[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Wed Nov 28 02:49:33 UTC 2018

Re “Have we found the covert reason why carto still doesn't render
[Protected areas]”

No need for conspiracy theories. We simply need more contributors at
openstreetmap-carto who are willing to volunteer their time to fix these

But we are about to start rendering the equivalent protected_class
boundaries for national parks and nature reserves in the next release, this

And we would like to render aboriginal_lands and protect_class=24 in the
same style, as a brownish outline, unless there are clear objections to one
of the tags.

See: https://github.com/gravitystorm/pull/3509 “Add rendering for
https://github.com/gravitystorm/pull/3521 “Add Aboriginal Areas”


On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM Doug Hembry <doughembry at hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/26/18 17:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>  >>     and I fail to see how much more
>  >>     difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and
> "protect_class=24"
>  >
>  > Because "24" is a completely random code, unlike
> boundary=aboriginal_lands
> And on 11/26/18 17:00, Frederick Ramm wrote:
>  >We generally *try* and make our data human-readable. If archaeologists
>  >dig up an old planet file in 1000 years, then finding a tag
>  >boundary=aboriginal_lands is more useful to them than protect_class=24.
> (Thanks for the levity, Frederick. And I take the point, but see below)
> Mateusz and Frederick,
> Everyone seems to have forgotten boundary=administrative with its
> associated admin_level=n tag, which IMHO is pretty analogous to
> boundary=protected_area with its protect_class=n tag. They even both
> have look-up tables by country. And the class numbers are not arbitrary,
> Mateusz, - they map to IUCN categories.
> But seriously, how many aboriginal lands do you think a mapper would
> have to tag before they remember "protect_class=24"?
> And, as for the future archaeologists, and "human readable": Correct use
> of the boundary=protected_area tag actually requires the use of
> protect_title=* tag that provides users with the human readable title of
> this area-type (note: not the "name", which may also be present). ie,
> protect_title= Indigenous Protected Areas, or Indian Reservations, or
> Terra Indigena, or Territorio Indigena, etc,.. (to borrow from the
> proposal page), or perhaps just "aboriginal_lands" as a default. The
> protect_class groups the area-types of broadly similar purpose and/or
> level of protection out of what could be hundreds of variously titled
> protected-area-types around the world. Future archaeologists should be
> pleased.
> But although I don't buy your "numbers are bad" argument - nevertheless,
> having read the other comments on this topic I am almost persuaded that
> protected_area is not really appropriate to describe what is essentially
> a sovereign country. It might even be considered demeaning. Something
> based on administrative boundaries (which I don't have much experience
> of) might be better. I still think introducing another top-level
> "boundary= aboriginal_lands" tag is wrong. If we're not careful,
> boundary=  will wind up like amenity=* - too many darned fragmented
> values under one tag. But I'm dropping out of this particular discussion
> (... and there was much rejoicing.... :-))
> What I'm really interested in is the use of boundary=protected_area to
> accurately describe Nature-protected-areas and
> Resources-protected-areas. The "numbers are bad" assertion worries me
> and prompts a broader question: if this is "policy", does it mean that
> boundary=protected_area, and protect_class=* tags are doomed in OSM?
> Have we found the covert reason why carto still doesn't render it,
> despite the fact that it could be rendered (at least initially) exactly
> like boundary=national_park? And despite the fact that there are 70,000
> uses  around the planet? Could we be excused for suspecting that there
> is an "OSM Establishment" who would like to see it deprecated and go
> away? OK, maybe I have a nasty suspicious mind - but I can't help
> wondering. If true, could someone please come clean and just tell us to
> stop using it (and tell us what else to use)?
> I'm also wondering (an even broader question) at the justification for
> making a decision like this (the approval of boundary=aboriginal_lands)
> on the basis of 20 or so votes (so far, hopefully more to come)  mostly
> from involved and passionate supporters of the proposal out of the
> hundreds of thousands in the OSM community. Where are the OSM'ers who
> originally created the boundary=protected_area proposal and got it
> approved. Have they voted? And likewise for all the mappers responsible
> for the 70,000 uses? Have we had any involvement from South American
> mappers, where there seem to be a lot of protect_class=24 uses? This is
> clearly a question for another time (and mailing list) and it may have
> come up before, but it IMHO we need a more broadly based way of deciding
> things like this.
> Cheers..
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181128/a229466b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list