On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:28 PM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley <claysmal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 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. > Reading The Resolution [1] there does appear to be differences of opinion. Disputed might seem a bit strong when considering some of the disputed borders, ie. India and Pakistan, to describe the dispute between the tribe and the county and state and possibly the federal government. [1] https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/resolve-the-boundary/?p=resolvetheboundary For now I'm satisfied to wait until we have the Tribes GIS contact info. Best, Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
