Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
51 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Alan McConchie-2
The tag boundary=aboriginal_lands has been discussed on-and-off for a long time in OSM. I'd like to raise the topic one last time and hopefully come to some consensus about it.

The tag proposal on the wiki dates from 2008, but the original proposal was from the user Sam Vekemans (username acrosscanadatrails) who is no longer participating in OpenStreetMap, as far as I can tell. He never moved the proposal to a vote, so the page has remained in the proposal state all this time.

Here's the proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands

(I've tried to updated the wiki page somewhat, but leaving the discussion intact)

In the following years, some people have started using that proposed tag, mostly in Canada and somewhat in the United States.

Here's the overpass query for boundary=aboriginal_lands: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV4

There has also been extensive discussion over the years on the boundary=aboriginal_lands page, and it seems like the consensus is that the tag is necessary and better than any alternatives. But it was never voted on as a proposal.

In the intervening years, tagging native reservations with boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24 has also gained popularity. This tag combination seems to be popular in South America, Australia, and also in parts of the United States. I can't find any evidence for why people chose this tag combination instead of boundary=aboriginal_lands. It appears that the tags are pretty much interchangeable. Most of the features in Brazil however are tagged incorrectly for the renderer, mixing leisure=nature_reserve with protect_class=24, so that the areas show up on the default renderer with the nature reserve green style.

Here's the overpass query for protect_class=24: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV5

Wiki page for boundary=protected_area: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area

In 2014, there were three messages on the tagging mailing list, from Paul Johnson and Clifford Snow. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-November/020160.html But at that time, we didn't come any answers.

There seems to be no argument about whether or not aboriginal areas are important features that should be mapped. The only question is how to tag them.

So the question is:

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?


I'd like to officially open the voting period now, so we can once and for all come to a conclusion on this 10-year-long discussion. Please review the discussion on the wiki page and cast your vote at the bottom:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands


Alan



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Paul Allen
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 12:40 AM Alan McConchie <[hidden email]> 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?

My gut feeling is that protect_class is an abomination.

Numbers are fine, where numbers are appropriate.  Like the address of a house, or the service
number for a bus, or the elevation of a peak.  Protect_class is a horrible, ugly mess.  You cannot
easily figure out which value to use (first check with the WDPA, then try to figure out from a gigantic
look-up table which value to use).  To make it easy for mappers, instead of just having a list of
possible values like "national_park," "historical_reserve" or whatever, editors will need a look-up
table (not difficult to code, but unnecessary) from natural concepts like "nature reserve" to 57
(or whatever the number is).  All data consumers like apps will need a lookup table to translate from
number to concept so users can make sense of it (or put up with the information that "You are now
entering a 37").  People using the query tool with the standard carto will either have to then go through
the wiki to do a lookup or such a lookup will have to be built into the code that handles queries.

Gut feeling, late at night: anything has to be better than protect_class.  I must be missing something
since it presumably went through the approval process and passed, and people actually use it, but
right now it looks like Satan conceived it to torment mappers before they die.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

AlaskaDave
@Paul,

Agree on the confusion and difficulty in using those blasted protect_class numbers. Let those issues be resolved in the boundary tag. I'm already tagging using protect_class along with the boundary tag and for insurance toss in the boundary:type tag. It's a lot of tagging that could be simplified immensely if we could just settle on one. IMO, boundary=aboriginal_lands says it all.

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 8:23 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 12:40 AM Alan McConchie <[hidden email]> 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?

My gut feeling is that protect_class is an abomination.

Numbers are fine, where numbers are appropriate.  Like the address of a house, or the service
number for a bus, or the elevation of a peak.  Protect_class is a horrible, ugly mess.  You cannot
easily figure out which value to use (first check with the WDPA, then try to figure out from a gigantic
look-up table which value to use).  To make it easy for mappers, instead of just having a list of
possible values like "national_park," "historical_reserve" or whatever, editors will need a look-up
table (not difficult to code, but unnecessary) from natural concepts like "nature reserve" to 57
(or whatever the number is).  All data consumers like apps will need a lookup table to translate from
number to concept so users can make sense of it (or put up with the information that "You are now
entering a 37").  People using the query tool with the standard carto will either have to then go through
the wiki to do a lookup or such a lookup will have to be built into the code that handles queries.

Gut feeling, late at night: anything has to be better than protect_class.  I must be missing something
since it presumably went through the approval process and passed, and people actually use it, but
right now it looks like Satan conceived it to torment mappers before they die.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
Thank you for reviving this proposal. I believe it’s possible that both are needed.

American Indian and Alaskan Native Nations in the USA have a good deal off autonomy and administrative power and certainly should be considered a type of administrative boundary, but outside of the usual numeric admin_levels system. I believe this is true for Canada and Australia as well.

it is possible that the areas in Brazil or other countries lack as much political/administrative function, and are more of a “protected area” without self-governance.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:23 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 12:40 AM Alan McConchie <[hidden email]> 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?

My gut feeling is that protect_class is an abomination.

Numbers are fine, where numbers are appropriate.  Like the address of a house, or the service
number for a bus, or the elevation of a peak.  Protect_class is a horrible, ugly mess.  You cannot
easily figure out which value to use (first check with the WDPA, then try to figure out from a gigantic
look-up table which value to use).  To make it easy for mappers, instead of just having a list of
possible values like "national_park," "historical_reserve" or whatever, editors will need a look-up
table (not difficult to code, but unnecessary) from natural concepts like "nature reserve" to 57
(or whatever the number is).  All data consumers like apps will need a lookup table to translate from
number to concept so users can make sense of it (or put up with the information that "You are now
entering a 37").  People using the query tool with the standard carto will either have to then go through
the wiki to do a lookup or such a lookup will have to be built into the code that handles queries.

Gut feeling, late at night: anything has to be better than protect_class.  I must be missing something
since it presumably went through the approval process and passed, and people actually use it, but
right now it looks like Satan conceived it to torment mappers before they die.


--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Paul Norman
In reply to this post by Alan McConchie-2
On 2018-11-24 4:38 PM, Alan McConchie wrote:
> Here's the overpass query for boundary=aboriginal_lands:http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV4
>
> There has also been extensive discussion over the years on the boundary=aboriginal_lands page, and it seems like the consensus is that the tag is necessary and better than any alternatives.

As one of the people using it, I find it better than any other options.
The chief objection to it has been that aboriginal is not the preferred
term in US English. Having visited reserves in Canada, US, and
Australia, I think it's the best term. It is used in both Canadian and
Australian English, which are closer to British English than American.
It's not specific like "Indian", which is not recommended in the US or
Canada, and has never been used in Australia.

> But it was never voted on as a proposal.

But it's got usage, which I think is more important.

> In the intervening years, tagging native reservations with boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24 has also gained popularity. This tag combination seems to be popular in South America, Australia, and also in parts of the United States. I can't find any evidence for why people chose this tag combination instead of boundary=aboriginal_lands. It appears that the tags are pretty much interchangeable. Most of the features in Brazil however are tagged incorrectly for the renderer, mixing leisure=nature_reserve with protect_class=24, so that the areas show up on the default renderer with the nature reserve green style.

I also find the entire protect_class tag a hopeless mess, but it has
some particular problems here. It lends itself to treating a nature
reserve like an aboriginal reservation. This is wrong, and depending on
the region and history, can be racist.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Alan McConchie-2
25. Nov 2018 01:38 by [hidden email]:

I'd like to officially open the voting period now, so we can once and for all come to a conclusion on this 10-year-long discussion. Please review the discussion on the wiki page and cast your vote at the bottom:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands


 I would start from RfC. For example it is still not documented what is mapped this tag

(and no, it is not obvious - I am hoping that it is some officially declared boundary, but

I am not sure).


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
I would not care too much about support in data consumers, checking what magic number means
during development is not too problematic.

But it is horrible, horrible for mappers that edit tags directly. Maybe this can be hidden in iD,
but magic number are obnoxious for all other mappers.

25. Nov 2018 02:22 by [hidden email]:

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 12:40 AM Alan McConchie <[hidden email]> 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?

