[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands
baloo at ursamundi.org
Tue Nov 27 14:44:54 UTC 2018
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 07:10 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> 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 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
At least in the US and Canada, indian territories, reservations, reserves
and administrative areas are du jure administrative boundaries.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging