Open cstephen opened 2 years ago
These are distinct land planning regions but both Gwich'in territory. Would be best to merge the Type field with the Name field to produce "Tetlit Gwich'in Council Primary Use Area" and "Tetlit Gwich'in Council Secondary Use Area". I'd advise against merging.
Good shout there Mike! Thanks for weighing in. Should we just use the combined names for all the polygons (i.e., every name
is the name
and the type
like "Selkirk First Nation Traditional Territory"?
Just to illustrate in case we have to look back, these are the polygons in question (not projected):
Merging would work well. All of the names would include the type label to keep them unique with the universal type label "First Nations Traditional Territory".
These seem to be separate because one polygon is a "Primary Use Area" while the other is a "Secondary Use Area" (there is a field
type
in the dataset that has this info, other values include "Traditional Territory" and "Settlement Region") - there may be some distinction between these but I don't know that it is important to our use case. We could potentially merge these two particular polygons? @MikeDelue may know more.