Conspicuous edits with name:pl

Dear Polish mappers,
this is an automatic translation with DeepL. I apologise for any mistakes.

In the German forum we have discussed a lot of additions to name:pl=*. Most of the change sets are in northern Germany and are all from a relatively new mapper polishnamer. The changesets all have the same changeset comment and refer almost exclusively to small and very small geographical objects such as small villages, hamlets, streams, small hills and so on. (Examples: here or here)

We ask for your opinion:

We are not aware that these many small geographical objects have a common (!) Polish name today. This is also not in accordance with the wiki, where it says among other things:

It also does not comply with the internationally accepted and recommended rules for the use of exonyms (see United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN)). We assume that the Polish Komisja Standaryzacji Nazw Geograficznych (KSNG) also sees it similarly: as many exonyms as necessary, as few as possible. Unfortunately, the official lists of the KSNG are currently not accessible. However, some lists can be found in Wikipedia, at least in excerpts.

Initially, polishnamer did not cite the source. Through our own research we found Stanisław Kozierowski Atlas nazw geograficznych Słowiańszczyzny Zachodniej, which has since been confirmed by polishnamer in a changeset discussion.

In terms of the ODbL licence, the use of this source is fine. We also know that many Polish names used today go back to Kozierowski’s work, especially in Pomerania and Silesia. Some of the names listed by Kozierowski are in use, e.g. Roztoka, Strzalow, Bardo for Rostok, Stralsund and Barth. However, this does not apply to the names added by polishmapper.

Furthermore, polishnamer made mistakes when “importing” the names from Kozierowski’s map. Too many errors for the small area I know reasonably well! They are errors from unchecked data import (copying) from Kozierowski’s atlas (see Nowopole), insufficient understanding of the language and lack of local knowledge:

Franzburg is the name of this village since 1591. Nowopole is a translation/derivation of Neuenkamp, the name of a monastery that existed here from 1231 - 1535. The monastery was founded by monks from the Altenkamp monastery (today: Kamp monastery in Kamp-Lintfort) on the Lower Rhine. The name was first Latin: Novum Campum (lat. campus = field), then Low German: Nyencampe, later Neuenkamp. Franzburg is actually “on the ground”. Nowopole is an historical name. We therefore do not believe that Nowopole is used by Polish speakers today.

Richtenberg - name:pl=Popów is obviously wrong. Popów lies at about this point on Kozierowski’s map, but fits more with Papenhagen, presumably formerly a neighbouring village of Richtenberg. Richtenberg itself probably goes back to Slavic “reka” (water) and “berch” (shore) (see Website of the town of Richtenberg, Polish “rzeki brzeg” fits better?

For Sanitz polishnamer has added: alt_name:pl=Zające and name:pl=Zajęce. It would probably be more correct the other way round: name:pl=Zające; Zajęce, on the other hand, is West Slavic.

Ahrenshoop: name:pl=Charcina or Orłowo?
Charcina is a little further south on Kozierowski’s map, approximately at Althagen.
accordingly, the Ahrenshooper Holz is then also wrong.

Strumianki is incorrectly georeferenced. It is part of the “Sundiesche Wiesen” (means Stralsund Meadows = łąka Strzałówa?). “Strumianki” is probably related to polish “strumień” (brook, stream?). And a former connection between the lagoon and the Baltic Sea, today called in German Alte Straminke, fits in with this. Note the similarity of the name, which suggests a Slavic origin.

The forest with the German name Osterholz (means Eastern Forest) is called by Polishnamer Sianożęt. This is wrong! Sianożęt=Zingst is the name of both the municipality and the peninsula of Zingst. The name comes from the Polabian “seno” (Polish siano, Engl. hay) and has nothing to do with forest. Note also the font size on Kozierowski’s map! Kozierowski was quite certainly referring to the peninsula in addition to the village.

The island Großer Werder is called name:pl=Ujście. This is a linguistic contradiction: “Werder” is a typical, rather North German term for a small island (see Werder Bremen, Havelwerder), usually in a river. Ujście=dt. “mouth” (see also Ujście Warnawy = Warnemünde). This is also how Kozierowski refers to the body of water rather than the island. Presumably, the mouth of the lagoon waters into the Baltic Sea was located here several hundred years ago.

Similarly, the island Bock: name:pl=Nowa Rzeka (Engl. “New River”) does not denote an island. Kozierowski obviously meant the current channel / navigation channel between Bock and Zarrenzin or Barhöft, today called “Barther Zufahrt”.

Zarrenzin or Czarnocin is wrong. The deserted village of Zarrenzin lies a little further south in the area of the two woods. Today’s car park was no longer part of the former village. For this, however, one needs knowledge of history and of the place.

Because of the many errors and wrong assignments in the mapping and because we are of the opinion that the names are not common in Polish, we advocate a revert. How do you see this?
In order to avoid a discussion in different places, we explicitly invite you to answer in the German forum, gladly also in English.

Thank you very much

Translated with (free version)

I really doubt that these names exist. I’ve checked a few random ones and there is nothing on the internet. Look like fake. But ask the user what source he used (did you send him a message?). If he gives any, it may be some kind of pre-war map. And even then I would remove these names, because it is hard to verify them, and they’re not at all useful. Small villages or streams in Germany don’t have Polish names. I’m against adding made up names - if something doesn’t have a name, don’t add it.

Yes, we did that in this changeset comment

That’s right:

This map is from 1937. Interesting document, but it is a scientific paper, not up to date in 2022 and in my opinion not a general and common use in relation to small geographical objects.

Further discussion in the German forum please:

A tu np. jest Kraków, jakby ktoś szukał :roll_eyes::

O matko, Wielka Lechia na pełnej…
Niech ktoś to wycofa

Warto rzucić okiem w źródło tych nazw, “Atlas nazw geograficznych Słowiańszczyzny Zachodniej”. Już sam wstęp wgniata w fotel. Bardzo ładnie w Wikipedii o nim napisali – “Choć atlas ma pewne niedostatki naukowe, ma wysoką wartość normującą polskie nazwy urzędowe”. Tłumacząc na nasze – sporo tam bzdur, ale w stosownej chwili nie mieliśmy pod ręką nic lepszego.

Trochę analogiczne to do tagowania name:de dla niemieckich nazw miejscowości sprzed 1945 r. na “ziemiach odzyskanych” które powinno być zmienione na old_name:de ale jeszcze w wielu rejonach się utrzymuje. Wystarczy sporzeć na lubuskie na To wszystko są absolutnie nieużywane nazwy (oczywiście oprócz może większych miast).

Jak dla mnie, ksiądz Kozierowski mógł nawet mieć IMPONUJĄCĄ wiedzę w zakresie, co nie zmienia faktu, że im bardziej na zachód, tym bardziej to jest “temu miejscu da się przypisać słowiańską etymologię, która po spolszczeniu brzmiałaby…”. To nigdy nie były istniejące polskie nazwy.

Nie do końca. To o czym ty mówisz, to nazwy których pojedynczy użytkownicy jeszcze żyją, archiwalnych materiałów z nimi dostępnych jest zatrzęsienie. Natomiast dorabianie na podstawie średniowiecznych, robionych po łacinie zapisków, nigdy później nieużywanych nazw jest bezzasadne. Jako ciekawostka (i tak należy ów Atlas traktować) – OK, ale nie w OSM.

Automatic translation with Deepl:

Wszystkim polskim kolegom: Dziękuję za opinię. Wykorzystanie “Atlasu nazw geograficznych Słowiańszczyzny Zachodniej” jako źródła wydaje się już tak błędne, że inne błędy w mapowaniu nie mają już znaczenia.