If the aboriginal lands are the same as were previously imported in BC I don't think they're really suitable for use. A single reserve is split up into much smaller areas at each of the roads. While I'm sure this is legally correct, it's not much use for mapping.
I think boundary=aboriginal_land is the best tagging for them. It might be worth talking with talk-us@ as well for the exact value - reserves in the US are similar to those in Canada. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM > To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands > > Bonjour Tyler, > > Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on > GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. > > The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal > Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K > map sheet coverage. > > Best regards, > Daniel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] > Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 > 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 _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca