[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Paul Norman]

On 2018-11-24 4:38 PM, Alan McConchie wrote:
> Here's the overpass query for boundary=aboriginal_lands:http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV4
>
> There has also been extensive discussion over the years on the boundary=aboriginal_lands page, and it seems like the consensus is that the tag is necessary and better than any alternatives.

As one of the people using it, I find it better than any other options. 
The chief objection to it has been that aboriginal is not the preferred 
term in US English. Having visited reserves in Canada, US, and 
Australia, I think it's the best term. It is used in both Canadian and 
Australian English, which are closer to British English than American. 
It's not specific like "Indian", which is not recommended in the US or 
Canada, and has never been used in Australia.

> But it was never voted on as a proposal.

But it's got usage, which I think is more important.

> In the intervening years, tagging native reservations with boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24 has also gained popularity. This tag combination seems to be popular in South America, Australia, and also in parts of the United States. I can't find any evidence for why people chose this tag combination instead of boundary=aboriginal_lands. It appears that the tags are pretty much interchangeable. Most of the features in Brazil however are tagged incorrectly for the renderer, mixing leisure=nature_reserve with protect_class=24, so that the areas show up on the default renderer with the nature reserve green style.

I also find the entire protect_class tag a hopeless mess, but it has 
some particular problems here. It lends itself to treating a nature 
reserve like an aboriginal reservation. This is wrong, and depending on 
the region and history, can be racist.