[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands
baloo at ursamundi.org
Thu Nov 29 03:58:37 UTC 2018
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:35 PM Alan McConchie <alan.mcconchie at gmail.com>
> 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?
Yes, though while not perfect, admin_level=3 isn't a bad default.
> 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?)
That's not the goal, just a happy side benefit. Given that we have cities
straddling county lines (Tulsa is in Osage, Tulsa and Wagoner Counties),
and we have cities straddling state lines (Siloam Springs is in Oklahoma
and Arkansas), and we have cities that straddle countries (Sault Sainte
Marie is in the US and Canada), I think people are comfortable that
subordinate categories straddle higher administrative levels regularly on
this continent. Plus for all practical purposes, indian boundaries operate
and function just like any other political boundary.
> 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.
So provide guidance. Like we have to do with people escalating highway
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging