[OSM-talk] Native American/First Nation, etc. Reservation Boundaries

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sat Apr 20 01:24:18 UTC 2013


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>
>> The previous tagging was inadequate, bordering on offensive
>>
>
> Which tagging was that?
>


> It is my understanding that First Nations boundaries just don't fit within
> the simple number-line model that OpenStreetMap has used for
> boundary=administrative; admin_level={integer}.
>
> boundary=aboriginal_lands
>
> was used in 2010, based on donated data and little discussion.  Is that
> the "inadequate, bordering on offensive" tagging?
>

If not that same tag, something in the same vein.


> If it is acceptable, inoffensive and accurate, I'd be pleased to see that
> tagging continue, or something like:
>
> boundary=administrative, admin_level=first_nation / or some other value.
>
> The rendering tools would have to catch up.  It might not be rendered on
> your favourite tile set, but it should be fully possible to make the data
> up to date and accurate and complete to the best of our abilities.  But it
> seems that using an integer, or some fraction on the number line just won't
> work.
>
> One first nation[1] includes portions of what might otherwise be
> considered, two admin_level=2s (USA and Canada) and three admin_level=4s
> (New York state, Ontario province and Quebec province) and has been
> described as a "jurisdictional nightmare".
>
> [1] http://www.akwesasne.ca/
>

Reservations and nations in general are jurisdictional nightmares, because
nations are autonomous and outside the legal jurisdiction of the US/Canada
and state/province governments on matters not outlined within their
treaties (and in theory could close their borders should relations sour to
such a degree for that to even begin to look practical); whereas
reservations are autonomous only within the realm of what's been agreed
upon by treaty and default to state and federal law when the reservation's
law doesn't exist.  And then there's somewhat in between examples, such as
the Osage Nation, which is a reservation, but has probably the highest
degree of sovereignty of the tribes that wound up in reservation status.
 They just don't really have much say in land matters).  Akwesasne is just
an extreme example of the same situation that the Cherokee, Muscogee and
Chickasaw are in, to name a few examples I see daily (I live just a few
hundred meters north of the Cherokee/Muscogee border and I'm a 10 minute
car ride from the Cherokee/Osage and Osage/Muscogee borders; and within a 5
hour drive of approximately 60 similar borders).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130419/bcc6979a/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list