The previous tagging was inadequate, bordering on offensive (particularly with the rendering, which suggested indian nations and reservations were the same and more of a touristic draw than administratively significant). I've suggested using administrative level 3 and 5 for the purpose in north america, but this doesn't quite cover edge cases along national boundaries that don't apply to the indian nations in question; not sure if this might be a good or practical use for 1 or not. Either way, my idea for using these admin levels has been met with deafening silence.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Clifford Snow <[email protected]>wrote: > Looking at the wiki for help understanding why we don't have boundaries > reservations has left me confused. Can someone explain why they are not > there and if there is any plans to add them at some point in the future? > > From personal experience, it is important to know when you are on tribal > lands. Often different laws apply. In one Southwest part of the US, you > actually have to pay to take pictures on tribal lands. So knowing where you > are is important. > > I think I understand that the existing administrative levels don't work. > In the US at least, the reservations have a "domestic dependent nation" > status. They are not States, Counties yet contain cities. The often extend > past state boundaries, and certainly county boundaries. > > Thanks, > -- > Clifford > > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
