[Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands

Paul Norman penorman at mac.com
Thu Feb 9 22:09:29 GMT 2012


If the aboriginal lands are the same as were previously imported in BC I
don't think they're really suitable for use. A single reserve is split up
into much smaller areas at each of the roads. While I'm sure this is legally
correct, it's not much use for mapping.

I think boundary=aboriginal_land is the best tagging for them. It might be
worth talking with talk-us@ as well for the exact value - reserves in the US
are similar to those in Canada.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Begin at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM
> To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
> 
> Bonjour Tyler,
> 
> Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on
> GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country.
> 
> The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal
> Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K
> map sheet coverage.
> 
> Best regards,
> Daniel
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:tyler at egunn.com]
> Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38
> To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
> 
> > It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of
> > Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community
> > concerning the tags/values to use?
> > I've found some links to...
> > - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land
> > - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4
> > - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24
> 
> I'm curious how this information would be represented given the
> distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format?   Given that
> administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it
> would make sense to split these at tile boundaries.  Were you thinking
> to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts?
> 
> How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where
> they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up?
> 
> When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories,
> cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative
> and admin_level hierarchy.
> We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks,
> etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way.
> 
> So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as:
> boundary=aboriginal_land
> 
> Tyler
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca




More information about the Talk-ca mailing list