To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

1802 United States House of Representatives election in Connecticut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

District Incumbent Party First
Result Candidates[Note 1]
Connecticut at-large
7 seats on a general ticket
John Cotton Smith Federalist 1800 Incumbent re-elected. John Cotton Smith (Federalist) 15.8%
Benjamin Tallmadge (Federalist) 13.3%
Samuel W. Dana (Federalist) 13.1%
Elias Perkins (Federalist) 12.6%
Calvin Goddard (Federalist) 12.2%
Roger Griswold (Federalist) 11.9%
John Davenport (Federalist) 9.7%
Simeon Baldwin (Federalist) 7.3%
Timothy Pitkin (Federalist) 1.5%
Benjamin Tallmadge Federalist 1801 (Special) Incumbent re-elected.
Samuel W. Dana Federalist 1796 Incumbent re-elected.
Elias Perkins Federalist 1800 Incumbent re-elected but declined to serve, leading to a special election.
Calvin Goddard Federalist 1801 (Special) Incumbent re-elected.
Roger Griswold Federalist 1794 Incumbent re-elected.
John Davenport Federalist 1798 Incumbent re-elected.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    1 066
  • ✪ Celebrating the 125th Anniversary of the US Board on Geographic Names: Traditions & Transitions
  • ✪ Romans 9:10-13 (The Purpose of God According to Election)
  • ✪ James Madison


>> From the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. >> Douglas Caldwell: Good morning. >> Morning. >> Douglas Caldwell: My name is Doug Caldwell, and I am Chair of the United States Board on Geographic Names, or BGN. And on behalf of our members and staff -- [ Applause ] -- it is really a great pleasure to welcome you here today as we celebrate our 125th Anniversary. Our geographic names are more than mere words. They are, as Terrence Cole once said, compact poetry. Geographic names are endlessly fascinating in the stories that they tell and the stories of their origins. They reflect our cultural diversity, our languages, our history, our environment, our values, and our politics. Fortunately, geographic names can also be confusing. There may be many names for a single place. A single name may be spelled many different ways. And many different places may have the same name. And it is this confusion that is at the root of the Board on Geographic Names. In early 1890 Thomas Mendenhall from the Coast and Geodetic Survey and one of the founding members complained about the confusion caused by the lack of standardization of names and spelling. He wrote to all of the federal departments and he said, "You know, we have a problem. On our maps of your agencies you are using different names for the same feature." And he said, "Even worse, I can see on a single map a single agency uses different names for the same feature." Now I found this very hard to believe, but it actually wasn't too difficult to find an example. So this is an 1883 Army reconnaissance map of Alaska. And it has the name Chilkat Inlet in the title, spelled with a K, and Chilcat Inlet on the map spelled with a C. So this is not exactly what we wanted to see. So what happened was he with Lieutenant Richardson Clover got together and called agencies together to discuss and resolve conflicts in geographic names. So this was a tremendous example of interagency cooperation, starting in 1890, for the benefit of the federal government. So on September 4th, 1890 -- it was a day actually much like today; it was a nice fall day, temperatures in the low 80s -- President Benjamin Harrison established the Board on Geographic Names. >> Hey, Doug. Excuse me, you want to put it on slideshow? >> Douglas Caldwell: Oh, sorry. >> Hard to see in the back. >> Douglas Caldwell: Nope, nope. Thank you. There we go. Okay, the BGN's mission was to resolve geographic name conflicts and promote the uniform use of geographic names for the federal government. Theodore Roosevelt expanded the Board's mission to include all issues related to geographic names in 1906. And this was also done by executive order. Congress re-established the Board in its current form in 1947 under public law. So today the Board works conjointly with the Secretary of the Interior who has ultimate authority over the Board's decisions and policies. Throughout the years the challenge of geographic names has remained a constant. As much as in 1890, they are still ambiguous, contested, complex, and changing. Yes, constantly changing. It's hard to believe. For many it seems like a glacial pace, but there's a lot of activity going on. In the BGN's first year of operation it processed around 2000 names, which was pretty remarkable for the time, and a lot of work. In fiscal year 2014, the last complete fiscal year, the BGN added over 700,000 new names and made close to a million and a half edits in the existing names. This was not an atypical year. So it is a great pleasure to have you here today to reflect on our geographic names, to celebrate 125 years of history of the BGN, and to consider our future. Please, for you. Thank you. [ Applause ] Before we begin I'd like to thank the Library of Congress for hosting this event, particularly the Chief of the Geography and Map Division, Mr. Ralph Ehrenberg -- [ Applause ] -- and Ms. Jackie Nolan for making this possible. [ Applause ] I would also like to thank the Philip Lee Phillips Society for their very generous sponsorship. This special group develops, enhances, and promotes the collection of the Geography and Map Division. Now I have a few routine announcements. The corridors in the building are color-coded. The restrooms are located just off the lobby in kind of the back right-hand corner as you exit the room. We're going to have really some very special events today. We have -- we're starting off with the symposium this morning. We have a collection of true national and international experts on geographic names who are going to share some of their knowledge with us. And we have an amazing open house this afternoon in the Geography and Map Division. That's