[Tagging] Feature Proposal Approved - boundary=aboriginal_lands
clifford at snowandsnow.us
Sun Mar 17 22:16:36 UTC 2019
I notice most of the tribal land in Washington State has been mapped. There
are some smaller reservations that need to be mapped. Plus it look like
some boundaries need to be adjusted, especially for Yakima and Colville.
There is also a large section of disputed land we have included in Yakima
Nation. I suppose we should map that as disputed land. Anyone up for the
Squaxin Island Reservation
Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation
Makah Indian Reservation - southern section is missing.
I'll create a background layer in Mapbox that people can use to add the
reservations and improve the existing boundaries. I'll try to get something
up in the next few days.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 1:33 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> 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>
>> 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
>> Again, thanks to everyone who help get this tag discussed, approved, and
>> finally added to the map!
>> > On Dec 13, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Alan McConchie <alan.mcconchie at gmail.com>
>> > 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
>> > I created the new wiki page for the tag here:
>> > 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:
>> > 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>
>> >> 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:
>> >> (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:
>> >> 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:
>> >> Wiki page for boundary=protected_area:
>> >> In 2014, there were three messages on the tagging mailing list, from
>> Paul Johnson and Clifford Snow.
>> 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:
>> >> Alan
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging