For tagging Aboriginal lands (reserves) I agree with using "boundary=aboriginal_land".
-- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Service New Brunswick (506) 444-2077 45°56'25.21"N, 66°38'53.65"W www.snb.ca/geonb/ -----Original Message----- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: Thursday, 2012-02-09 17:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands > It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of > Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community > concerning the tags/values to use? > I've found some links to. > - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land > - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 > - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
