[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Alan McConchie alan.mcconchie at gmail.com
Thu Nov 29 03:33:54 UTC 2018


Ok, I see. So you propose that these areas should not have any additional tags that would identify them as special aboriginal areas, and that the admin_level should be chosen on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances of each area and the country that it's in?

And furthermore you don't want these areas to be styled differently from any other administrative boundaries? (and if we follow those tagging guidelines, no one would be _able_ to style them differently because they wouldn't have any special tags?) 

I expect that would mean we'd continue to have problems with people tagging for the renderer, as in Brazil, where people will tag native reservations as nature reserves to get them to show up prominently on the map. But if we provided an appropriate generic "administrative" boundary style for tagging native reservations, it's true that the tagging for the renderer would probably decrease, if not completely go away. 

In any case, no matter what tagging we settle on, I agree that we need a humanizing rendering that's not the same as zoo or nature reserve. But that's a topic for the ongoing discussion in the osm-carto github issue.

Alan

> On Nov 28, 2018, at 6:52 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:46 PM Alan McConchie <alan.mcconchie at gmail.com <mailto:alan.mcconchie at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 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.
> 
> I don't know if a consistent administrative level is possible given the context of each particular tribe and it's respective relationship with the US and Canada.  This may need to be determined on a case-by-case situation.  I do think that admin_level=3 is a pretty reasonable in the US because within tribal lands, if at least one party is a tribal citizen of the nation they're in, I'm not aware of one that doesn't automatically moves jurisdiction to tribal or federal courts exclusively, with state and county courts not having jurisdiction.  In some cases, this might apply to any criminal or civil case within the jurisdiction regardless of who is involved.
>  
> 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.
> 
> Part of it is the strong tendency of folks making renders to fill-shade the tribal territory like it's a park, wildlife preserve or zoo.  Carto used to have a green "IR" hatch that was almost indistinguishable from the same colored "NR" hatch for indian reservations (which was easily half of my annoyance on the subject in 2013).  Treating tribal boundaries as other political boundaries humanizes the situation.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181128/6d15f36d/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list