There are some Tribal reservation boundaries in OSM like Cherokee Nation and Choctaw Nation, but there are many missing. These seem to be labeled as boundary=aboriginal_lands. Some of them are fairly nicely done, including language support such as name:chr and the Cherokee typeset. These should all be in place and appropriately linked to Wikidata items and Wikipedia pages.
We should develop a good relationship between rich linked data in Wikidata, explicit geospatial data in OSM, and visual derivatives such as locator images in Wikimedia commons. It is currently impossible to search for all OSM boundary=aboriginal_lands, even within a U.S. State, using purely geospatial methods because the areas are simply too large. This is a limitation we can readily overcome with linked data, of course, but linkages have to be developed. As I look at this issue, I need to be thinking about the tag schema in OSM toward what linked data we want to transform from of Wikidata to support increased usability in the OSM context.
There are some Tribal reservation boundaries in OSM like Cherokee Nation and Choctaw Nation, but there are many missing. These seem to be labeled as boundary=aboriginal_lands. Some of them are fairly nicely done, including language support such as name:chr and the Cherokee typeset. These should all be in place and appropriately linked to Wikidata items and Wikipedia pages.
We should develop a good relationship between rich linked data in Wikidata, explicit geospatial data in OSM, and visual derivatives such as locator images in Wikimedia commons. It is currently impossible to search for all OSM boundary=aboriginal_lands, even within a U.S. State, using purely geospatial methods because the areas are simply too large. This is a limitation we can readily overcome with linked data, of course, but linkages have to be developed. As I look at this issue, I need to be thinking about the tag schema in OSM toward what linked data we want to transform from of Wikidata to support increased usability in the OSM context.