Gulf of America - Gulf of Mexico

[anon42959485]

No it’s not, I think my message was clear enough?

When Trump abuses his power to enforce a highly offensive and anti-Mexican name change, and especially when several US institutions and newspapers refuse to comply with this, I really don’t see why OpenStreetMap needs to blindly echo this name change.
If “Gulf of America” were a frequently used name in US, and there some sense behind this name, or if the intentions of the renaming were not so offensive, then I would happily support adding a " official_name:en-US" tag for it. But that’s not the case here.

Of course, the “just following orders” argument has a long history of winning. But as long as we are human, and not machines, there should be some room for ethical considerations like this.

[clay_c (Clay Smalley)]

Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Could you please describe how this follows or breaks OSM naming guidelines?

[dieterdreist (Martin Koppenhöfer)]

@anon42959485

If “Gulf of America” were a frequently used name in US, and there some sense behind this name, or if the intentions of the renaming were not so offensive, then I would happily support adding a " official_name:en-US" tag for it. But that’s not the case here.

that’s not the question for official_name, whether it is frequently used, it must be “official”.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@anon42959485

official_name:en-US

For the avoidance of doubt - that tag is “what the government calls it” not “what most people in the US call it”.

[anon42959485]

Hi, I’ve been here contributing since 2020, but thanks anyway

Could you point me to the place where I say that this breaks the OSM naming guidelines?

I’m asking you to make an ethical consideration before complying with an official name change. If that’s not something the OSM community welcomes, then fine, I’ll give up

[clay_c (Clay Smalley)]

@anon42959485

Could you point me to the place where I say that this breaks the OSM naming guidelines?

It’s been a while since I’ve had words put in my mouth like this. Weird feeling

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you want this dispute to be treated differently from every other politically-motivated naming dispute around the world. Do you have any suggestions to change the naming guidelines?

[coleisforrobot]

USGS’s GNIS now lists it as Gulf of America. By all legal standpoint, the Gulf of America is it’s official_name in en-US.

[anon42959485]

Hi. You’re free to agree or disagree, but there’s no need to get personal?
I have not quoted you, or said that you claim anything specific - so how on earth did I put words into your mouth?

I simply telling you that I wish that OSM can make ethical considerations before complying with an official name change, when this name change is obviously hostile.

Anyway, I’m done here. Bye

[Peter_Elderson]

For the record, I am preparing to issue a universe-wide edict that this water area is named Sea Of Delight, effective immediately. Just because I am a Brainbox fan. I will have my people send you the tags to use in OSM. Anyone not following these orders is immediately banned for life from my platform Freedom Of Speech.

[RKCook (Kelley Cook)]

@anon42959485

I wish that OSM can make ethical considerations before complying with an official name change, when this name change is obviously hostile.

Precisely, how is the new name of “America” hostile?

[GA_Kevin]

We can all understand this is a polarizing topic, especially in the United States, but also the rest of the world. OSM is not a moral compass or in the business of political statements. This is far from the only naming / territorial dispute and that’s precisely why we have tags such as official_name:en-US to portray its disputed nature. At the end of the day, that makes the geospatial database we all contribute to the most accurate and data consumers can choose which tag to display where for their needs / customer demands.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@RKCook

@anon42959485

when this name change is obviously hostile.

Precisely, how is the new name of “America” hostile?

I think that you’d have to have been living under a rock not to think that US politics has grown spectacularly more confrontational in recent years.

However, whether or not something is “hostile” or not isn’t relevant to OSM - we just need to think about what has changed, and if and how we should reflect that change.

[Mammi71 (One feature, Six mappers and still More ways to map it)]

@anon42959485

I’m asking you to make an ethical consideration before complying with an official name change.

@anon42959485 for you:
in OSM the name of the Gulf of Mexico was not changed (and when a contributor did this, it was put back to the old name).

Only another variant of a name for this sea area was added.

