[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands
baloo at ursamundi.org
Wed Nov 28 21:21:28 UTC 2018
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:59 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:55 AM Doug Hembry <doughembry at hotmail.com>
>> But seriously, how many aboriginal lands do you think a mapper would
>> have to tag before they remember "protect_class=24"?
> How many mappers handle nothing but aboriginal lands? Are there so many
> aboriginal lands
> that even one mapper could deal with those and have time for nothing
> else? I'd guess that most
> mappers try to deal with everything in a locality they're mapping. But
> protected areas are rare
> and you're asking people to remember ALL of those magic numbers in case
> they come across
> a nature reserve, or aboriginal land, or any of dozens of other things.
I'd imagine this is considerably more common in Oklahoma and the desert
southwest than most places, it's quite a long drive to get out of
aboriginal lands from where I live. As a result, HDYC shows that my area
of primary focus <http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?Paul%20Johnson> is entirely
within the Osage Nation
Nation <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8116055> and Muscogee Nation
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8116054>. You basically have to
stay north of Fort Sill and west of I 35 (to greatly oversimplify complex
boundaries) to stay away from aboriginal lands in Oklahoma.
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,..
> The protect_title is duplicating information in the class. So you're
> asking a mapper to type in
> (and possibly get wrong) what should be a look-up mechanism. Either
> protect_title is unnecessary
> or protect_class is. Unless, of course, protect_class is so broad that
> protect_title is needed to
> flesh it out, in which case protect_class is useless.
Not to mention in practice, this is something of a misnomer for most tribes
in the US. WaPo has an op-ed
about a pending SCOTUS case on this, that has a nonzero chance of redrawing
state lines and affecting national autonomy for tribes..
> The "numbers are bad" assertion worries me and prompts a broader question:
>> if this is "policy",
> It is not (as far as I am aware) a policy. It is the feeling of a number
> of people here that magic
> numbers are a bad idea. I suspect that many of those people base that
> feeling, as I do, upon
> experience of programming and/or user interface design.
>> does it mean that boundary=protected_area, and protect_class=* tags are
>> doomed in OSM?
> I wouldn't say they're doomed, but I doubt they'll get universal adoption
> as the primary way of
> tagging such things, particularly if tags such as aboriginal_lands gain
> approval. This discussion
> isn't the first time I came across protect_class etc. Some time ago I
> looked at how to map a
> nature reserve and saw the choices were incomprehensible mess of
> protect_class and friends
> or leisure=nature_reserve. Guess which one I chose.
> I have no objection whatsoever if you wanted to introduce a tag like
> IUCN=*. In fact, I think it
> would be a great idea. Mappers who care about it could use it. Queries
> with overpass-turbo
> could use it. Nice idea. But protect_class and friends? Nah.
As an aside, no, I'm not married to how those nations are tagged right now,
it's just where we seemed to be at after the last time this came up. I
think it's a messy hack and not orthagonal to being readily human
understandable. I can talk to my sister who knows next to nothing about
OSM other than Craigslist uses it, ask her what highway=primary likely is,
and get either a good answer or a spot-on answer. If I asked her about
protect_class=24, I'm pretty sure she'd be dumbfounded. Plus it falls into
a part of the complaints I had the first time it came up
Given the context of what I'm familiar with, it's actually amazing to me we
haven't put this in the boundary=administrative column as we have with
other political boundaries.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging