[Tagging] Mapping autonomous regions

Liz edodd at billiau.net
Tue Aug 10 10:49:54 BST 2010


On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Paul Johnson wrote:
> We need to come up with a better way to map and tag autonomous regions,
> particularly in North America.  The talk page for the boundary= suggests
> that an administrative boundary is not the right tag; and I couldn't
> disagree more.
> 
> As a Cherokee, I find boundary=indian_reserve and boundary=native_nation
> to be intrinsically racist. While admin_level=1 is probably not right, I
> believe First Nations lines are administrative boundaries, the
> admin_level=* of which must reflect the degree of sovereignty agreed upon
> by treaty between the nation in question and the United States (or other
> potentially subjugating force). For example, the Cherokee Nation would be
> admin_level=2, whereas The Confederated Tribes of Grande Rhonde would be
> somewhere closer to the 3-5 range, and even smaller nations that got more
> heavily screwed over by the United States might fall in the 6-8 range.
> Yes, I realize this means Canada and the US and their member provinces,
> states, ridings and counties, would get turned into swiss cheese by most
> renderers, but are we looking for a map that looks like every other map,
> or a map that is accurate and objectively reflects the ground and legal
> truth?
> 

Paul, I can't comment on this at all, as I have no idea of how this works.
However, I think that you need to put more detail into the proposal and put it 
up on the wiki for any other First Nation persons to comment on.



More information about the Tagging mailing list