[Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sat Aug 1 21:27:06 UTC 2020

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley <claysmalley at gmail.com> wrote:

> Chiming in as another settler. I really wish we had more Natives active on
> OSM contributing their cultural knowledge. What could we be doing different
> in the future to welcome and engage them in our community?

Outreach to tribal GIS offices where they exist couldn't hurt.  The
standard map rendering native areas, particularly when most don't (or in
Oklahoma's case, most are *egregiously* incomplete, often only including
the Osage Nation) definitely is a nice start and I'm glad we're to that.
At least in the north american context, having a separate tag for
indigenous lands seems a little strange compared to filing it under the
administrative boundary, admin_level system, but I can live with it.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:28 PM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Both the US and Canada consider the river to be the US-Canada boundary,
>> and that the reservations are their separate dependencies. The Canadians
>> recognize the Six Nations as domestic dependent nations, and they enjoy
>> limited sovereignty on their own lands.
> I think what you've said here hints at the answer. The US and Canada are
> UN member states with international recognition, each with an autonomous
> region under indigenous governance. The tribal governments themselves may
> dispute this, which is fair. Perhaps one day they might have an
> internationally recognized sovereign state with defined borders. But on the
> ground as of 2020, there are no such states, only subnational autonomous
> regions.

Well, there *was* Bolivia until last month, but Elon Musk helped finance a
coup so he could continue using the country as a cheap source of lithium
for car batteries.

> So I think the current tagging makes sense. Though I wonder if places like
> these qualify as disputed territory. After all, the US and Canada have a
> nation-to-nation relationship with each tribal government.

I don't believe that it counts as a disputed territory.  I also think
taking the US and Canada's claim of the tribe having two distinct
reservations with a shared boundary congruent with the US/Canada
international boundary is not substantiated by the ground truth.  It's a
single contiguous area, not two adjoining ones.  It happens to have the
US/Canada boundary going through it, and AFAICT, nobody's disputing that.
Just that this single contiguous tribal area happens to straddle that line.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200801/e5e232b3/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list