[Tagging] Feature Proposal Approved - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sun Mar 17 20:32:45 UTC 2019


I'm currently working on conflating the boundaries in Oklahoma right now,
got most of the northeastern ones handled.

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:13 PM Alan McConchie <alan.mcconchie at gmail.com>
wrote:

> After a few months of discussion and refinement in the default OSM style
> sheet, and then a few more weeks of waiting for the styles to percolate to
> the rendering servers, we can now see aboriginal areas showing up on the
> map! Please take a moment to check the map in any parts of the world you're
> familiar with, to see if the aboriginal_lands and protect_class=24 features
> are showing up as we expect them to, or if there are any obvious ones
> missing.
>
> Again, thanks to everyone who help get this tag discussed, approved, and
> finally added to the map!
>
> Alan
>
> > On Dec 13, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Alan McConchie <alan.mcconchie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The voting period for boundary=aboriginal_lands has now closed, and
> there were 45 votes in favor and 7 against, so the tag has now been
> approved.
> >
> > I created the new wiki page for the tag here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
> >
> > The map rendering still needs a bit of discussion about colors (to avoid
> color conflict with the same brown used by zoos and theme parks) but this
> is not the place for that conversation. The github issue remains open for
> debate here:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3520
> >
> > So what's next? It now appears that "boundary=aboriginal_lands" is
> synonymous with "boundary=protected_area" + "protect_class=24", and both
> tagging styles have roughly similar usage in the database. I'm curious to
> see over time whether mappers start to use "boundary=aboriginal_lands" more
> frequently, or if people keep using both. Perhaps at some point in the
> future we can have a discussion about whether to deprecate the
> "boundary=protected_area" + "protect_class=24" approach, or if we should
> just keep supporting both methods in simultaneously. But I'm not in a hurry
> to start that discussion right now.
> >
> >
> > Thanks to everyone who took part in this discussion and who voted on the
> proposal!
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 24, 2018, at 4:38 PM, Alan McConchie <alan.mcconchie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The tag boundary=aboriginal_lands has been discussed on-and-off for a
> long time in OSM. I'd like to raise the topic one last time and hopefully
> come to some consensus about it.
> >>
> >> The tag proposal on the wiki dates from 2008, but the original proposal
> was from the user Sam Vekemans (username acrosscanadatrails) who is no
> longer participating in OpenStreetMap, as far as I can tell. He never moved
> the proposal to a vote, so the page has remained in the proposal state all
> this time.
> >>
> >> Here's the proposal:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
> >>
> >> (I've tried to updated the wiki page somewhat, but leaving the
> discussion intact)
> >>
> >> In the following years, some people have started using that proposed
> tag, mostly in Canada and somewhat in the United States.
> >>
> >> Here's the overpass query for boundary=aboriginal_lands:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV4
> >>
> >> There has also been extensive discussion over the years on the
> boundary=aboriginal_lands page, and it seems like the consensus is that the
> tag is necessary and better than any alternatives. But it was never voted
> on as a proposal.
> >>
> >> In the intervening years, tagging native reservations with
> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24 has also gained popularity. This
> tag combination seems to be popular in South America, Australia, and also
> in parts of the United States. I can't find any evidence for why people
> chose this tag combination instead of boundary=aboriginal_lands. It appears
> that the tags are pretty much interchangeable. Most of the features in
> Brazil however are tagged incorrectly for the renderer, mixing
> leisure=nature_reserve with protect_class=24, so that the areas show up on
> the default renderer with the nature reserve green style.
> >>
> >> Here's the overpass query for protect_class=24:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV5
> >>
> >> Wiki page for boundary=protected_area:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
> >>
> >> In 2014, there were three messages on the tagging mailing list, from
> Paul Johnson and Clifford Snow.
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-November/020160.html
> But at that time, we didn't come any answers.
> >>
> >> There seems to be no argument about whether or not aboriginal areas are
> important features that should be mapped. The only question is how to tag
> them.
> >>
> >> So the question is:
> >>
> >> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas?
> Or should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and
> instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd like to officially open the voting period now, so we can once and
> for all come to a conclusion on this 10-year-long discussion. Please review
> the discussion on the wiki page and cast your vote at the bottom:
> >>
> >>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
> >>
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190317/d9835980/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list