going to be down in the basement. You'll see some items here that will only be on public display today in celebration of the Board's anniversary. We'll talk a little bit more about lunch as we get closer to lunch. Hopefully no one's ready yet. And the Geography and Map Division staff is in the lobby, and they can answer any of your questions. So without further ado we'd like to welcome Mr. Mark Sweeney who is the Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress. The Library of Congress is not only the world's largest library, but it's America's oldest federal cultural institution. And it's also the research arm of Congress. Mark? [ Applause ] >> Well, good morning, and thanks for that warm welcome. Again, I'm Mark Sweeney, the Associate Librarian for Library Services. That's the traditional part of the Library, the part that acquires, describes, serves, and preserves the Library's vast collections. And on behalf of the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, it's my pleasure to extend a warm person welcome to each of you this morning as we gather to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the United States Board of Geographic Names. Well, as was mentioned, the Library of Congress is the nation's oldest federal cultural institution. It's also the world's largest single repository of knowledge and information, with a collection of more than 160 million items. About 30 million books, but most of the collection is made up of special materials, more than 5.5 million of which are maps. And names, of course, are a key entry point into the collection. So one of our major objectives is to make this vast collection more readily available to members of Congress. That's mission one for us, but also to the scholarly community and the general public through cataloging and a variety of online resources. Standardization of names, places is critical to these efforts. And that's really across all of the different formats and types of materials that we have in our multifaceted collection. Among our most significant cartographic holdings, which I believe you will see this afternoon, is the Charles Pierre L'Enfant's original 1791 manuscript map of the city of Washington which contains notations penned by Thomas Jefferson to the map's engraver. Two are related to place names, demonstrating that this founding father, the one on whose personal collection the Library's vast resources of today rests, understood the need for standardization of places on federal maps and documents 100 years before the U.S. Board of Geographic Names was established. When you look you'll see that Jefferson substituted Rock Creek for Pine Creek, annotated that, and marked through the W in Potomac. I'm particularly pleased that this celebration has brought together here at the Library of Congress a gathering of distinguished place name experts, geographers, and cartographers from across the country. I hope that during your brief stay at the Library you will have an opportunity to meet and interact with some of our expert staff as well as examine the fine items from our collection that the geography and map division will place on display specially for you this afternoon. Because of the long and close association between the Library of Congress and the U.S. Board of Geographic Names the Board was actually housed here at the Library for a brief period in the 1920s. We are happy to have this opportunity to host today's event. I believe we also hosted the 100th anniversary event as well. In closing, as an old Federal Depository librarian that selected, organized, and described, and served government publications, I want to express the Library's abiding support for the Board and wish you continued success. Happy 125th anniversary, and have a wonderful day here at the Library. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Douglas Caldwell: Our next speaker is going to be Dr. David Applegate who is the Acting Deputy Director of the U.S. Geological Survey. He's representing the Department of the Interior, which protects America's natural resources and heritage, which honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. The Secretary of the Interior, as we mentioned, Ms. Sally Jewell, is the senior federal official concerned with geographic names. She works conjointly with the BGN to assure uniform usage within the federal government. David? Thank you. [ Applause ] >> David Stage: Well, thank you. And thank you to the Library of Congress for hosting us here. Let me first off say how pleased I am to be a part of this marvelous milestone and for the opportunity to represent the Department of the Interior and Secretary Jewell. I had an opportunity to discuss this event with Secretary Jewell on Wednesday, and she sends her regrets not to be here herself, along with her congratulations on the 125th anniversary. You know, this is a subject that is much on her mind of late. This is one of these issues that may seem invisible for a while, and then it's not. And that is very much the case. Earlier this month she signed a Secretarial Order to make the name of North America's highest peak Denali, sing the authority she has under the 1947 law that provides for the standardization of names through the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. Names matter. In signing this order, Secretary Jewell spoke of sacred status, of reverence of traditions. She also cited official state usage and the strong support of the people of Alaska in her decision. All of these are the sorts of factors that must be taken into consideration. And then, of course, there's one more, and that reflects the policy that had been in place since the 1960s for the Board to help protect it from any apparent politicization, which was to avoid action when there was pending congressional action. And -- which was very sensible, but it might have been used a bit by the Ohio delegation which made sure there was pending congressional