My gut feeling is that protect_class is an abomination.

Numbers are fine, where numbers are appropriate.  Like the address of a house, or the service
number for a bus, or the elevation of a peak.  Protect_class is a horrible, ugly mess.  You cannot
easily figure out which value to use (first check with the WDPA, then try to figure out from a gigantic
look-up table which value to use).  To make it easy for mappers, instead of just having a list of
possible values like "national_park," "historical_reserve" or whatever, editors will need a look-up
table (not difficult to code, but unnecessary) from natural concepts like "nature reserve" to 57
(or whatever the number is).  All data consumers like apps will need a lookup table to translate from
number to concept so users can make sense of it (or put up with the information that "You are now
entering a 37").  People using the query tool with the standard carto will either have to then go through
the wiki to do a lookup or such a lookup will have to be built into the code that handles queries.

Gut feeling, late at night: anything has to be better than protect_class.  I must be missing something
since it presumably went through the approval process and passed, and people actually use it, but
right now it looks like Satan conceived it to torment mappers before they die.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
The proposal should be edited to say that this tag should be used for official boundaries of recognized aboriginal / indigenous / native peoples, for example, American Indian Reservations,  Canadian First Peoples, Aboriginal Australian etc.... (Plus the proper terminology for Brazil and other countries if relevant). 

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 7:44 PM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
25. Nov 2018 01:38 by [hidden email]:

I'd like to officially open the voting period now, so we can once and for all come to a conclusion on this 10-year-long discussion. Please review the discussion on the wiki page and cast your vote at the bottom:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands


 I would start from RfC. For example it is still not documented what is mapped this tag

(and no, it is not obvious - I am hoping that it is some officially declared boundary, but

I am not sure).

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Doug Hembry
In reply to this post by Alan McConchie-2
This is a bad proposal. We should stick with the boundary=protected_area
tag family. As a whole, it's a successful attempt to bring some rational
organization to what will over time (or to some extent already has)
otherwise develop into a hodge-podge of top level boundary types:
boundary=national park, =county park, =city park, State Ecological
Reserve, Wild, Scenic & Recreation River (USFS), EPA Superfund site,
water_shed area, Open_Space, recreation_area,  Nature Conservancy Fee
Land, and, of course, now:  =aboriginal_lands. There are hundreds of
them, and they vary from country to country. What binds them together is
that they all designate some purpose and level of control over general
"outsider" activities in an area. And capturing such information in OSM
is significant - particularly in countries with large areas of
non-urban  lands plus high levels of outdoor activity.
Someone has already done the work of mapping different countrys' titles
into the formal IUCN categories, and I fail to see how much more
difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and "protect_class=24"
than "boundary=aboriginal_lands". And no-one has yet pointed out that
the protect_title=* tag allows (actually recommends) a local string
description to be added for the area (ie, protect_title=Aboriginal Lands)
Apparently a lot of mappers seem to agree because there are already over
600 uses of protect_class=24, versus just over 200 of
boundary=aboriginal_lands, mostly, it seems in the north-east and
north-west of the US (?)
Moreover, if an aboriginal_lands area should also be considered an
administrative unit in its own right, then there's nothing wrong with
two coincident boundary definitions - one describing it as a protected
area and a second describing the administrative boundary, is there?
To extrapolate a little, personally I think it's very unfortunate that
boundary=protected_area still is is not better supported in OSM. There
are already 73,000 uses, worldwide. We badly need the tag to at least be
rendered in carto, ideally with differentiation based on class and the
access=* tag. Certainly it is unproductive to try to erode it's use by
introducing new arbitrary top-level "convenience" tags like
boundary=aboriginal_lands. I'll be voting against.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Alan McConchie-2
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
You are both correct that despite my attempted cleanup of the proposal, there still wasn't a good description of what these features actually are in the real world. I added a new description at the top of the page. That's my fault, sorry that I didn't include that before I started the vote.

I tried to summarize the discussion about what these features actually are, and what they should include and not include. Specifically I hope this clarifies that we are only mapping the official boundaries of reservations, not the traditional pre-colonial territories of aboriginal people.

