[Tagging] Mapping autonomous regions

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 10 11:07:27 BST 2010


On 10 August 2010 19:49, Liz <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:
> 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?

I didn't see the original post, but if they are truly indepenedent of
a nation I'd be tagging it as admin_level=2 the same as any other
country, but if however they are more like a state within a country
maybe tagging similar to states would be more accurate, eg
admin_level=4...



More information about the Tagging mailing list