Giro Bay, Loch Lomond

[DaveS]

I understood that map makers were often deliberately misled by locals telling them the wrong names for locations? It may not be so common today, but General Wade's mapmakers would not have been welcomed in the Highlands in the late C18.

Wade did his thing a bit earlier than that, with his core network of Highland military roads built between 1726 and 1732, i.e. following the rebellions of 1715 and 1719. The idea, just as with the Roman roads, obviously being that they could be used to move an army quickly. Ironically, the first army to use them in anger was in 1745 when a certain BPC led his army south...

 

[dt4134]

Wade did his thing a bit earlier than that, with his core network of Highland military roads built between 1726 and 1732, i.e. following the rebellions of 1715 and 1719. The idea, just as with the Roman roads, obviously being that they could be used to move an army quickly. Ironically, the first army to use them in anger was in 1745 when a certain BPC led his army south...

And the second army to use them was BPC's army heading north as quickly as they could.

 

[Ubergeekian]

The thing that beats me is that there are authorized organizations looking after place-names; you can't just give a place a name because you fancy doing so.

Oh yes you can. It might not be an official name, but "only officials can give official names" isn't very earth shattering.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Oh yes you can. It might not be an official name, but "only officials can give official names" isn't very earth shattering.

Perhaps I should have said "You can't just give a name to a place and expect anyone else to use it unless you go through the proper procedures. You can also expect other people to be annoyed with you."

My main point is the total lack of professionalism of the people who made the map. It isn't as if Loch Lomond is a remote, uninhabited place, and I'd be amazed if there aren't names already available for the features on the map!

Problem with unofficial names is that very often they have to be replaced by official names as knowledge/need develops. And we have a lovely example in Antarctica of an unofficial name that is completely unacceptable for official use - Una Peaks (a recently adopted name) was previously known as Una's T##s. That one is actually not too bad - the specific part of the name could be retained. But often an unofficial name is based on a physical description, and so isn't specific enough outside the local context. In this case the entire name gets changed, which causes problems and angst.

Place-names go far beyond being labels on maps. For example, there are nomenclature rules for geologists that rely on place-names; the name of a Formation is normally the place-name of the type location; if the name of the location changes, then what happens to the name of the formation? Big problems if proper procedures aren't followed.

 

[Searush]

The big issue is that names are used to define places by groups of people. So it is bleedin' obvious that different groups of people are likely to use different names.

This is the crux of the problem of local knowledge of local names as required by CG at present, but completely ignored by the reorganisers.

Now add in the Google cock-ups & other mapping errors and there are problems for casualties that don't have DSC or GPS ability to get lat/long.

 

[Twister_Ken]

One lot of Belgians call it Anvers, the other lot Antwerpen.

I call it Florence, they call it Firenze.

So what?

And talking of Una's Knockers, how about the Grand Tetons National Park?

 

[Sgeir]

This is very unlikely in the UK, because otherwise there would only be one "Sgeir Dubh"!

Yes, and I'll still have probably hit it at some time.

Back to the subject, the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park people are a bloody disgrace, imho. They act, as in the OP example, as a law unto themselves, with any accountability. That was not an isolated example of their arrogance.

What makes it worse is that these people have planning powers. I live within the local council's planning jurisdiction; they're fine, they seem to know their job. But we have friends in the National Park section of our District who are convinced that the Park employs people who deal with planning applications without having any apparent understanding or qualifications in the areas of planning law or building regulations. Perhaps theirs has been an isolated bad experience?

 

[Sgeir]

On Google maps, if you live in the US, or, from memory, in NZ or Australia, you can contact Google about their map errors; there is no similar facility for UK users. Google Maps in the UK are littered with errors, which unfortunately are then replicated on all sorts of other websites - place names can be jumbled, incorrectly applied, or, in some cases, changd into nonsense spellings.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

On Google maps, if you live in the US, or, from memory, in NZ or Australia, you can contact Google about their map errors; there is no similar facility for UK users. Google Maps in the UK are littered with errors, which unfortunately are then replicated on all sorts of other websites - place names can be jumbled, incorrectly applied, or, in some cases, changd into nonsense spellings.

If you think Google is bad in the UK, try Antarctica! But Antarctica has problems which make it intractable as far as Google is concerned, and parts of the UK suffer from the same problem - Google's technology insists on a single name for a place, so bi-lingual naming poses problems. They use a "/" in places where it really matters (Falklands/Malvinas).

Not really Google's fault - they have often used commercially available place-name databases, which are of very variable quality.

 

[Sgeir]

Not really Google's fault - they have often used commercially available place-name databases, which are of very variable quality.

