On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley <claysmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chiming in as another settler. I really wish we had more Natives active on > OSM contributing their cultural knowledge. What could we be doing different > in the future to welcome and engage them in our community? > Outreach to tribal GIS offices where they exist couldn't hurt. The standard map rendering native areas, particularly when most don't (or in Oklahoma's case, most are *egregiously* incomplete, often only including the Osage Nation) definitely is a nice start and I'm glad we're to that. At least in the north american context, having a separate tag for indigenous lands seems a little strange compared to filing it under the administrative boundary, admin_level system, but I can live with it. On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:28 PM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Both the US and Canada consider the river to be the US-Canada boundary, >> and that the reservations are their separate dependencies. The Canadians >> recognize the Six Nations as domestic dependent nations, and they enjoy >> limited sovereignty on their own lands. >> > > I think what you've said here hints at the answer. The US and Canada are > UN member states with international recognition, each with an autonomous > region under indigenous governance. The tribal governments themselves may > dispute this, which is fair. Perhaps one day they might have an > internationally recognized sovereign state with defined borders. But on the > ground as of 2020, there are no such states, only subnational autonomous > regions. > Well, there *was* Bolivia until last month, but Elon Musk helped finance a coup so he could continue using the country as a cheap source of lithium for car batteries. > So I think the current tagging makes sense. Though I wonder if places like > these qualify as disputed territory. After all, the US and Canada have a > nation-to-nation relationship with each tribal government. > I don't believe that it counts as a disputed territory. I also think taking the US and Canada's claim of the tribe having two distinct reservations with a shared boundary congruent with the US/Canada international boundary is not substantiated by the ground truth. It's a single contiguous area, not two adjoining ones. It happens to have the US/Canada boundary going through it, and AFAICT, nobody's disputing that. Just that this single contiguous tribal area happens to straddle that line.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
