[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 Snow 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 [1] 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.

[1] https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/resolve-the-boundary/?p=resolvetheboundary

For now I'm satisfied to wait until we have the Tribes GIS contact info.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200801/40169224/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list