[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
Sun Aug 2 06:34:42 UTC 2020


On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 8:09 PM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.)
>

That's kind of my point.  In Oklahoma, there's at least 3 tribes that would
fall at admin_level=3, with the rest falling at 5 with a few at 4, all
depending on how their 19th century treaties were called, based on recent
Supreme Court rulings.

Not going to say "I told you so" but, anyone who's been on the OSM mailing
lists for the last 11 years and seen my points about American indigenous
land, well, thanks to Oklahoma v McGill, well, I told you so...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200802/536fa934/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list