On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:59 PM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie <alan.mcconc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? >> Or should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and >> instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24? >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> > > > I really don't like overloading 'protected area' for what, in my region, > is a unit of government. > > The First Nations' lands near me are, for the most part, recognized as > 'domestic dependent nations' and, if we wanted to be formally correct, > would most likely come in at admin_level=3. > I'm generally a fan of the admin_level option. protected_area is OKisn, but the protect_class=* tag definitely hits me as an oddity given other tagging. boundary=aboriginal_lands could be a supplemental tag to admin_level.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
