<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Paul Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org" target="_blank">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<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">The previous tagging was inadequate, bordering on offensive<br></div></blockquote></div>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Which tagging was that? <br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">It is my understanding that First Nations boundaries just don't fit within the simple number-line model that OpenStreetMap has used for boundary=administrative; admin_level={integer}. <br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">boundary=aboriginal_lands <br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">was used in 2010, based on donated data and little discussion. Is that the "inadequate, bordering on offensive" tagging? <br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>If it is acceptable, inoffensive and accurate, I'd be pleased to see that tagging continue, or something like:<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">boundary=administrative, admin_level=first_nation / or some other value.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">The rendering tools would have to catch up. It might not be rendered on your favourite tile set, but it should be fully possible to make the data up to date and accurate and complete to the best of our abilities. But it seems that using an integer, or some fraction on the number line just won't work. <br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">One first nation[1] includes portions of what might otherwise be considered, two admin_level=2s (USA and Canada) and three admin_level=4s (New York state, Ontario province and Quebec province) and has been described as a "jurisdictional nightmare". <br>
<br>[1] <a href="http://www.akwesasne.ca/">http://www.akwesasne.ca/</a><br></div></div>