On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 07:10 Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected] wrote:
> > > sent from a phone > > > On 27. Nov 2018, at 03:27, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > +1, > admin_level is fine where it applies (maybe everywhere, not sure, it > requires the land to be an administrative entity which might not always be > the case). But it doesn’t tell you it is about land that the invaders gave > to the native population, so an additional tag is desirable. > > I agree that protected_class is not sustainable (numbers as values are > harder to remember and easier to confuse). > > The proposed boundary=aboriginal_lands seems quite ok. Would this be > combinable with admin_level, or would you insist on > boundary=administrative? The fact that both „main keys“ might apply > sometimes seems to be a problem: either you tag these as b=administrative > and still haven’t said it is about native population areas, or you use > b=aboriginal_lands and as a result you get administrative entities that are > not tagged as b=administrative > At least in the US and Canada, indian territories, reservations, reserves and administrative areas are du jure administrative boundaries. >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