Oh come on, a lot of it is Google's fault, eg, when they transpose a name from another source that uses Sans-Serif typeface, they clearly don't bother to check whether they are dealing with an "L" (calital "l"), or an "I" (capital "i").

I am having my own battle with them over a loch in our District, Loch Iubhair, the Loch of the Yew Tree. Google insist on calling it Loch Lubhair, the Loch of the Windae Shutter(?). It is not helped that the OS and other public bodies often use Sans-Serif typeface.

As for Google's Cumbrae, jeeze.....

 

[Mark-1]

Oh come on, a lot of it is Google's fault, eg, when they transpose a name from another source that uses Sans-Serif typeface, they clearly don't bother to check whether they are dealing with an "L" (calital "l"), or an "I" (capital "i").

I am having my own battle with them over a loch in our District, Loch Iubhair, the Loch of the Yew Tree. Google insist on calling it Loch Lubhair, the Loch of the Windae Shutter(?). It is not helped that the OS and other public bodies often use Sans-Serif typeface.

As for Google's Cumbrae, jeeze.....

I once noticed that Google Terrain have identified Craig Cerrig-gleisiad as Fan Fawr.

In fact Craig Cerrig-gleisiad is SN960218 and Fan Fawr is where Google claim Craig Cerrig-gleisiad is.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Oh come on, a lot of it is Google's fault, eg, when they transpose a name from another source that uses Sans-Serif typeface, they clearly don't bother to check whether they are dealing with an "L" (calital "l"), or an "I" (capital "i").

I am having my own battle with them over a loch in our District, Loch Iubhair, the Loch of the Yew Tree. Google insist on calling it Loch Lubhair, the Loch of the Windae Shutter(?). It is not helped that the OS and other public bodies often use Sans-Serif typeface.

As for Google's Cumbrae, jeeze.....

I am afraid this is all down to Google's sources, not to Google - they don't originate the databases they use for place-names. I'm not saying Google are right - they self-evidently aren't - but the error is from their sources, not from Google themselves.

What I do think is bad is that Google are very unresponsive to corrections.

Sans-serif type-faces are widely used by cartographers (not just OS and public bodies) because they (in most circumstances) give a clear and clean appearance, and are more legible in varying orientations than serif fonts. Serif fonts tend to be too "fussy" for the face of a map, though very good in clocks of text.

In fact there is no ambiguity between Iubhair and Lubhair in any font I can think of, given the usual conventions about capitalization. In any case, it is unlikely the data came from a map directly - it would have come from a gazetteer, such as the ones found at the back of road atlases.

 

[Sgeir]

You're right, my error, I should have written that there is a Sans-Serif confusion between caital "I" and lower case "l". I can't see any other reason for that particular error concerning Loch Iubhair.

There are lots of angling forums and websites that refer to "Lubhair", but then I wouldn't expect much else from them.

 

[alan_d]

And we have a lovely example in Antarctica of an unofficial name that is completely unacceptable for official use - Una Peaks (a recently adopted name) was previously known as Una's T##s.

A good job the Paps of Jura and the Pap of Glencoe are hallowed by ancient usage so are presumably safe from officious Bowdlerisers. In Australia they are allowed names like Yorkeys Knob.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

A good job the Paps of Jura and the Pap of Glencoe are hallowed by ancient usage so are presumably safe from officious Bowdlerisers. In Australia they are allowed names like Yorkeys Knob.

Una's Paps was considered, in the light of the examples you quote! But the clinching argument wasn't bowdlerization, but the requirement to use generic parts that are from a well-established list, in line with international agreements for Antarctica. Only historically established names in Antarctica have "eccentric" generic parts.

BTW, the eponymous "Una" was a real person - a secretary at the Falklands Islands, known to many members of BAS who passed through - at about the time I was in school! But if she resembled the peaks at all closely, she was quite some lady

PS, not my photo - I have never seen them.

 

[gljnr1983]

Mr East said calling the bay, on Inchmoan, "Giro Bay" was "derogatory".

What's derogatory about it? The entire population of Balloch survives on social security - they should be happy to name a feature after their benefactor.

There are a few hundred people in Balloch that would buy and sell you 10 times over

 

[Alicatt]

... they let in folk from Balloch!



Look on the bright side. At least it wasn't Bonhill.

My favourite ever Viz Profanisaurus definition, by the way, was

Giroscope . A satellite television dish.

Aye, and there's more than one

 

[Mark-1]

I once noticed that Google Terrain have identified Craig Cerrig-gleisiad as Fan Fawr.

In fact Craig Cerrig-gleisiad is SN960218 and Fan Fawr is where Google claim Craig Cerrig-gleisiad is.

At 14 years distance I'm so chuffed that there was a time when I noticed sonething like this....

No recollection whatsoever.