[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands
kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Mon Nov 26 20:57:59 UTC 2018
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie <alan.mcconchie at gmail.com>
> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? Or
> should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and
> instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24?
I really don't like overloading 'protected area' for what, in my region, is
a unit of government.
The First Nations' lands near me are, for the most part, recognized as
'domestic dependent nations' and, if we wanted to be formally correct,
would most likely come in at admin_level=3. (admin_level is rather a mess
in the US, because we have things that aren't strictly hierarchical at all
levels - we have a First Nations treaty land (established by the Jay Treaty
of 1794) that crosses an international border, and others that span state
lines, just as we have cities across county lines, villages across township
lines and so on.
In my state, no First Nations land is within any township - towns, cities,
and "Indian Reservations" are all disjoint. The "Indian Reservations" have
home rule for many matters.
I'd be fine with boundary=administrative or a sui generis
boundary=aboriginal_lands, but 'protected_area' is horrible.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging