[Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands

[Connors, Bernie (SNB)]

For tagging Aboriginal lands (reserves) I agree with using "boundary=aboriginal_land". 

--
Bernie Connors, P.Eng
Service New Brunswick
(506) 444-2077
45°56'25.21"N, 66°38'53.65"W
www.snb.ca/geonb/


-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:tyler at egunn.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 2012-02-09 17:38
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