Renaming maritime areas and features ;-)

[oldharry]

You don't so much swim in it as go through the motions.

Thats just taking the p**s

 

[AntarcticPilot]

And you take a neo-positivist approach, I gather.

What about Bob Shepherd calling everything he climbed with a new name?

Fine - but no-one else will use it! The point of names is to identify recognizable features. If they aren't widely accepted then they are not of much use. I suggest you look at the rules for Antarctic official names to get an idea of the purpose of names. Of course, in the UK some of the rules can't be followed; these are ideal "blank canvas" rules. But the point is that a name must be widely recognizable and serve a useful purpose.

I have done considerable work on placenames, including organizing all Antarctic names into a hierarchical structure.

 

[dgadee]

Fine - but no-one else will use it! The point of names is to identify recognizable features. If they aren't widely accepted then they are not of much use. I suggest you look at the rules for Antarctic official names to get an idea of the purpose of names. Of course, in the UK some of the rules can't be followed; these are ideal "blank canvas" rules. But the point is that a name must be widely recognizable and serve a useful purpose.

I have done considerable work on placenames, including organizing all Antarctic names into a hierarchical structure.

Climbers will use them surely? I can't see why there has to be one name per entity. In real life that's not the case.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Climbers will use them surely? I can't see why there has to be one name per entity. In real life that's not the case.

Why should they, if there's an existing name in general use? Erecting new names when there's already a widely used one strikes me as just self-advertisement. Fair enough if it's naming a new route, and some names have amazing stories behind them (e.g. Mallory's Pipe) but giving a new name to an already-named feature is both unnecessary and confusing - and that's why in Antarctics there is the rule that names are not duplicated (except in a very small number of historic cases). And no, even in places like Antarctica, one name per entity is not necessary; plenty of places in the UK and Antarctica where there are two deriving from different languages, or even from different historic events.. But such names aren't derived on a whim; they have a history and precedent.

Of course, informal names are often used amongst particular groups - many anchorages on the West Coast of Scotland have widely used informal names. But these are widely used and well-known, usually published in guides like that of the Clyde Cruising Club.

It's worth noting that in many parts of the world - especially places like Antarctica - the naming of a place by an official body is an act of sovereignty. That's why the Foreign Office maintains the Antarctic Placenames Committee! And that's why no one outside the USA will take Trump's renaming of the Gulf of Mexico even slightly seriously - to accept it would mean acknowledging that the USA had the right to do so, which it does not.

 

[dgadee]

Why should they, if there's an existing name in general use? Erecting new names when there's already a widely used one strikes me as just self-advertisement. Fair enough if it's naming a new route, and some names have amazing stories behind them (e.g. Mallory's Pipe) but giving a new name to an already-named feature is both unnecessary and confusing - and that's why in Antarctics there is the rule that names are not duplicated (except in a very small number of historic cases). And no, even in places like Antarctica, one name per entity is not necessary; plenty of places in the UK and Antarctica where there are two deriving from different languages, or even from different historic events.. But such names aren't derived on a whim; they have a history and precedent.

Of course, informal names are often used amongst particular groups - many anchorages on the West Coast of Scotland have widely used informal names. But these are widely used and well-known, usually published in guides like that of the Clyde Cruising Club.

It's worth noting that in many parts of the world - especially places like Antarctica - the naming of a place by an official body is an act of sovereignty. That's why the Foreign Office maintains the Antarctic Placenames Committee! And that's why no one outside the USA will take Trump's renaming of the Gulf of Mexico even slightly seriously - to accept it would mean acknowledging that the USA had the right to do so, which it does not.

But they do. Your single name per entity may be useful at the international level and in legislation (mapping may be more useful here than a name) but there are different windows onto the world and people will use them.

 

[Wansworth]

Inthe days of Vancouver who named everything he saw or rounded or anchored in…….Harold Wilson Bay,Thatcher creek,John stone rapids……….although he Vancouver was more into Desolation Sound……