last time this was discussed the question was between 2 and 3 continents 
My opinion is that Denali and the Gulf of Mexico should not be renamed as the result of a petty political decision made by one man. If the name changes see widespread use, fine, go for it. But for now, no change should be made. Regarding the Denali change specifically, you can tell itâs not popular when Alaskans have been outspoken about how they prefer Denali over Mount McKinley.
10 Likes
So this is similar to âPeru renaming the Pacific Ocean to Mar de Grauâ and can be solved similarly by creating a boundary=maritime for this part of the US Continental Shelf.
5 Likes
I see that someone added a check_date=* to the gulf. Iâm not quite sure how Iâm supposed to interpret that though. Does this mean the gulf hasnât drained yet?
10 Likes
I think we should do:
official_name:en-US=Gulf of Americaonce the board pushed itname:en=Gulf of Mexicobecause thatâs the most used name (and most accepted name) currently in the english language
Iâm not sure about doing name:en-US (like @GA_Kevin suggested) because this seems weird (donât we already have official_name and name:en for this usecase? Maybe even alt_name:en-US, but name:en-US seems weird to me (tho I didnât read the wiki about it)).
1 Like
Wouldnât en-us signify the name in American English?Which being a language isnât controlled by the government.
As such I think offical_name:en:us is better especially since you could provide translations to that if you wanted too. There isnât an American version of meĂ€nkieli so -us doesnât make sense
2 Likes
Rather then official_name:en:us Iâd say official_name:en-US, this makes it translatable (and not have as many sub-keys)
2 Likes
Depositing my two cents before these coins depreciate even further due to inflationary pressure:
name=* is defined as the primary name of the feature. For a feature in the natural environment, the primary name generally comes from either common or official usage (as opposed to a small placard someone found somewhere). The more well-known and widely known a natural feature, the more credence we typically give to common usage in case of conflict with official usage.
According to the multilingual name tagging scheme, name:*=* subkeys conform to the IETFâs BCP 47 standard, so name:en=* is defined as the primary name in the English language. Weâre inconsistent about whether this is the name in the local dialect of English or according to a consensus of English dialects. For example, name:en=United States follows common American English, not the official name[1] or the customary name in British English.[2] On the other hand, name:en=Salt Lake City differs from the local dialect, which calls the city simply âSalt Lakeâ. But in these cases, neither name is particularly controversial, and user comprehension doesnât suffer greatly from the use of one or the other.
BCP 47 also allows us to pair a language code with an ISO country code as shorthand for a âdialectâ, so name:en-US=* would indicate the primary commonplace name in American English. Some languages like Chinese and Portuguese use country-qualified codes fairly frequently to accommodate different dialects. English doesnât normally have so many naming differences that fall neatly along national dialectal lines. Usually our differences are about more practical matters, like what to call association football. In fact, American English is an umbrella term for the multitude of dialects of English spoken in the United States.
Unfortunately, this dialect tagging scheme clashes with the Data Working Groupâs officially documented approach for indicating a geopolitical naming dispute. For example, the Vietnamese government takes the position that the South China Sea should be called the âEast Vietnamese Seaâ in English, contrary to what the Chinese and Philippine governments would prefer. Conversely, the U.S. federal government accepts the Vietnamese governmentâs name for Ho Chi Minh City, but ordinary Vietnamese speakers in the U.S. refuse to call the city by this name or let anyone else do so domestically. Few linguists recognize a âVietnamese Englishâ dialect or âAmerican Vietnameseâ dialect, but name:en-VN=* and name:vi-US=* can be understood as the names that would be commonplace in Vietnam when using English and in the U.S. when using Vietnamese, whatever the reason.
These country-qualified names discourage edit wars and politically motivated vandalism that contradicts the projectâs consensus about the on-the-ground rule. So far, since Iâve added name:vi-US=* to Ho Chi Minh City, no one has unilaterally changed name:vi=* to SĂ i GĂČn. This seems to work better than just adding alt_name=* or old_name=*, because name:vi-US=* appears right below the name that some people find objectionable in an alphabetically sorted list of tags. It might help that some data consumers can show the usual name to Vietnamese speakers except to those in the U.S., or that search engines that index one key will likely index the other with very similar behavior.
Still, âGulf of Americaâ has yet to enter common usage. Common usage matters in this case because the federal government created the name out of whole cloth and applied it to a feature it doesnât fully control. Historically, weâve been much more willing to promptly rename a country when the country decides to rename itself, or a mountain when the government renames it according to local wishes or longstanding unofficial usage. Without that basis, it would be prudent to exercise more caution. We havenât seen, for instance, the National Geographic Society making any urgent moves. We havenât even seen a sudden stop to the use of âGolf of Mexicoâ. (Which has been climbing again lately; such is the state of language and geography education in this country.)