action for the better part of 40 years, since 1975 when the state of Alaska had originally petitioned to make this change. So it turns out that that 1947 law also states that action may be taken by the Secretary in any matter wherein the Board does not act within a reasonable time. And speaking as someone who was eight when that petition was made, and as someone who has a fair number of white hairs in his beard, it seems reasonable to me as a layperson, so -- that she took this action. You know, it may not come as much surprise that the Secretary of the Interior would have the responsibility for standardization of names domestically given that Interior manages more than 500 million acres of land, about 1/5 of the nation's land area. But the Secretary also has the final responsibility in this conjoined responsibility for standardizing foreign names as well. There are nearly four times as many foreign names in the Board on Geographic Names databases as there are U.S. names. And this really illustrates the breadth and the global nature of this responsibility that the Secretary and the BGN share. The Board itself, of course, is organized into two main committees reflecting that, the -- reflecting that dual roll, the Foreign Names Committee, the Domestic Names Committee are good friends and colleagues. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency supports the Foreign Names Committee while the U.S. Geological Survey as part of the Department of the Interior supports the Domestic Names Committee. Now as was noted in some of the opening remarks, standardization may sound like a mundane pursuit until you consider the alternative. What if there were no standards for nuts and bolts, for tire sizes, for electric current, or computer data? The standardized spelling and use of geographic names that's ensured by the U.S. Board allows the federal government to communicate clearly and unambiguously about places, reducing the potential for confusion and saving taxpayers money It's good government. In an age of instant electronic communication and massive collections of play space data, standards and uniform usage of geographic names are more important than ever before. And that, you know, has particular resonance standing here in the Library of Congress where we recognize that this digital age and everything goes actually increases the need for those synthesizers, for that effort to try to be able to -- when you search you will actually find. The usefulness of standardizing geographic names is well-proven, even if it's often taken for granted. The United Nations actively supports international standardization of geographic names by encouraging strong programs of national standardization. Indeed, more than 50 nations have some type of national names authority. So on behalf of Interior Secretary Jewell I thank the members of the Board, past and present, who have played a vital role in 125 years of names for America. Your continuing efforts in standardizing names have helped advance government efficiency. And furthermore, I want to salute the staffs of the -- both the Foreign Names Committee and the Domestic Names Committee, past and present, who have worked with the greatest diligence across the years to promote the understanding and standard use of geographic names. And I wish you another 125 years of success in serving the American people. Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >> Douglas Caldwell: Whoop, start at the beginning. So now we're going to go and start with our series of speakers. So what they'll do is they'll talk for a while, and we hope at the end of each presentation to have at least five minutes for questions and answers. But there's so much good material we might not make it, and you might have to talk at the break. Our keynote speaker this morning is Dr. Mark Monmonier. He is the Distinguished Professor of Geography at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Dr. Monmonier is the author of many books related to cartography, weather, climate, technology, and society, including a volume focused on geographic names, "From Squaw Tit to Whorehouse Meadow, How Maps Name, Claim, and Inflame." Most recently he served as the editor of volume six of "The History of Cartography, Cartography in the 20th Century." This is the definitive history of modern mapping, and a monumental achievement. Dr. Monmonier is internationally recognized on all things cartographic, and I have to believe after doing that you probably know more than anyone else could possibly know. He's known for his meticulous research and his willingness to tackle difficult and controversial topics. Dr. Monmonier. [ Applause ] >> Mark Monmonier: Well good morning. Thank you for inviting me. It was an honor to be asked to give the keynote address at a symposium recognizing the 125th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. And particularly, I want to thank Ralph Ehrenberg for making the initial contact, and Doug Caldwell for handling arrangements related to the program. And earlier draft of the program suggested "The Power of Geographic Names" as the title for my talk. I'm pleased that Doug was enthusiastic when I proposed the title that you see on the screen. I don't like the word power, which has been overworked by those who see the map as a mysterious irresistible force, which is simply not true. In my experience the term leverage is far more appropriate. If you have the apparatus for compiling and publishing maps, the map can enhance or leverage that power. That said, cartography in its use of symbols and words is a distinct kind of rhetoric. And in some situations maps can attract attention, lots of it, especially when geographic names are involved. Controversies over geographic names, which became particularly prominent in the 20th century, show that names on maps can be a forceful way of asserting ownership or control, or a way to denigrate a particular group, perhaps unintentionally. Either situation invites resistance, a pushback from people or organizations who believe that other names, or names in some other language or alphabet, are more appropriate or more just. More on this later. What are the roles of geographic names? The most obvious role is to provide a unique identifier for places and geographic features so that a map user can assert unambiguously where he or she has been or intends to go. This role of geographic names underscores a key function of local or national naming authorities like the Board on Geographic Names. Namely, the key function of avoiding potentially fatal confusion between features, including confusion about where to send the rescue helicopter or order up surveillance in advance of an airstrike. Although GPS has increased the use of geographic coordinates in emergency response and military contexts, many of us rely more on names than on numbers. Much of the importance of geographic names lies in the link they provide between map symbols and everyday language, which in turn implies a need for standards of grammar, spelling, syntax, and style, hence the various rules that the Board on Geographic Names has crafted to avoid confusion and needless complexity. A chosen hegemonic language, English rather than Native Hawaiian, for example, or Hebrew rather than Arabic, can be a strong statement of territorial control, and thus a potential source of resentment. And even when language, per se, is not an issue, a geopolitical reference like East Sea or Sea of Japan can trigger a resistance. Another role of geographic names is to commemorate an individual, a people, an event, a place in a distant land, or anything else with a name. Personal names can be particularly problematic insofar as people like to leave their own mark, as when wealthy real estate developers plaster their names on casinos and office towers, or on mountains, bays, rivers, and lesser geographic features if they could get away with it, which calls for a referee acting in the public interest, a referee like the Board on Geographic Names which collaborates with a network of state-level boards to circumvent potential conflict between people who think that their favorite dead uncle is more deserving than your favorite dead President. The rhetoric of geographic names is a negotiate, reasoned, and inherently conservative rhetoric, and a rhetoric that is resistant to change because too-frequent change can be disruptive and confusing, not to mention expensive if mapmakers want to keep their products up to date. An important point is that geographic names are a public good, provided without private gain to all members of society. Change might be warranted, but it needs to be well thought out and perhaps responsive to significant changes in public attitudes toward names that have been publicly acceptable in the past but no longer are. By the 1960s, for instance, the name Nigger Creek had become as offensively obsolete as Jim Crow practices like segregated practices and race-based seating preferences at lunch counters and on buses. At times civility demands that some geographic names be changed. There is also a romantic aspect to geographic names, as when they commemorate the Revolutionary War heroes, Old World cities, or the Ancient Mediterranean. And there's also a bit of romance in bawdy or irreverent names like Whorehouse Meadow which local historians committed to authenticity will defend vigorously should anyone suggest replacing them. Indeed, there is no better argument for the importance of geographic names than the controversies that arise when someone, or some organization, or some government agency proposes changing them. Let's examine some of these controversies. Look first at the international arena where names on maps, particularly names associated with boundaries, are fighting words. Some names, like the territorial control they represent, are so heinous that national mapmakers refuse to put them on the map even when it's abundantly clear who controls a particular territory. My first example is a map I acquired at an international cartographic meeting in the 1970s, in a brochure distributed by the Survey of Jordan which pointedly denied the existence of the State of Israel. My apologies for the sloppy colors here. I cannot locate the original brochure, and when I had scanned and photoshopped this map for publication decades ago I needed only a black-and-white image. This is the best likeness I could find. And despite the uneven hues, it was too good to leave out. In this vein, Jordanian cartographers erased Old Testament names from the map of the Holy Land. And the Palestinian Liberation Organization counterparts who produced a Palestinian map series on the cheap by photocopying Israel's one-to-100,000 scale topographic maps, replaced Hebrew names with Arabic names, and substituted the PLO logo for the Survey of Israel copyright notice. By contrast, on Israeli maps Arab towns and villages in Israel carry their Arabic names, which appear on official Israeli maps. However, because naming places can be an important part of nation building, Israeli cartographers have assertively added ancient biblical names. One can find some intriguing examples. I am going to show you two map excerpts which are a study in change and contrast. This first example is from the Haifa sheet of the map of Palestine published by the British in 1943. The gridlines, which are a kilometer apart, provide a sense of scale. The area is about 10 miles northeast of Haifa. Note the frame toward the lower left which surrounds a small, [inaudible] like feature marked by [inaudible]. On the second example, from the same quadrangle sheet published by the Survey of Israel in 1988, the name in the Roman alphabet is generally similar. The first word, spelled T-A-L-L on the British map and T-E-L on the Israel map, means hill or ruin. What's noteworthy here is the inscription of a Hebrew name to the left of