[Talk-ca] First Nations reserve naming

Tue Dec 6 09:19:13 UTC 2022

" I contacted the Tsuut'ina Nation through the easy to find contact form on
their honestly very well-designed website. I am waiting for their response.
I don't know any specific people there to contact directly, but I'm sure my
email will end up in the right place soon enough. When I get a reply, rest
assured, this mailing list will be the first to see it."

Just because they have a web site does not mean they are the authority.  It
is usually far more complex than that.

My suggestion would be to desist changing things in Canada.

Cheerio John

On Tue, Dec 6, 2022, 1:27 AM Michael Stark, <michael60634 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The nation and the reserve absolutely do not have the same name. I believe
> I was referring to the official name before, so I'll use that as an
> example. The official name of the nation is "Tsuut'ina Nation Band No. 432"
> and the official name of the reserve is "Tsuu T'ina Nation Indian Reserve
> No. 145". Notice that each official name is different and refers to a
> different entity. And the nation and the reserved have a different
> population, as another example.
>
> I did not create a solution for a nonexistent problem. If I see something
> on OSM that has missing or inaccurate information, I do my best to make
> improvements.
>
> I contacted the Tsuut'ina Nation through the easy to find contact form on
> their honestly very well-designed website. I am waiting for their response.
> I don't know any specific people there to contact directly, but I'm sure my
> email will end up in the right place soon enough. When I get a reply, rest
> assured, this mailing list will be the first to see it.
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 12:02 AM Hoser AB <hoserab1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. I can assure you I couldn't care less.
>>
>> 2. I *asked* you, pending this discussion. Which is a perfectly reasoned
>> thing to do when someone makes a contentious edit.
>>
>> 3. It doesn't matter what other editors happened to do with some other
>> OSM element. I made no reference to what other people did; I stated several
>> times that First Nations lands should be treated on a case-by-case basis
>> and shouldn't have a "top-down" approach applied to them.
>>
>> 4. No, the nation and the reserve are one and the same and have the same
>> name.
>>
>> 5. Oh I have no doubt you're trying to be helpful and have been editing
>> with nothing but the noblest of intentions. But, as I said, you've created
>> a solution in search of a problem rather than the other way around, are
>> seemingly oblivious to why anyone would object, and are quick to react in a
>> confrontational manner.
>>
>> 6. So whom did you speak with at the Tsuut'ina Nation, and what did they
>> say? I'm sure we'd all love to know.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 10:40 PM Michael Stark <michael60634 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Let's break things down so everything is clear and easy to understand.
>>>
>>> 1. Yes, I can be busy. You don't understand my life, and you shouldn't
>>> need to.
>>>
>>> 2. You specifically told me to stop editing. You are not the authority
>>> of editing on OSM.
>>>
>>> 3. The edits I made were based on similar edits made by the exact same
>>> editors you referenced when you said they fixed the name.
>>>
>>> 4. I am aware of that. But again, the nation and the reserve do have
>>> different names and other info other than the Wikipedia and Wikidata tags.
>>> So it should be clear I didn't create anything purely for the purpose of
>>> representing Wikipedia and WIkidata tags.
>>>
>>> 5. Yes, I edit Wikipedia. In fact, I edit quite a range of things on
>>> Wikipedia. I moved the article so the title would be more accurate. This
>>> has absolutely nothing to do with my editing on OSM. It would be best not
>>> to assume I have bad intentions, or to assume you understand my motives.
>>> Assuming I am editing in bad faith on both OSM and Wikipedia is problematic.
>>>
>>> 6. I am aware of the "on the ground" rule. My edit history proves that.
>>> I do recall mentioning multiple times that I personally contacted the
>>> Tsuut'ina Nation to get their input on the matter.
>>>
>>> Kindly knock off the attitude you have towards me. Stop assuming I am
>>> editing in bad faith. Stop assuming I am trying to edit to push my
>>> viewpoints on a culturally sensitive topic. None of this is helping anyone
>>> here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:25 PM Hoser AB <hoserab1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A bit busy" continuing to edit relations you were quite politely and
>>>> pointedly asked to refrain from editing until you participated further in
>>>> this discussion, but I digress...
>>>>
>>>> 1) "I ended up following how other First Nations with one reserve
>>>> displayed on OSM" is problematic: we don't concern ourselves with how
>>>> things are *displayed* on the map. Nor do all First Nations need to be
>>>> mapped in the same way. Nor should they be.
>>>>
>>>> 2) It's entirely redundant to have two overlapping relations for what
>>>> is essentially the same thing. It is entirely contrary to one of the most
>>>> basic OSM good practices: "one feature, one OSM element". In the case of
>>>> the Tsuut'ina, the nation and the land and the people all have the exact
>>>> same name: Tsuut'ina Nation. Adding an additional, overlapping relation
>>>> (erroneously) called "Tsuu T'ina Nation 145" adds nothing to the map.
>>>>
>>>> 3) We add wikipedia=* and wikidata=* tags to OSM elements which happen
>>>> to have Wikipedia articles and wikidata codes for them; we don't add
>>>> elements to OSM for the expressed purpose of adding wikipedia and wikidata
>>>> tags to them. Or put another way, just because something has a wikidata tag
>>>> and a Wikipedia page does not mean it merits being added to OSM, especially
>>>> where it could have been represented with a single thing that's already on
>>>> the map. (see point 2 above w.r.t. "one feature, one OSM element") With
>>>> respect to the additional overlapping Tsuut'ina "reserve" relation you
>>>> added, YOU MOVED THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE to suit your preferred (outdated...)
>>>> spelling after someone else had already moved the article to the current
>>>> spelling (see
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsuu_T%27ina_145&type=revision&diff=1124936360&oldid=1124525054).
>>>> You're editing Wikipedia to suit what you wanted to do on OSM; that is
>>>> problematic...
>>>>
>>>> I urge you to read the OSM wiki, especially as it concerns names and
>>>> "truth". See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth.
>>>> Geographical reality—"ground-truth"—is that "Tsuu T'ina Nation 145" is
>>>> simply "the Tsuut'ina Nation". "Official-truth" isn't lost if we simply add
>>>> official_name=*. This is precisely how the Tsuut'ina Nation was mapped in
>>>> the first place, before you ever touched it. It was absolutely fine the way
>>>> it was. You created a solution in search of a problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 2:03 AM Michael Stark <michael60634 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey, sorry for the delay in replying. I've been a bit busy between
>>>>> when I last wrote and now. Also, I hope I sent this correctly as I am not
>>>>> familiar with using the mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I ended up doing is following what how other First Nations with
>>>>> one reserve are displayed on OSM. That would be a relation for the First
>>>>> Nation, and a relation for the reserve. It may sound redundant to have two
>>>>> separate relations, and I thought this at first too, but upon further
>>>>> consideration, I think it might be the right solution. The reason for this
>>>>> is that both the First Nation and the reserve have separate names, official
>>>>> names, Wikidata tags, Wikipedia tags, previous names, et cetera. So the
>>>>> existing relation is for the Tsuut'ina Nation and has all relevant tags,
>>>>> and I created a new relation for the reserve, which has all tags relevant
>>>>> to the reserve.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 9:22 AM John Whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even using the term "First Nations reserve" maybe controversial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not an easy one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheerio John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ca wrote on 12/3/2022 8:31 AM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OSM object representing XYZ should carry the name of XYZ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OSM object representing First Nations reserve should carry name
>>>>>> of First Nations reserve
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 gru 2022, 07:08 od michael60634 at gmail.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How should First Nations reserves be named? Is it best to use the
>>>>>> name of the reserve, or the name of the group that inhabits the reserve?
>>>>>> I've noticed that two mappers changed the names of many reserves across
>>>>>> Canada, and even the US, from the name of the reserve to the name of the
>>>>>> tribe inhabiting the reserve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20221206/db5d16cf/attachment-0001.htm>