Using name:en with Māori-origin names in New Zealand

[darkonus]

Kia ora! I am interested in the usage of name keys supplemented with en and mi language codes in New Zealand. I’ve noticed what seems to be an inconsistency, and I was hoping the local community could clarify whether this is a genuine discrepancy or an intentional practice.

In New Zealand, there are many English-language names like Richmond Station, Stoneleigh Station, or Roundhill Ski Field. There are also many hybrid names where the generic terms are in English but the specific part is in Māori (or a modified version of it): Ruataniwha Conservation Park, Lake Ōhau. Additionally, there are numerous dual bilingual names where both English and Māori names are used with a separator.

My main question is: is it correct that name:en can include values as diverse as Richmond Station, Mount Taranaki, and Wānaka?

I have no issues with the first example. The second one contains a generic term in English, which justifies name:en. But the third one… I understand that Wānaka is used by English speakers, as they form the majority of the population. However, can it truly be considered “a name in English”?

I am the author of a thread regarding “transformed names” where we discussed using the -t- extension to denote names transformed under the influence of, or from, one language to another. The idea was met with some skepticism, and I agree such keys shouldn’t be used mass-scale to tag “source languages” buried deep in history (like Latin or Sanskrit).

However, perhaps mappers in a region like Oceania could find value in this approach? Would name:en-t-mi = Wānaka be more accurate than name:en = Wānaka? After all, if an object has both name:mi and name:en set to Wānaka, couldn’t one logically argue for name:mi and name:en both being set to Queenstown?

It seems that name:en globally often denotes something broader than just the English language (the inclusion of names from various languages into the English linguistic system, or the usage of foreign names by English speakers). What is the local consensus on this?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

[RobJN (Rob Nickerson)]

English, like many other languages, is not a static language. It is on the West Germanic branch of classical language “trees”. However, English is often described as a hybrid on the tree because, although it is genetically Germanic, nearly 60% of its vocabulary comes from Latin and French (Romance languages) due to historical contact. And it continues to evolve today picking up entirely new words and adopting/adapting words from other languages.

All that to say, if an English speaker would use the word in common conversation, then I feel it is ok to put that word in name:en even if the word comes from another language / has only come into common use by English speakers in recent years.

Old places names in English that have dropped out of common use (e.g. those from the colonial past) should go in OpenHistoricalMap instead. Maybe also in a historical name tag in OSM.

P.s. this is my view as an English speaker in England. If locals want to decide something else then feel free to.

[hoserab]

Hello again darkonus. As was explained in your “Tagging names transformed from one language to another” topic:

@Minh_Nguyen

Unlike some other languages, English is a largely unregulated language; no official standard governs the use of exonyms in general. English is also very accommodating of loanwords from other languages. It’s better to think of name:en=* as the answer to the question, “What would an English speaker use?”

name:en=* is not about tagging names that are etymologically ‘English’: it’s for tagging the name that English-speakers use.

With respect to your example of Wānaka, New Zealand:

@darkonus

I understand that Wānaka is used by English speakers, as they form the majority of the population. However, can it truly be considered “a name in English”?

Yes!

Would name:en-t-mi = Wānaka be more accurate than name:en = Wānaka ?

No! name:en = Wānaka means that Wānaka is the name that English-speakers use, not that it is the name of “English origin”.

After all, if an object has both name:mi and name:en set to Wānaka , couldn’t one logically argue for name:mi and name:en both being set to Queenstown ?

Only if Queenstown is the name commonly used by both Māori and English speakers (a little unlikely in this particular case that it would be so in Māori, given the alphabet doesn’t have ‘Q’ in it ). Queenstown is known in Māori as Tāhuna; it’s not commonly called that by English-speakers, so it’s tagged name:en=Queenstown, name:mi=Tāhuna. If for whatever reason the preponderance of English-speakers start calling it Tāhuna, then the tagging would change to old_name:en=Queenstown, name:en=Tāhuna, name:mi=Tāhuna.

[darkonus]

If I understand you correctly, you are a local and might be able to provide some additional context beyond what is currently described on the wiki. Please feel free to correct me if I misunderstand anything.

As I see it, New Zealand is predominantly English-speaking. Most people are not native Māori speakers; some know Māori as a second language, and a smaller group actively uses it.

Given that, I would have expected that if the approach you described reflects the general consensus, then most Māori names would also be tagged with name:en in addition to name:mi. However, from what I can see in the data, this doesn’t seem to be consistently the case. For example, I found around 4,800 islands (both large and small), bays, and peaks that have name and name:mi, but no name:en.

[user10 (Kyle)]

The previous two comments have answered your question very well, so I will just reply to this part:

@darkonus

However, from what I can see in the data, this doesn’t seem to be consistently the case. For example, I found around 4,800 islands (both large and small), bays, and peaks that have name and name:mi, but no name:en.

The difference is simply because no one has bothered to add name:en to those features. It would be perfectly fine to do so, but no one has done it.

Whereas, there are many locals who care about surveying and mapping te reo names, especially in the past few years. There are many intangible reasons for that - some people would say that the language is part of our national identity, regardless of your cultural connection to the language. etc. etc. But ignoring all that, here are some concrete reasons for the difference:

• There are several local map projects that render anything with name:mi, which encourages people to correct add the tag.
• There are even global OSM-based maps that support te reo
• We have tools to help us detect name tags that might be name:mi, and efficiently add name:mi to those features.
• There are extremely few people who edit rural natural features like the island/peaks/bays that you sampled. We would get a rather different conclusion if we looked at bus stops, streets, and parks in our biggest city, where many mappers have been carefully adding name:mi and name:en in recent years

[darkonus]

Thanks everyone, that answers my questions well. I think we can leave the topic here (unless anyone else wants to add something)