[Talk-ca] First Nations reserve naming

Tue Dec 6 09:27:35 UTC 2022

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

It's the official website for the Tsuut'ina Nation. I think they have
authority to say what the reserve is called in the Tsuut'ina language.

https://tsuutina.com/

"My suggestion would be to desist changing things in Canada."

No.

On Tue, Dec 6, 2022, 3:19 AM john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:

> " 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/c55020d3/attachment.htm>