The use of geographic names on maps has been a contentious issue since the first maps were produced – local variants are present in all parts of the globe and surveyors and cartographers have long attempted to standardise names and to provide consistency in naming conventions. Political sensitivity and local bias all play a part in the accurate definition of place and feature names.

Having been in the business of making maps for 50 years, Lovell Johns’ cartographers are all very aware of the issues when choosing what name to place on a map. These are some of the factors that we have to be aware of when making these key decisions.

Common familiarity

There are occasions where an older, more commonly known version of a name is still referenced for familiarity and ease of recognition, such as Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City). Place names may vary between local groups, where one set of inhabitants may know a place by one name but local knowledge dictates that another group may know by another.

Language or local dialect

As well as places having different name forms in different languages, a place name may have different pronunciations and therefore varying phonetic spellings.

Examples: Florence or Firenza and Wrexham or Wrecsam

Transliteration and transcription

If a map is designed and use standard western (Latin) typeface and character sets, map makers need to consider how names in different scripts from other parts of the world are displayed. For example what Latin name is used to display names from a country that uses Arabic or Cyrillic script. There are a number of different methods that can be used to convert one script to another.

It is the task of the typonymist, or name form researcher, to decide which the correct form is. This was a much greater issue before the written word was used, when a surveyor would have to rely on interviews with local inhabitants. This may still be an issue in less developed countries, where no written record may exist. On a more localized level, it can still be difficult to ascertain a correct street name, when frequently historic names may still be in use with older members of a community. The task of the typonymist, here is to decide which is the prevalent form.

Maps may be held up as indicators of political bias, although our intent is still to show the earth’s surface in a clear and unambiguous manner, with no prejudice. Different nations may refer to places with alternative names, so, as an example, when Burma changed its name to Myanmar, some nations did not recognise this change by the current ruling party and so some maps compromise by showing both names, with one in brackets. By using a neutral tone like this, all map users are satisfied.

There are parts of the world which are highly sensitive or contentious such as the Middle East and since maps can be used to make a political point or to reinforce a position, map makers can often find themselves in hot water or on the wrong side of a political argument. To try and keep out of these arguments map makers have on occasion decided to leave off contentious names and content from their maps, however, this too can cause arguments!

Examples of contentious naming that a map maker can guarantee will cause offense to someone

The capital city of Israel

The administrative status or ownership of some islands for example “Paracel Islands” in the South China Sea

The “Sea of Japan” or the “East Sea”

In recognition that there needed to be a definitive body to advise on place names, the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names was set up in 1960 and is now relied upon to provide the definitive status of a local name. The group reports to the UN Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names, which meets every five years, but will meet between these times to discuss amends to naming conventions. The Group is made of an internationally diverse Bureau of experts and has 24 regional divisions covering all parts of the world. The Group publishes guidance on naming and any name changes are notified here. This is a reference for cartographic naming standards and directs the user to individual national databases for checking purposes. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Ordnance Survey is the definitive body for naming conventions and their database can be searched for individual place names.

The conventional use of place names can have political repercussions, and will always be something open to debate, but the provision of a consistent and accurate database of feature names, as controlled by the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names and individual national databases provides a definitive research pool for the cartographer.