[NitaRae]

@SomeoneElse

However, whether or not something is “hostile” or not isn’t relevant to OSM - we just need to think about what has changed, and if and how we should reflect that change.

Which is the correct position to be taken. From how I’m reading the EO (and I’m very much welcome to be corrected) the name for that body of water has been bifurcated. The EO uses meticulous detail as to what the coverage of the change applies to. It does not apply to the entire body of water. It’s almost as tho there is (now) an invisible line across the body of water, where previously both sides of the line had the same name, because it was the given name, and was considered usual and customary, and no one really objected to it. Whomever the author of the EO was, they seem to be well aware that the authority to change the name on both sides (of that invisible line) does not exist. I’m not even sure if the OSM database contains a way that demarcates the position of the invisible line.

Some digging leads me to the following …
Executive Order promulgating the new name

Section 4, (b):

to rename as the “Gulf of America” the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico.

The operative phrases are U.S. Continental Shelf and seaward boundary.

This document at NOAA (Maritime Zones and Boundaries) has more details, and begins with a graphic picture that shows where the U.S. Continental Shelf extends to. Beneath the graphic are two paragraphs, the second of which says:

For the official description of the U.S. maritime boundaries with other nations, contact the U.S. Department of State.

I have not followed down that rabbit hole, but it clearly recognizes that other nations have rights, and that what are likely to be treaties exist.

Now, having poked around a bit more, I came across this document ( The U.S. ECS ) which has now been updated to show exactly where the new name Gulf of America applies. So someone at State has been trying to correctly delineate the extent of the name change, and it does not apply to the entire body of water.

Taking the EO, and applying it to the entire Gulf of Mexico|America seems like a leap, beyond what the EO says (and very possibly was the intention from the get-go).

Should OSM do a bifurcation is way above my pay grade, but the evidence suggests it is a possible way forward.

[hoserab]

@NitaRae

Should OSM do a bifurcation is way above my pay grade, but the evidence suggests it is a possible way forward.

OSM should reflect official usage as closely as possible, and as you pointed out the president’s position on the matter is meticulously detailed in the instrument he signed. As such, a separate area should be added to the map, with the official_name:en-US tag added to it. To add that tag to the entire gulf is spurious presumption; it’s quite clearly not what was intended.

[dieterdreist (Martin Koppenhöfer)]

As such, a separate area should be added to the map, with the official_name:en-US tag added to it.

we don’t map this kind of entity with areas, it could be a node. The atlantic ocean in OpenStreetMap is a node.

[Richard (Richard Fairhurst)]

I love the naive optimism with which Discourse keeps telling me “This is the first time HighlyOriginalThought8360 has posted - let’s welcome them to our community!”

It reminds me of circa 2007 when I thought “hey, maybe we can hash out the pros and cons of different licences on this mailing list and we’ll come to an informed consensus soon!”

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@Richard

“This is the first time HighlyOriginalThought8360 has posted - let’s welcome them to our community!”

I know that sometimes I don’t always “assume good faith” but personally I think that it’s great that people come to OSM to talk about how these sorts of changes get made. To be honest, there haven’t been as many fixed opinions in this thread than there have been in the DWG’s postbag on similar issues (“well obviously X belongs to country Y - country Z are a bunch of scumbags”).

There have certainly been a few crossed wires about what has already happened in OSM and how names of places even work, which isn’t so surprising if you’re less familiar with how the sausage is made than people have been here for getting on for 20 years. Until Peter’s edict comes into force and we can name everything after Dutch 60s prog rock songs, we have to deal with the world as it is, with politicians in it.

[Fizzie41]

@SomeoneElse

we have to deal with the world as it is, with politicians in it

Do we have to?

[hoserab]

@dieterdreist

we don’t map this kind of entity with areas, it could be a node. The atlantic ocean in OpenStreetMap is a node.

I only suggest an area in order to disambiguate, but my overarching point is per the president’s signed order the “Gulf of America” is not coincident with the Gulf of Mexico: it’s just a small subset of the overall body of water.