[Tagging] [Talk-us] IR boundary tagging

[Paul Johnson]

But, basically, what it boils down to, effectively, for us, is that tribal
nations, as far as the current supreme court is concerned, views such areas
as being much more analogous to Puerto Rico and Guam than as states, cities
or counties.  PR and Guam are subservient territories of the US, but aren't
states.  What's the tagging for them relative to the rest of the US?


On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> I don't see how that's the case, the reason being that the Supreme Court
> has clearly ruled that tribes are above the state but semi-dependant on the
> fed, as far as the law is concerned.  Furthermore, the state may still
> intervene, but has the option not to in situations where it would otherwise
> be obligated, in tribal regions.  This makes a state not dissimilar to a
> county relative to the tribe, particularly in cases like the Navajo and
> Iroquois, whose jurisdiction crosses state boundaries.
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2014-07-18 10:53 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> I should add that I do not intend on changing state boundaries, just
>>> mapping indian nations where I know the boundaries to lie on the ground, as
>>> higher than state, lower than the country, inside the US only, if that
>>> wasn't clear on the admin level argument.  It would still be possible to
>>> render a map without such excluded territory at a state level, since, in
>>> practice, there's a LOT of overlap in responsibilities and jurisdiction.
>>>
>>>  What you're proposing badly breaks admin hierarchies - hence the need
>> to carve the bits out of the states if you wanted to go that route.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140719/a1526b65/attachment-0001.html>