You can read and comment on the new proposal here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands#Proposal



Here is the content of that new section:


This proposal is for mapping the official reservation boundaries of recognized aboriginal / indigenous / native peoples. These areas go by a variety of names in different countries, such as Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia, Indian Reserves in Canada, Indian Reservations in the United States, Terra Indígena (Indigenous Territory) in Brazil, Territorio Indigena in Colombia, or Territory of Traditional Natural Resource Use in Russia, to name some common examples.

While the specific status of these areas differs by country, they generally share two things in common:

        • These regions have special legal status for the benefit of aboriginal peoples, and different laws may be enforced within these regions. The aboriginal groups usually have some form of self-governance in these areas.

        • These regions are mutually recognized between the aboriginal peoples and the occupying/colonizing government, and their boundaries are not in dispute. (The fact that some aboriginal groups may claim much larger areas and may be negotiating for an expansion of their reservations does not change the fact that the existing boundaries are mutually recognized as the current legal situation).

This proposal does not cover:

        • Larger land claims that have not yet been mutually finalized between the aboriginal group and the occupying/colonizing government. In many countries, notably in parts of Canada, treaty negotiations are ongoing. These disputed areas should not be mapped using the boundary=aboriginal_lands tag.

        • Lands outside of reservations that are owned by aboriginal groups, but which do not have special legal status. In these areas, the aboriginal groups act as a landowner like any other landowner. OpenStreetMap does not map land ownership.

        • Areas outside of reservations where aboriginal groups may have special rights, such as traditional fishing or hunting grounds.

        • The traditional or pre-colonial lands of aboriginal people. These may be appropriate for Open Historical Map, but they cannot be accurately mapped or verified within OpenStreetMap. For a good map of traditional aboriginal territories around the world, see https://native-land.ca/.



Alan



> On Nov 25, 2018, at 3:53 AM, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The proposal should be edited to say that this tag should be used for official boundaries of recognized aboriginal / indigenous / native peoples, for example, American Indian Reservations,  Canadian First Peoples, Aboriginal Australian etc.... (Plus the proper terminology for Brazil and other countries if relevant).
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 7:44 PM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 25. Nov 2018 01:38 by [hidden email]:
>
> I'd like to officially open the voting period now, so we can once and for all come to a conclusion on this 10-year-long discussion. Please review the discussion on the wiki page and cast your vote at the bottom:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
>
>
>  I would start from RfC. For example it is still not documented what is mapped this tag
>
> (and no, it is not obvious - I am hoping that it is some officially declared boundary, but
>
> I am not sure).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 04:16, Alan McConchie <[hidden email]> wrote:

Good work with getting this proposal resurrected, Alan

2 comments thanks, one of which is very nit-picky!

This proposal is for mapping the official reservation boundaries of recognized aboriginal / indigenous / native peoples. These areas go by a variety of names in different countries, such as Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia,

In Australia, there are two indigenous peoples - the Aboriginal (not aboriginal) people & the Torres Straight Islanders. This page https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/questions-and-answers-about-aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-peoples goes into quite a bit of detail, but the prime bit is:

"

A note on terminology

The 'A' in 'Aboriginal' is capitalised similar to other designations like 'Australian', 'Arabic' or 'Nordic'. The word 'aboriginal with a lowercase 'a' refers to an indigenous person from any part of the world. As such, it does not necessarily refer to the Aboriginal people of Australia.

'Aboriginal people' is a collective name for the original people of Australia and their descendants, and does not emphasise the diversity of languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs. This diversity is acknowledged by adding an 's' to 'people' ('Aboriginal peoples'). 'Aboriginal people' can also be used to refer to more than one Aboriginal person.

The 'I' in 'Indigenous' is capitalised when referring specifically to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The lower case 'i' for 'indigenous' is only used when referring to people originating in more than one region or country such as the Pacific region, Asiatic region, Canada or New Zealand"

As I said, very nit-picky, but do you need to make reference to A / a & I / i ?

