This is a bad proposal. We should stick with the boundary=protected_area tag family. As a whole, it's a successful attempt to bring some rational organization to what will over time (or to some extent already has) otherwise develop into a hodge-podge of top level boundary types: boundary=national park, =county park, =city park, State Ecological Reserve, Wild, Scenic & Recreation River (USFS), EPA Superfund site, water_shed area, Open_Space, recreation_area, Nature Conservancy Fee Land, and, of course, now: =aboriginal_lands. There are hundreds of them, and they vary from country to country. What binds them together is that they all designate some purpose and level of control over general "outsider" activities in an area. And capturing such information in OSM is significant - particularly in countries with large areas of non-urban lands plus high levels of outdoor activity. Someone has already done the work of mapping different countrys' titles into the formal IUCN categories, and I fail to see how much more difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and "protect_class=24" than "boundary=aboriginal_lands". And no-one has yet pointed out that the protect_title=* tag allows (actually recommends) a local string description to be added for the area (ie, protect_title=Aboriginal Lands) Apparently a lot of mappers seem to agree because there are already over 600 uses of protect_class=24, versus just over 200 of boundary=aboriginal_lands, mostly, it seems in the north-east and north-west of the US (?) Moreover, if an aboriginal_lands area should also be considered an administrative unit in its own right, then there's nothing wrong with two coincident boundary definitions - one describing it as a protected area and a second describing the administrative boundary, is there? To extrapolate a little, personally I think it's very unfortunate that boundary=protected_area still is is not better supported in OSM. There are already 73,000 uses, worldwide. We badly need the tag to at least be rendered in carto, ideally with differentiation based on class and the access=* tag. Certainly it is unproductive to try to erode it's use by introducing new arbitrary top-level "convenience" tags like boundary=aboriginal_lands. I'll be voting against.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
