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

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Sun Aug 2 01:09:22 UTC 2020

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 5:29 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> 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.

It depends on the jurisdiction.  The non-Federal Schaghticoke reservation
in Connecticut is simply part of Kent Township; there's a tribal government
of sorts but it's not recognized by the BIA, and so there isn't really an
admin_level that would fit.

On the other hand, all of the Indian Reservations in New York are not part
of either Towns or Cities, and so would slot in nicely at admin_level=7.
The sole inconsistency that designation would introduce is that the city of
Salamanca is entirely within the Allegany reservation. (Salamanca, and
several smaller communities, have significant non-Haudenosaunee populations
and stand on reservation land that is leased from the Seneca Nation.)
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200801/0eb8fa4b/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list