[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands
clifford at snowandsnow.us
Mon Nov 26 23:35:12 UTC 2018
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>
> 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.
> I can't speak for other countries so I'll limit my comments to the US. As
Kevin Kenny commented, tribes in the US are recognized as domestic
dependent nations. But from there it gets messy. They can set their own
sales tax separate from the state and have their own courts. Yet in North
Dakota, the state determines voting requirements. For this reason I don't
think admin_level works very well.
As Alan stated in the original post, settling on a tag would be nice. It
might even be what's necessary to get the tribes to show interest in OSM.
(Of course that will result in more border disputes :-)
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging