[Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?
clifford at snowandsnow.us
Sat Aug 1 22:45:53 UTC 2020
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:28 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley <claysmalley at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
Reading The Resolution  there does appear to be differences of opinion.
Disputed might seem a bit strong when considering some of the disputed
borders, ie. India and Pakistan, to describe the dispute between the tribe
and the county and state and possibly the federal government.
For now I'm satisfied to wait until we have the Tribes GIS contact info.
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging