I'm currently working on conflating the boundaries in Oklahoma right now, got most of the northeastern ones handled.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:13 PM Alan McConchie <alan.mcconc...@gmail.com> wrote: > After a few months of discussion and refinement in the default OSM style > sheet, and then a few more weeks of waiting for the styles to percolate to > the rendering servers, we can now see aboriginal areas showing up on the > map! Please take a moment to check the map in any parts of the world you're > familiar with, to see if the aboriginal_lands and protect_class=24 features > are showing up as we expect them to, or if there are any obvious ones > missing. > > Again, thanks to everyone who help get this tag discussed, approved, and > finally added to the map! > > Alan > > > On Dec 13, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Alan McConchie <alan.mcconc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > The voting period for boundary=aboriginal_lands has now closed, and > there were 45 votes in favor and 7 against, so the tag has now been > approved. > > > > I created the new wiki page for the tag here: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands > > > > The map rendering still needs a bit of discussion about colors (to avoid > color conflict with the same brown used by zoos and theme parks) but this > is not the place for that conversation. The github issue remains open for > debate here: > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3520 > > > > So what's next? It now appears that "boundary=aboriginal_lands" is > synonymous with "boundary=protected_area" + "protect_class=24", and both > tagging styles have roughly similar usage in the database. I'm curious to > see over time whether mappers start to use "boundary=aboriginal_lands" more > frequently, or if people keep using both. Perhaps at some point in the > future we can have a discussion about whether to deprecate the > "boundary=protected_area" + "protect_class=24" approach, or if we should > just keep supporting both methods in simultaneously. But I'm not in a hurry > to start that discussion right now. > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who took part in this discussion and who voted on the > proposal! > > > > Alan > > > > > >> On Nov 24, 2018, at 4:38 PM, Alan McConchie <alan.mcconc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> The tag boundary=aboriginal_lands has been discussed on-and-off for a > long time in OSM. I'd like to raise the topic one last time and hopefully > come to some consensus about it. > >> > >> The tag proposal on the wiki dates from 2008, but the original proposal > was from the user Sam Vekemans (username acrosscanadatrails) who is no > longer participating in OpenStreetMap, as far as I can tell. He never moved > the proposal to a vote, so the page has remained in the proposal state all > this time. > >> > >> Here's the proposal: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands > >> > >> (I've tried to updated the wiki page somewhat, but leaving the > discussion intact) > >> > >> In the following years, some people have started using that proposed > tag, mostly in Canada and somewhat in the United States. > >> > >> Here's the overpass query for boundary=aboriginal_lands: > http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV4 > >> > >> There has also been extensive discussion over the years on the > boundary=aboriginal_lands page, and it seems like the consensus is that the > tag is necessary and better than any alternatives. But it was never voted > on as a proposal. > >> > >> In the intervening years, tagging native reservations with > boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24 has also gained popularity. This > tag combination seems to be popular in South America, Australia, and also > in parts of the United States. I can't find any evidence for why people > chose this tag combination instead of boundary=aboriginal_lands. It appears > that the tags are pretty much interchangeable. Most of the features in > Brazil however are tagged incorrectly for the renderer, mixing > leisure=nature_reserve with protect_class=24, so that the areas show up on > the default renderer with the nature reserve green style. > >> > >> Here's the overpass query for protect_class=24: > http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV5 > >> > >> Wiki page for boundary=protected_area: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area > >> > >> In 2014, there were three messages on the tagging mailing list, from > Paul Johnson and Clifford Snow. > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-November/020160.html > But at that time, we didn't come any answers. > >> > >> There seems to be no argument about whether or not aboriginal areas are > important features that should be mapped. The only question is how to tag > them. > >> > >> So the question is: > >> > >> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? > Or should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and > instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24? > >> > >> > >> I'd like to officially open the voting period now, so we can once and > for all come to a conclusion on this 10-year-long discussion. Please review > the discussion on the wiki page and cast your vote at the bottom: > >> > >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands > >> > >> > >> Alan > >> > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