Until then, official_name:en-US=* is probably the most recognition we can give this name for the time being.
Yes, this is a good precedent for us to follow. Maritime boundaries are multifaceted, so the more detail we can provide, the less potential for conflict and confusion. Most people donât distinguish between the whole gulf and the territorial claims within it, so there may or may not be a long-term effect on how some people refer to the whole gulf, but at least a separately mapped maritime boundary could defuse the issue for a while.
The delimited boundaries between Cuba, Mexico, and the U.S. based on bilateral agreements are available from NOAA in the public domain, along with other valuable maritime boundary datasets. Hurry before anything happens to that climate science agency. Note that thereâs a preexisting dispute between Mexico and the U.S. regarding both countriesâ extended continental shelf.
Whatever happens to name=*, thereâs a strong case for emphasizing the name Denali using reg_name=Denali. The Alaska Historical Commission has statutory authority over geographic names within the state (not binding on the federal government). So far, it seems unlikely that the AHC wouldâve gone along with the federal renaming, so we might have a geopolitical dispute between a country and a political subdivision of that country. There is longstanding precedent for handling this situation in the U.S., including on federal property:
Various mappers over the years have attempted to expand it to âUnited States of Americaâ, on account of the countryâs abnormally large waistline in Mercator projection. â©ïž
As any BBC News presenter will tell you, itâs simply âAmericaâ. They care about making the map label fit even when the user puts the telly on its side. â©ïž
11 Likes
That seems appropriate when it becomes official. Until then, alt_name:en-US=* seems more appropriate.
14 Likes
See also: Persian Gulf naming dispute - Wikipedia
The sections about the US viewpoint might be particularly interesting since they are who weâre dealing with here.
It is still commonly and officially called âPersian Gulfâ, despite the insistence of the political allies of the USA to call it âArabian Gulfâ instead. The US military only uses that name as a courtesy when they are dealing directly with one of those states.
In OSM it has the name:* âPersian Gulfâ in pretty much all languages. âArabian Gulfâ is set as alt_name:*.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9326283
2 Likes
OSM should follow the global consensus and use Golf of Mexico.
1 Like
Mind that regardless of the official names declared (and the associated tags), this new name is likely to enter alt_name:en territory soon enough (possibly already).
That is, it is (also) an alternative English name, not necessarily limited to American English, even though it originates in the US. Iâm sure someone like Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson wouldnât shy away from calling it that (if it nets them a bonus from Musk), despite, ostensibly, speaking British English.
1 Like
Steps to be taken:
a. Wait and see what happens, do nothing yet. Use lots of popcorn.
b. When anything becomes established, act accordingly.
These steps apply to many more events and situations. For more complicated situations, I have several 3-step protocols up my sleeve.
25 Likes
So it turns out the UNGEGN is not actually a decisionmaking authority on individual toponyms. Their role is to encourage and facilitate standardization. They literally issue guidelines about guidelines. The closest thing to an authority on the gulfâs name in international law would be the International Hydrographic Organization. The IHOâs Limits of Oceans and Seas has been frozen in time without any updates since 1953, apparently because Japan and South Korea canât agree on a name for the sea separating them. Maybe a certain dealmaker can get them to the bargaining tableâŠ
5 Likes
Within the first 24 hours? 
3 Likes
My timing is too goo. Somebody changed it one minute ago and I randomly checked this post.
How does OSM prevent further vandalism?
1 Like
1 Like
I plan to add alt_name:en-US in the next hours. There seems to be enough consensus here with the proposals by you and Minh_Nguyen. Currently seems to be more an US-thing.
To the original Gulf of Mexico node? Itâs not clear to me there is a consensus for that, given the comments abiut this decree applying only to a more limited area. If we need to change something, isnât there a case for a separate node further north?
7 Likes
Thatâs hard to answer right now. Here in the US, itâs a politicized topic so you have half the country embracing the name, the other refusing it. Until the board acts on the secretary of the interiors request (which the president of the US Executive Order is actually doing) nothing is official. Further, the EO only defines a portion of the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. If approved officially, discussion will have to happen on if this should be added to the Gulf of Mexico node as official_name:en-US or as a separate (overlapping largely) way. To have that discussion now is premature as nothing has officially been done sans a directive to the secretary of the interior to start the process.
That said, it is an alternate name right now, as people in the US (even if not everyone, a fair share of people) would refer to this body of water as the Gulf of America. If anything is to be changed today, it would be a simple addition of alt_name:en-US=Gulf of America.
5 Likes