From my (admittedly limited) understanding, there are several different
forms of recognition and ownership of land by Australia's First Peoples,
and it varies from state to state. I don't believe the specific
boundary=administrative tag is appropriate for any of the use cases, but
I want to make clear that I don't believe using a different tag should
in any way detract from the legitimacy, ownership or importance of these
areas. Because the legal framework is complicated, unfortunately I think
the tags will inevitably be complicated as well
Traditional Owners
Most (all?) states recognise particular Indigenous Corporations as the
"Traditional Owners" of areas of land. As Traditional Owners, these
corporations are given certain rights (often a requirement to be
consulted on land changes) but don't necessarily have any specific legal
power or self-governance over land in the same way as an LGA might. For
this reason, I don't believe Traditional Ownership boundaries are suited
to "administrative" boundaries, for the same reason that planning
overlays wouldn't be appropriate as "administrative" boundaries. The
boundary=aboriginal_lands tag seems to be more targeted towards
"reservations", which doesn't seem to suited to Traditional Owner
Recognition. My suggestion would be either:
boundary=protected_area
heritage=3 _(as is state recognition)_
protection_title=Registered Traditional Ownership
heritage:operator=_Traditional Owners Corporation_
protect_class=24
name=Traditional Owners
name:aus=_Traditional Owners_
_or, to coin a tag_
boundary=aboriginal_lands
aboriginal_lands=traditional_ownership
Native Title
Native Title is separate to Traditional Ownership as defined by the
states, but tends to afford more rights over the land (and compensation,
if I recall correctly). Again though, I don't believe it is equivalent
to an administration area.
boundary=protected_area
heritage=2 _(as is federal recognition, not state)_
protection_title=Native Title
heritage:operator=_Traditional Owners Corporation_
protect_class=24
name=Traditional Owners
name:aus=_Traditional Owners_
_or, _
boundary=aboriginal_lands
aboriginal_lands=native title
Indigenous Protected Areas
This is another volunteary arrangement between Indigenous Organisations
and Australian Government, but is also focussed on conservation. To be
an Indigenous Protected Area, the land must be owned by First Peoples.
(it's not clear whether ownership is akin to sovereignty or land
ownership.)
These appear to already be mapped as Nature Reserves
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8317126#map=8/-28.507/134.436)
Aboriginal LGAs
There are also Indigenous Land Councils that operate and administer land
as the LGA. They will already be captured as an administrative boundary
(See APY lands https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6792088)
They could perhaps be enriched with an additional tag indicating their
unique status, but should probably stay the same as other LGAs?
Aboriginal Land Permits
Separate to that legal mechanism, there are areas where a perit is
required to enter private land owned by Indigenous Organisations. These
are probably the closest equivalent to the standard
boundary=aboriginal_land tags, but I'm really not sure of the legal
distinction between state to state.
If the data can be sourced appropriately and respectfully with First
Peoples I would wholeheartedly support their inclusion.
Dian
On 2021-11-30 17:51, stevea wrote:
On 2021-11-30 18:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 16:55, stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2021, at 10:39 PM, Ewen Hill <ewen.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
Indigenous nations/country
I have a strong belief that we should allocate an entry around level
three to six for indigenous country. There will be discussion on
fuzziness of boundaries and ownership, a number of these have been
resolved already by the Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAP) for an
area however I don't see that being a huge issue. My key issue is
appropriation of the country and area polygons for the ability for
others to commercialise this or reduce the purchasing of indigenous
materials.
I don't see that all RAPs and others would update the map, however I
see having the ability to add this data and be able to index it, is
important to OSM in Australia.
Ewen
Yep, great idea!
We did discuss this briefly a little while ago, when Aus Post started
pushing for / allowing "Country" names to be included in mailing
addresses.
https://auspost.com.au/about-us/supporting-communities/rachael-mcphail-making-traditional-place-names-part-of-mailing-addresses
I agree that it may not be something that is very usable "now", but
it's something that will only gain in popularity over time, so let's
get in early with OSM!
"Um," (he begins timidly)...
It's alright Steve, we don't bite! (that hard anyway :-))
To sum it up simply - it's complicated!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_land_rights_in_Australia
So some areas could be aboriginal lands, but most aren't.
What I was talking about (& possibly Ewen) was to include the original
"nations" lands eg
https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia
Unfortunately, I'd think the chances of being allowed to use that map
are pretty well non-existent :-(
https://aiatsis.gov.au/form/permission/map
the challenges to OSM's admin_level scheme are great, and so far, not
completely "solved." ... Really, this can be a challenging problem to
solve (where there are "overlapping" or "shared" political areas and
it isn't "neat, clean and easy" to delineate one from the other).
Yep! :-(
Thanks
Graeme
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
