Proposed Features/Tag:boundary=aboriginal lands
|Status:||Proposed (under way)|
|Definition:||Tagging the boundary of aboriginal lands.|
|Rendered as:||heavy dashed line|
The boundary=administrative does not work since some aboriginal lands are equivalent in jurisdiction to province and others to country. So therefore, an aboriginal lands admin_level=* is not equivalent to a numerical value.
Also, the border_type=native_reserve or territorial is not needed, because the the tag for boundaries boundary=* already marks the borders of areas, mostly political, but also of other administrative areas.
Also add source=to identify where you got the information from.
Add wikipedia=* to list the wiki article about the people living on the reserve.
Add description=description of the reserve to help further identify it.
Add url=[web site of the reserve web site of the reserve] if it is available
Add image=an http://.... .jpg link to a picture to show what the reserve looks like
Another option is to use "first_nation" or "indian_reserve". In the GeoBase dataset, it's called "GeoBase Aboriginal Lands"
Wikipedia:Aboriginal peoples in Canada comprise the First Nations, Inuit and Métis. The descriptors "Indian" and "Eskimo" are falling into disuse. Old Crow Flats and Bluefish Caves are the earliest archaeological sites of human habitation in Canada. The Paleo-Indian Clovis, Plano cultures and Pre-Dorset pre-date American indigenous and Inuit cultures. Projectile point tools, spears, pottery, bangles, chisels and scrapers mark archaeological sites, thus distinguishing cultural periods, traditions and lithic reduction styles.
This is the sample area showing the T'Souke 1 - reserve. See both sides of the hwy14 https://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.38736&lon=-123.69178&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF
Currently, admin_level=3 is shown north of hwy14 is shown north of hwy 14. (as a sample to show how it could be rendered)
Suggestion: First Nations and Indian Reservations should be boundary=administrative; admin_level=1; border_type=first_nation; as they are international.
- Should borders like this really be administrative? Certainly using admin_level=1 for this just looks wrong to me... --Eimai 17:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Eimai. If they are international borders, they should be treated as admin_level=2 just like other international borders. --Hawke 05:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that we remove these from admin_level=1, and use something else instead. We now have a boundary=national_park, which arguably has some administrative function. In the same way as the various equivalents of "National Parks" in other countries, these cross various administrative boundaries, and should probably be considered as being orthogonal to county and state-level borders. For example, the Brecon Beacons National Park includes land in no fewer than nine counties. boundary=indian_reserve perhaps? Chriscf 11:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- It can also apply to other native people, such as the Masaai in Kenya/Tanzania or the Samii in Norway/Sweeden/Finland/Russia. boundary=native_reserve or boundary=native_nation is probably better. But I fully support removing them from boundary=administrative. Let admin_level=1 be reserved for supernational administrative borders such as the European union. --Skippern 13:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Eimai ... Skippern. In spite of the great respect I can have for those Nations and Peoples... There are other solution, like the Skippern's one. FrViPofm
- boundary=native_reserve; border_type=territorial; place=region/county/city whatever that fits; name=*; description=description of the reserve; www=web site of the reserve, if any; wikipedia=wiki article about the people living on the reserve; population=number of people living in the reserve; and do not forget source=*. I think admin_level is not suitable for such reserves. --Skippern 13:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- admin_level=4 -- because it has its own jurisdiction which is similar to a 'state/province' level, where it is still within a country (generally) more times than not. There are special cases (just like countries that are in transition & dispute). In some countries there are signed agreements with members of each group.
- landuse=reserve -- in OSM, both the landuse and drawing the actual property line is used interchangeably. In this case. the default landuse would be the fact that the whole are is a reserve. When more details are known, these can also be mapped; Listing the physical environment, such as 'natural=wood' natural=grass natural=water.
--acrosscanadatrails 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, This would imply that, for instance, Cowichan 1 is not part of British Columbia and is a province in its own right. It doesn't even have its own government but is rather just one of 9 reserves in the Cowichan Tribes, and Cowichan Tribes as a whole is more comparable to a municipality in its scope than a province. I would give Cowichan tribes as a whole an admin level of 7 or 8, and Cowichan 1 no higher than 9. Landuse seems inappropriate as being part of a reserve doesn't imply any particular use of the land and many specific land uses can occur; Cowichan 1 has residential, commercial, farmland, industrial, forestry, and unused land. And what exactly would place=boundary:type be as distinct from straight boundary=*? --Hai-Etlik 01:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- The use of landuse=reserve would mean that you could not have part of the land used for farming, residences etc. Some aboriginal areas do get used for multiple things in different sections. boundary=aboriginal_lands clearly sets this aside from other boundaries as it should be. Warin61 (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Taginfo map of boundary=aboriginal_lands: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/sji