[Talk-ca] First nations boundary tagging

[Michael Stark]

The discussion is about electoral areas, which Brian mistook as First
Nations territory.

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 7:48 PM john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Then you get into the concept of First Nations.  Aboriginals have
> travelled in Europe using a passport issued by an aboriginal band not a
> Canadian passport.
>
> I think I'm correct in saying that BC has no land treaties with the native
> groups.
>
> Therefore should BC be recognised at all since it has no legal claim on
> the land.
>
> There are more than 500,000 aboriginal people and since they have an oral
> tradition that sort of means there are some 500,000 different ideas.  Not
> all band councils are elected by the way.  Who do you accept as
> spokesperson?
>
> I would suggest it might be better to be very cautious about any mapping
> that involves Canadian aboriginal territories.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 19:56 Michael Stark <michael60634 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In the case of the FVRD, the admin centre for the entire regional
>> district is Chilliwack.
>>
>> You can read more about what regional districts are here:
>> https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/facts-framework/systems/regional-districts
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 6:42 PM stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm no expert in Canadian (possibly indigenous peoples' political)
>>> issues, but it seems to me if these are truly unincorporated electoral
>>> areas within a regional district, they would still have a "place" where one
>>> could either visit or mail in, say, a voter registration.  In the USA, I'm
>>> nearly 100% certain that each and every county has such a place.
>>> Additionally, there may be MANY such places in any given county, for
>>> example, in counties which subdivide into townships, where each township
>>> would logically have such a "centre."
>>>
>>> I would find it unusual or odd for an unincorporated area (like there
>>> are many of in Snohomish County) to have such boundary=political
>>> (multi)polygons drawn in OSM, because while these might exist in reality,
>>> their entry into OSM seems in "earlier days" of entry / correctness.  But I
>>> would nod my head if I understood it to be correct, as it seems the people
>>> who live there could make a case for it being an accurate way to
>>> characterize the way that people register to vote.  Again, the distinction
>>> is between an admin_level boundary and a political boundary:  the former is
>>> a "real" government, the latter is "the people of this area, delineated by
>>> a boundary, vote on a consolidated ballot."  Sometimes, the two perform the
>>> same kinds of functions, adding to potential or actual confusion, but if
>>> "only for political / election purposes" is true, it seems prudent in the
>>> OSM sense to choose boundary=political over boundary=admin_level.
>>>
>>> By "real" government, OSM means (approximately) "internationally
>>> recognized" in the case of countries / admin_level=2, "recognized as a
>>> sub-national unit" (by any given country) for admin_level=4 (or the
>>> somewhat-unusual case of admin_level=3), and so on down the line all the
>>> way to admin_level=10 (or 11 in some cases) where something we might call
>>> "a neighborhood council" (usually in larger cities, themselves often
>>> admin_level=8) is a "real" government that makes law / ordinances for
>>> people only in that admin_level=10 (multi)polygon boundary.
>>>
>>> > On Mar 12, 2023, at 4:28 PM, Michael Stark <michael60634 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Is tagging an admin centre appropriate for an unincorporated area?
>>> It's like tagging an admin centre for an unincorporated area of, for
>>> example, Snohomish County in the US. The electoral area is an
>>> unincorporated subunit of a regional district. And a regional district can
>>> be compared to a county in the US.
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 6:09 PM stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mar 12, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Michael Stark <michael60634 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > Those look like electoral areas within regional districts.
>>> Essentially the electoral areas, in this context, are unincorporated areas
>>> in the regional districts.
>>> >
>>> > If so, they should be tagged boundary=political [1] with admin_centre
>>> and label nodes.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for everybody's diligence about such topics.  It is quite
>>> helpful when admin_level values (and boundary edges) emerge to a high level
>>> of accuracy — or at least as "highly accurate as we can manage to assign to
>>> them."  Sometimes this means a fair bit of understanding about "what local
>>> people say," but it usually includes a wider inclusion into what people (in
>>> Canada, in British Columbia, Alberta...) and Contributors (to OSM) consider
>>> "good practice" for assigning admin_level values.
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dpolitical
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20230312/f382689c/attachment.htm>