 

        • These regions are mutually recognized between the aboriginal peoples and the occupying/colonizing government, 

I'm not sure about the term "occupying / colonising government", as to me, it comes across as having happened last week! Federal / State Government perhaps?

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 06:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

In Australia, there are two indigenous peoples - the Aboriginal (not aboriginal) people

& when I go back & read what I wrote, I've put it down incorrectly :-(

Should be Indigenous & Aboriginal peoples!

Thanks

Graeme
 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Doug Hembry

25. Nov 2018 16:16 by [hidden email]:

and I fail to see how much more
difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and "protect_class=24"


Because "24" is a completely random code, unlike boundary=aboriginal_lands


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 11/26/18 17:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>     and I fail to see how much more
>>     difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and "protect_class=24"
>
> Because "24" is a completely random code, unlike boundary=aboriginal_lands

We generally *try* and make our data human-readable. If archaeologists
dig up an old planet file in 1000 years, then finding a tag
boundary=aboriginal_lands is more useful to them than protect_class=24.

Of course it's a far-fetched image but I find it helps making the right
decisions.

And yes, there are established things in OSM that would puzzle those
archaeolologists, like sac_scale or tracktype. Or maybe how to read a
PBF file. But we can't do all of their job for them ;)

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Alan McConchie-2
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie <[hidden email]> 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?

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. (admin_level is rather a mess in the US, because we have things that aren't strictly hierarchical at all levels - we have a First Nations treaty land (established by the Jay Treaty of 1794) that crosses an international border, and others that span state lines, just as we have cities across county lines, villages across township lines and so on.

In my state, no First Nations land is within any township - towns, cities, and "Indian Reservations" are all disjoint. The "Indian Reservations" have home rule for many matters.

I'd be fine with boundary=administrative or a sui generis boundary=aboriginal_lands, but 'protected_area' is horrible.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Clifford Snow


On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie <[hidden email]> 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?

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. (admin_level is rather a mess in the US, because we have things that aren't strictly hierarchical at all levels - we have a First Nations treaty land (established by the Jay Treaty of 1794) that crosses an international border, and others that span state lines, just as we have cities across county lines, villages across township lines and so on.

I can't speak for other countries so I'll limit my comments to the US. As Kevin Kenny commented, tribes in the US are recognized as domestic dependent nations.  But from there it gets messy. They can set their own sales tax separate from the state and have their own courts. Yet in North Dakota, the state determines voting requirements. For this reason I don't think admin_level works very well. 

As Alan stated in the original post, settling on a tag would be nice. It might even be what's necessary to get the tribes to show interest in OSM. (Of course that will result in more border disputes :-)  

Clifford

Clifford.
--
@osm_seattle
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3


On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:59 PM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie <[hidden email]> 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?

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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 27. Nov 2018, at 03:27, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> 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


Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Paul Johnson-3


On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 07:10 Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email] wrote:


sent from a phone

> On 27. Nov 2018, at 03:27, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow
On 11/26/18 6:35 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> I can't speak for other countries so I'll limit my comments to the US.
> As Kevin Kenny commented, tribes in the US are recognized as domestic
> dependent nations.  But from there it gets messy. They can set their
> own sales tax separate from the state and have their own courts. Yet
> in North Dakota, the state determines voting requirements. For this
> reason I don't think admin_level works very well.

1. admin_level doesn't work in the US, period.

2. There's no good answer, but admin_level=3 might be a good compromise.

3. Occasionally the First Nations function as countries.

4. Just what the First Nations are is a political question with about
four hundred years of bloody history. Occasional bloodshed continues to
this day. We're not going to come up with a satisfactory answer here.

1.

There is no administrative unit in the US - except or the states and
perhaps the counties (which not all states have) for which admin_level
really works well. Counties in New York can set their own sales tax, and
so can chartered Cities, two of which cross county lines. Landowners in
a Village owe property tax to both the Village and the Town - and maybe
a sixth of the Villages are in more than one Town. It's *all* messy.

And that's without accounting for special administrative districts for
schools, libraries, police, garbage, sewers, fire brigades, water
supply, ... New York has dozens of different flavors, none of which is
constrained to the boundaries of anything else, and all of them have
elected [or state-appointed] officials and the power to tax. We've never
tried to settle how to tag these in OSM - we simply don't map the
limited-purpose admin areas such as school districts.

The Europeans think the US system is totally insane, but it mostly
works. In any case, it has to be a case of "we map what we have." Too
often, what we hear from some individuals on this list is not very far
removed from, "the tagging model is fine; fix your country!" That, of
course, is not really an option that's available to us in the near future.

2.

As far as 'aboriginal lands' go, I'd be happy with either
boundary=administrative or else a new sui generis boundary type. If it
is to be 'administrative', I'd argue for the otherwise unused
'admin-level' of 3, a compromise among a set of political alternatives
that range from '2' (a country whose rights happen to be denied) to
nothing at all (an illegitimate country issuing 'fantasy passports' with
no more legal existence than self-proclaimed 'micro-nations'). Like all
compromises, it will satisfy nobody, but at least acknowledge that a
diversity of opinion exists.

3.

The larger among the First Nations surely have a messy status.

Some issue passports. The Cayuga statesman Levi General Deskaheh
traveled to Great Britain in 1917 and Geneva in 1923 on a Haudenosaunee
passport to plead for recognition of his people by the British crown and
at the League of Nations. As recently as 2018, athletes from the
Haudenosaunee Confederacy traveled on Haundenosaunee passports to
compete in world-level events. Israel accepted the Haudenosaunee
passport for their admission, and Canada, while not recognizing tribal
sovereignty, offered assurances that the competitors would be
repatriated. The US players crossed the US-Canada border at Akwesasne,
where a US-UK treaty that allows FIrst Nations natives to pass has been
in force - although often violated - since 1792. The US, Canada, and the
Schengen nations, however, emphatically do *not* recognize the
Haudenosaunee authority to issue passports.

4.

Referring to the Haudenosaunee as a 'tribe' is ... strange. The Six
Nations are a federal republic with a constitution which they adopted in
1142.  unwritten but widely memorized, since it has religious
significance. Despite the oral nature of the history, it can be dated
accurately because of an account of a solar eclipse. There is ample
evidence that it was functioning as a republic in 1603, when Champlain
first encountered them, and they were still functioning as such in 1722,
when the Tuscarora Nation was admitted as a sixth member nation of the
Haudenosaunee Confederacy. The Confederacy was, in some ways, the model
for the US system of separate Federal and State sovereignty - and the
Framers of the Constitution were well aware of it.

North Dakota, as you mention, is an odd case. It does not 'determine'
the voting requirements for citizens of the dependent nations. It (along
with fifteen other states) has power delegated to it by Congress to
enforce Federal and tribal law on the reservations, and as such, is
responsible for upholding the rights that the tribes have determined.
It's an executive, not a legislative authority. In th The local sheriff,
the tribal police, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the FBI all have
jurisdiction to enforce Federal and tribal law. The resulting
jurisdictional conflict breaks out in violence sporadically. Except as
delegated by the Congress, the States have no authority over the
reservations - they are enforcing Federal and tribal law, not their own.

To the extent that tribal sovereignty is recognized, it is organic and
allodial. It is not delegated to the tribes by the US Constitution.
Rather, the US Constitution recognizes it as something already in
existence. The three places that the Constitution mentions the
indigenous people, it recognizes them as separate - empowering Congress
to conduct diplomacy with them, excluding their numbers from the census
(and hence from determining Congressional representation), and excluding
them from certain provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The scheme that I describe has really existed only since 1970 or so,
when there was a seismic shift in US policy from 'termination' - the
natives would all be assimilated into US language and culture, and the
need for reservations would therefore disappear in time - to
'self-determination,' where at least the larger reservations were
recognized as domestic dependent nations, with the US as protector of
their rights in a scheme determined by the Congress.

The best description of 'aboriginal lands' in the US is that the most
organized ones are defeated nations, whose sovereignty is still
recognized by the conquering power but frequently abrogated.

This status ties into the whole 'disputed border' discussion, too, of
course.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123