter"
<<a>techlady@techlady.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Serge,<br><br>
</dd><dd> This is a good idea.<br>
</dd><dd> I have a large file of
data from the Acoma tribe, but my efforts to negotiate the import wiki
have been fruitless. I can't made heads or tails of it.<br>
</dd><dd> Further, I don't know if
it's the kind of data we want (though they say it is public domain and
gave permission in writing). It is road center lines for the whole
reservation. I remember a remark somewhere in this forum that center
lines are not the best data. At any rate, I'm not a good judge of whether
or not it is what we want.<br>
</dd><dd> In addition, I've already
done work on the main roads, though often I'm lacking a name or
number.<br>
</dd><dd> And, I don't have tools to
exmine a data file to see if it is congruent with what OSM can use.<br>
</dd><dd> So, for many reasons,
having a knowledgeable group take this on seems to me like a great
idea.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Best,<br><br>
</dd><dd>Charlotte<br><br>
</dd><dd>At 06:42 AM 12/17/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>Folks,<br><br>
</dd><dd>I know what it's like to be excited about OSM, and I know what
it's<br>
</dd><dd>like to be frustrated with OSM, struggling with low data quality,
or<br>
</dd><dd>lack of data altogether.<br><br>
</dd><dd>And then you get access to a large dataset, and you know that
having<br>
</dd><dd>it in OSM would improve things. It would improve the quality,
and<br>
</dd><dd>maybe even get people mapping. At the same time, I think many of
you<br>
</dd><dd>have seen the damage that bad imports can do.<br><br>
</dd><dd>The result is that folks like myself and others are frustrated by
the<br>
</dd><dd>import process, and folks who have good, useful datasets are
frstrated<br>
</dd><dd>by the import process.<br><br>
</dd><dd>So I'm proposing a new committee, run by the US Chapter, to help
guide<br>
</dd><dd>imports and large edits.<br><br>
</dd><dd>This will give step by step guidance to those who want to import
data,<br>
</dd><dd>and offer the larger community time to review and provide
feedback.<br><br>
</dd><dd>When I helped create the US Chapter several years ago, this was one
of<br>
</dd><dd>the main reasons I thought it should exist, but I think there's<br>
</dd><dd>finally the amount of data and interest to justify it.<br><br>
</dd><dd>What do folks think?<br><br>
</dd><dd>- Serge<br><br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Talk-us mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a>
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a></dd></blockquote></dd></dl></blockquote><br>
<dd>Charlotte Wolter<br>
</dd><dd>927 18th Street Suite A<br>
</dd><dd>Santa Monica, California<br>
</dd><dd>90403<br>
</dd><dd><a>+1-310-597-4040</a><br>
</dd><dd><a>techlady@techlady.com</a><br>
</dd><dd>Skype: thetechlady<br><br>
</dd><dd>The Four Internet Freedoms <br>
</dd><dd>Freedom to visit any site on the Internet<br>
</dd><dd>Freedom to access any content or service that is not illegal<br>
</dd><dd>Freedom to attach any device that does not interfere with the
network<br>
</dd><dd>Freedom to know all the terms of a service, particularly any that
would affect the first three freedoms.<br><br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Talk-us mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a>
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a></dd></div></blockquote></div>-- <br><div>Clifford</div><div><br></div><div>OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch</div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>