[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Tue Nov 27 02:27:55 UTC 2018


On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:59 PM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie <alan.mcconchie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>
>
> 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.
>

I'm generally a fan of the admin_level option.  protected_area is OKisn,
but the protect_class=* tag definitely hits me as an oddity given other
tagging.  boundary=aboriginal_lands could be a supplemental tag to
admin_level.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181126/e48f25ff/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list