[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands
alan.mcconchie at gmail.com
Thu Nov 29 01:44:50 UTC 2018
I want to take your feedback with the weight and respect it deserves. I see you voted against "boundary=aboriginal_lands" on the wiki because you prefer "boundary=administrative". Can you clarify more about your proposed alternative?
In this thread I see you're a fan of admin_level=*, but what admin_level do you propose? The problem I see with that tag is that it follows a strict hierarchy, which reservations don't always follow. It's the hierarchical nature of boundary=administrative that I get hung up on, which is why I like that boundary=aboriginal_lands can exist parallel to that hierarchy.
For example, if we used boundary=administrative + admin_level=3 (as Kevin Kenny suggested in this thread) that seems clearly wrong for the few reservations that cross national boundaries, like Akwesasne.
Also more generally, to me the fact that boundary=aboriginal_lands doesn't have "administrative" in the name doesn't IMHO mean that it is not a legitimate political unit of administration. Arguably it expresses even greater autonomy and independence than some other tag that's shoe-horned into the boundary=administrative hierarchy. I can understand how others might see boundary=aboriginal_lands as a tag that carries less respect. But I don't see it that way.
> On Nov 27, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 07:10 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> sent from a phone
> > On 27. Nov 2018, at 03:27, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org <mailto: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
> At least in the US and Canada, indian territories, reservations, reserves and administrative areas are du jure administrative boundaries.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging