[Tagging] boundary=aboriginal_lands versus boundary=protected_area

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>
wrote:

>
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>
>> I've read over both proposals, and both are getting long in the tooth.  I
>> realize that the former is slightly more commonly used, but neither have
>> much traction for use in strangely incongruous, overlapping areas that have
>> obscure and complicated legal status as indian nations have, though I think
>> it's time to just go with protected_area, protect_class=24 for this.
>>
>> It's language neutral, culturally neutral, flexible to other protected
>> status (not necessarily political/cultural in nature) and just all around
>> seems like it's going to be easier to tag and for consumers to support and
>> less culturally weird (given that some regions prefer aboriginal, others
>> prefer indian, others feel uncomfortable with "native American" or "first
>> Canadian", and yet more insist on using specific tribe names).
>> Protected_area just solves a lot of the hubris and works for so many more
>> use cases.
>>
>
> Protected_area doesn't seem appropriate for what are called reservations
> in the US. Reading the protected_area wiki, it fits better with protected
> land areas, such as conservation areas. While I've only talked to three
> local tribes, none have an issue with aboriginal_lands. They seem to feel
> that the name and proper boundaries are more important than what the tag
> is. It is a tag, not necessarily what is rendered. Since OSM uses British
> English we will always have differences on what is the proper tag for
> features.
>

Check out the section where it discusses cultural factors, especially where
it describes "protect_class=24"

On the other side, these features only reside in three countries as far as
> I'm aware. Australia, Canada and the US.  We could probably have three
> different tags, one for each country. The renderer could render each the
> same way.
>

It's apparently also A Thing in South America.  Given the geographic
spread, I'm thinking it's pretty much generalized to places European forces
(or their descendants) from around the 14th century to the middle of last
century.


> I also thought you agreed to aboriginal_lands. As I slowly add the Native
> American Tribes in Washington, I've been using aboriginal_lands. There is a
> lot more work to be done.
>

I'm still on the fence.  I'm not totally opposed to the concept; though the
protected area concept does seem more generalized.  I'm just spitballing
here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141122/676df3d7/attachment.html>