[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Nov 27 13:08:20 UTC 2018
sent from a phone
> On 27. Nov 2018, at 03:27, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> 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.
admin_level is fine where it applies (maybe everywhere, not sure, it requires the land to be an administrative entity which might not always be the case). But it doesn’t tell you it is about land that the invaders gave to the native population, so an additional tag is desirable.
I agree that protected_class is not sustainable (numbers as values are harder to remember and easier to confuse).
The proposed boundary=aboriginal_lands seems quite ok. Would this be combinable with admin_level, or would you insist on boundary=administrative? The fact that both „main keys“ might apply sometimes seems to be a problem: either you tag these as b=administrative and still haven’t said it is about native population areas, or you use b=aboriginal_lands and as a result you get administrative entities that are not tagged as b=administrative
More information about the Tagging