The recent executive order by former President Trump to rename the Gulf of Mexico and Denali has sparked a heated debate among contributors to OpenStreetMap (OSM), a collaborative, open-source map of the world. The controversy centers on when and how to reflect the name changes on the platform, given the resistance from some within the OSM community and the lack of widespread societal adoption of the new names. This clash highlights the inherent challenges of maintaining a neutral and accurate map in the face of evolving and often contested geographic nomenclature.
The core argument against immediate implementation revolves around OSM’s principle of reflecting on-the-ground reality and common usage. Several contributors argue that prematurely changing established names like “Gulf of Mexico” and “Denali” contradicts this fundamental tenet. They emphasize that OSM should prioritize reflecting the names most commonly used by people in the affected areas rather than preemptively adopting official designations that haven’t yet permeated public consciousness. Clifford Snow, a member of OSM’s Data Working Group, underscores this position, stating that OSM aims to represent what people on the ground believe is correct, striving for accuracy and neutrality amidst diverse perspectives.
The debate mirrors previous controversies surrounding geographic name changes, particularly the renaming of Mount McKinley to Denali. However, the Gulf of Mexico situation presents a more complex challenge. Reaching a consensus on a single name is proving difficult, with some contributors expressing doubt that OSM can ever satisfy all users without sparking further disputes and “edit wars.” This predicament emphasizes the need for a clear and consistent policy to guide OSM’s approach to contested toponyms, ensuring that decisions are made transparently and with community input.
Adding to the complexity is the lack of clear guidance from official sources. While mapping providers like Google typically defer to the US Geological Survey’s Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), the database hasn’t yet been updated to reflect the new names. The Department of the Interior has declined to comment on the timeline for these updates, further fueling uncertainty within the OSM community. Additionally, the scope of the renaming order remains unclear. The executive order specifically refers to a portion of the US Continental Shelf, raising questions about whether the entire Gulf of Mexico is intended to be renamed “Gulf of America.” This ambiguity complicates OSM’s efforts to accurately represent the change on the map.
Investigative efforts to clarify the situation have yielded limited results. Freedom of Information Act requests indicate that at least one member of the Board on Geographic Names (BGN), the body responsible for approving official US geographic names, has not received any communication regarding the Gulf of Mexico renaming. This lack of documented correspondence raises questions about the process followed and whether the standard procedures were bypassed. The Department of the Interior has declined to comment on this matter, further deepening the uncertainty surrounding the name change.
The debate within OSM also extends to the practical implications of implementing the name change. Contributors have discussed whether the entire Gulf of Mexico should be renamed or just the portion designated in the executive order. Some argue that renaming only a sub-area creates confusion and introduces a new geographical entity rather than simply renaming an existing one. The White House has not clarified the intended boundaries, leaving OSM contributors to grapple with the ambiguity. Furthermore, the international ramifications of the name change are unclear. If the new name applies to any non-US territory, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency would need to update its Geographic Names Server, the database for foreign place names. The agency has declined to comment, leaving open the question of international recognition and adoption of the new name.
The OSM Foundation, which supports the volunteer mapping effort, sees this debate as a testament to the value of an open and collaborative approach to mapping. The community’s struggle to represent a contested toponym highlights the complexities of accurately reflecting a world in constant flux. For now, the OSM Data Working Group has intervened to prevent further edits until the situation clarifies. The current consensus leans towards retaining “Gulf of Mexico” and “Denali” as the primary names while adding labels for the new official US designations. However, this approach remains contingent on public adoption; if “Gulf of America” gains traction, OSM may be compelled to reconsider its position.
