On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Greg Morgan dr.kludge...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'd say make the changes at the city admin level for these reasons. The
tribal nations are viewed by the courts as territories but they tend to act
more at the city[4] to county[3] COG [1] level. The squabbles feel
I don't mean to offend any one in the tribal nations but I don't really
care about voting aspects of the admin levels in the discussion. This is a
mechanical geometry placement issue in my view. The Tohono-Oodham and
Glendale Arizona case show just how messed this issue can be in making the
right
I don't see how that's the case, the reason being that the Supreme Court
has clearly ruled that tribes are above the state but semi-dependant on the
fed, as far as the law is concerned. Furthermore, the state may still
intervene, but has the option not to in situations where it would otherwise
be
But, basically, what it boils down to, effectively, for us, is that tribal
nations, as far as the current supreme court is concerned, views such areas
as being much more analogous to Puerto Rico and Guam than as states, cities
or counties. PR and Guam are subservient territories of the US, but
OK, given pnroman's git maps, and recent court cases, where's the problem
in my proposed tagging of indian nations, overlapping states but below the
US proper?
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Looks about right. So...what's the issue?
On Wed, Jun 25,
I should add that I do not intend on changing state boundaries, just
mapping indian nations where I know the boundaries to lie on the ground, as
higher than state, lower than the country, inside the US only, if that
wasn't clear on the admin level argument. It would still be possible to
render a
On 2014-07-18 10:53 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
I should add that I do not intend on changing state boundaries, just
mapping indian nations where I know the boundaries to lie on the
ground, as higher than state, lower than the country, inside the US
only, if that wasn't clear on the admin level
Looks about right. So...what's the issue?
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
On 2014-06-25 3:36 PM, Steve All wrote:
Paul Norman wrote:
I took TIGER data and produced data showing what some states would look
like:
On 2014-06-24 6:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Do you propose cutting the areas out of the states, i.e. so that IRs
are not in any admin_level=4 relations? That's what you have to do if
you're fitting IRs into the admin_level hierarchy.
No, since the states often have agreements for limited
Insightful maps!
If this were reality, then why don't the official boundary files from
Census look like this? I don't think we should be changing our
admin_boundaries just yet.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
On 2014-06-24 6:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Do
On 2014-06-25 3:36 PM, Steve All wrote:
Paul Norman wrote:
I took TIGER data and produced data showing what some states would look
like: https://gist.github.com/pnorman/30244b2984216285735d
Those are truly excellent visualizations, Paul. Thank you for
producing them. Whether right or
Paul Norman wrote:
I took TIGER data and produced data showing what some states would look
like: https://gist.github.com/pnorman/30244b2984216285735d
Those are truly excellent visualizations, Paul. Thank you for
producing them. Whether right or wrong this shows the power of a
little bit of
12 matches
Mail list logo
