On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
> The previous tagging was inadequate, bordering on offensive
>
Which tagging was that?
It is my understanding that First Nations boundaries just don't fit within
the simple number-line model that OpenStreetMap has used for
boundary=administrative; admin_level={integer}.
boundary=aboriginal_lands
was used in 2010, based on donated data and little discussion. Is that the
"inadequate, bordering on offensive" tagging?
If it is acceptable, inoffensive and accurate, I'd be pleased to see that
tagging continue, or something like:
boundary=administrative, admin_level=first_nation / or some other value.
The rendering tools would have to catch up. It might not be rendered on
your favourite tile set, but it should be fully possible to make the data
up to date and accurate and complete to the best of our abilities. But it
seems that using an integer, or some fraction on the number line just won't
work.
One first nation[1] includes portions of what might otherwise be
considered, two admin_level=2s (USA and Canada) and three admin_level=4s
(New York state, Ontario province and Quebec province) and has been
described as a "jurisdictional nightmare".
[1] http://www.akwesasne.ca/
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
