[Talk-us] Tribal boundaries

[Paul Johnson]

Indeed, I think it's long overdue that we revisit the issue, though I would
propose that we find a way to make this fit into the existing
administrative boundary structure we use for other, similar administrative
regions, such as cities, counties, states and countries.

Essentially, the reason I really don't like the aboriginal lands tag is two
pronged:

Various degree of tribal control is glossed over.  My major beef with this
gross oversimplification is that tagging tribal areas the same way we would
a curiosity of nature trivializes and misrepresents what is much more
significantly an administrative boundary of variable significance.  You
have everything from small, relatively subjugated nations that have roughly
the same status as an incorporated town all the way up to tribes that have
their own customs checkpoints with the surrounding region, and everything
in between.  Ramifications of entering or leaving such a region is much
closer to that of crossing any other political boundary than it is crossing
a land management boundary (like a National Forest or State Park).

We're talking about people and authority, not land and resource management,
for the most part.  What makes American and Australian aboriginals so
special that they get a rather dismissive tagging scheme, whereas North
Ireland, Wales and Scotland don't?

On Monday, December 17, 2012, Mikel Maron wrote:

> This is what I've found in the Wiki. An old recommendation and discussion,
> but useful re-starting point
>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'baloo at ursamundi.org');>>
> *To:* OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us at openstreetmap.org<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'talk-us at openstreetmap.org');>>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2012 6:57 PM
> *Subject:* [Talk-us] Tribal boundaries
>
> How do we handle tribal administrative boundaries?  This is kind of a big
> one for the US, Canada and Australia..
> On Dec 17, 2012 2:51 PM, "Charlotte Wolter" <techlady at techlady.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'techlady at techlady.com');>>
> wrote:
>
>  Serge,
>
> **        **This is a good idea.
> **        **I have a large file of data from the Acoma tribe, but my
> efforts to negotiate the import wiki have been fruitless. I can't made
> heads or tails of it.
> **        **Further, I don't know if it's the kind of data we want
> (though they say it is public domain and gave permission in writing). It is
> road center lines for the whole reservation. I remember a remark somewhere
> in this forum that center lines are not the best data. At any rate, I'm not
> a good judge of whether or not it is what we want.
> **        **In addition, I've already done work on the main roads, though
> often I'm lacking a name or number.
> **        **And, I don't have tools to exmine a data file to see if it is
> congruent with what OSM can use.
> **        **So, for many reasons, having a knowledgeable group take this
> on seems to me like a great idea.
>
> Best,
>
> Charlotte
>
> At 06:42 AM 12/17/2012, you wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I know what it's like to be excited about OSM, and I know what it's
> like to be frustrated with OSM, struggling with low data quality, or
> lack of data altogether.
>
> And then you get access to a large dataset, and you know that having
> it in OSM would improve things. It would improve the quality, and
> maybe even get people mapping. At the same time, I think many of you
> have seen the damage that bad imports can do.
>
> The result is that folks like myself and others are frustrated by the
> import process, and folks who have good, useful datasets are frstrated
> by the import process.
>
> So I'm proposing a new committee, run by the US Chapter, to help guide
> imports and large edits.
>
> This will give step by step guidance to those who want to import data,
> and offer the larger community time to review and provide feedback.
>
> When I helped create the US Chapter several years ago, this was one of
> the main reasons I thought it should exist, but I think there's
> finally the amount of data and interest to justify it.
>
> What do folks think?
>
> - Serge
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'Talk-us at openstreetmap.org');>
>  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> **
> ** Charlotte Wolter
> 927 18th Street Suite A
> Santa Monica, California
> 90403
> +1-310-597-4040
> techlady at techlady.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'techlady at techlady.com');>
> Skype: thetechlady
>
> *The Four Internet Freedoms*
> Freedom to visit any site on the Internet
> Freedom to access any content or service that is not illegal
> Freedom to attach any device that does not interfere with the network
> Freedom to know all the terms of a service, particularly any that would
> affect the first three freedoms.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'Talk-us at openstreetmap.org');>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'Talk-us at openstreetmap.org');>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20121217/6ab28a13/attachment-0001.html>