Paul, I want to take your feedback with the weight and respect it deserves. I see you voted against "boundary=aboriginal_lands" on the wiki because you prefer "boundary=administrative". Can you clarify more about your proposed alternative?
In this thread I see you're a fan of admin_level=*, but what admin_level do you propose? The problem I see with that tag is that it follows a strict hierarchy, which reservations don't always follow. It's the hierarchical nature of boundary=administrative that I get hung up on, which is why I like that boundary=aboriginal_lands can exist parallel to that hierarchy. For example, if we used boundary=administrative + admin_level=3 (as Kevin Kenny suggested in this thread) that seems clearly wrong for the few reservations that cross national boundaries, like Akwesasne. Also more generally, to me the fact that boundary=aboriginal_lands doesn't have "administrative" in the name doesn't IMHO mean that it is not a legitimate political unit of administration. Arguably it expresses even greater autonomy and independence than some other tag that's shoe-horned into the boundary=administrative hierarchy. I can understand how others might see boundary=aboriginal_lands as a tag that carries less respect. But I don't see it that way. Alan > On Nov 27, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 07:10 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com > <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 27. Nov 2018, at 03:27, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org > > <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> 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 > Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