the feature. Jump back to the 1943 Survey of Palestine map, and note the frame around the village of Al-Birwa. Note also the two smaller villages shown by dark splotches farther south, Al-Damun and Ar Ruwais. And now look at the representations on the 1988 Israeli map. Simply put, they're not there. And not because the mapmaker suppressed them. The villages are gone, dismantled. This slide shows resistance to the Israeli removal of Arab villages from the landscape as well as from maps. It was posted on the website Palestine Remembered. The inset map at the upper right locates the district of Acre in the north of Israel. And the main map and its key below show 26 villages. This is an index map with links to descriptions of the bygone villages. Note that the names are the links. It is part of the electronic version of what has been called the Arab map of Israel. The map has been replaced by Google-type maps, some with a satellite background. You can zoom in and click on one of the red pins to pull up information about bygone villages no longer identified on present-day maps. The names remain in the database, though, and can be plotted on demand by their coordinates. Let me turn to a controversy prominent in our own national media in the 1990s when Korea, still smarting from the pain of Japanese occupation from 1910 to 1945, objected to Western maps in which the body of water directly east between Korea and Japan was labeled the Sea of Japan. Media were lobbied to substitute the name East Sea, which refers to is location east of Korea. Obviously the Koreans were not happy with the name Japan immediately offshore. To acknowledge Korean concerns, many atlas publishers added East Sea in parentheses directly below the better-known name. The National Geographic Society, because its atlas was not yet due for a new edition, offered this cut-out-and-paste-in patch on its website. It's still that way on most cartographic websites. And the latest National Geographic atlas uses both names with East Sea in parentheses. A similar controversy involving countries on opposite sides of a large body of water is the controversy over the Persian Gulf, the name favored by Iran, but opposed by Saudi Arabia, which would prefer the label Arabian Gulf. is content with the more widely-accepted name even for its map of the United Arab Emirates. Google Maps has a clever, 21st century way of dealing with the conflict. When you or I ask to see its world map only the name Persian Gulf is present. When you zoom in really close the secondary name Arabian Gulf appears in parentheses. But because Google wants to avoid having its web servers blocked by the web servers of Iran, users with an IP address in Iran do not see the name Arabian Gulf. But this accommodation was worth the effort, reinforces the importance of geographic names. And west of the Gulf, I am told, the name Persian Gulf is suppressed. To deal with issues like this for U.S. government maps and other publications, the Foreign Names Committee of the Board on Geographic Names maintains the searchable geonames database on the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency website. A recent search for Arabian Gulf revealed 14 substitutes for the preferred name Persian Gulf. Note that the screen includes links to two online mapping websites, Google Maps and MapQuest. Click on the Google Maps link, zoom in a bit, and you get a red pin with both the preferred and the secondary name. Click on the MapQuest link, and no matter how closely you zoom in is an unnamed purple pin. Curious as to whether this might have been a fluke, I tried to find the Arabian Gulf with a direct search from and got nothing. Searching for Germany and then scrolling down to the southeast led me to the conclusion that MapQuest does not label bodies of water smaller than the Arabian sea. One way to deal with vexatious toponyms. For a while, around 2012, Google Maps deliberately suppressed the name Persian Gulf on its maps, but apparently adopted the present policy after protests from Iran. This seems a good place to note that the Domestic Names Committee has a policy whereby once named, a place cannot be un-named. Un-naming might have been a welcome strategy for dealing with names like these, excerpted from geological survey maps published in 1936, 1982, and 1986. Like most -- majority of toponyms, they occur in sparsely-inhabited, relatively inaccessible areas. How these names wound up on federal topographic maps is easy to understand. Topographers were sent into the field and asked to measure and describe the landscape as it was, at least to the extent that they could fit topographic details, including place and feature names onto a map published at one to 250,000, one to 62,500. In the pursuit of accuracy, federal surveyors were required to ferret out local usage. Whether a toponym might be offensive to some people was immaterial. What mattered was whether a name was applied and understood locally. Toponyms typically consist of two parts, a generic and a specific. This slide illustrates that the J word as a specific was applied to a variety of generics, largely in the Western states, with a noteworthy concentration in the Pacific Northwest. Although J-word toponyms were more common in the West than in the East, any correlation with a pattern of Japanese settlement is faint at best. It's inevitable that the racial enlightenment that swept the nation in the 1950s and 1960s would make federal officials uncomfortable, if not mortified, by the flagrant use of the N word on the nation's topographic maps. As best I can discern, the Washington establishment was largely ignorant of the implied federal endorsement of the N word until 1962 when Secretary -- when the Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall, ordered its removal. USGS mapmakers responded by changing all instances of the N word to negro, which was considered acceptable at the time. Unfortunately, these toponyms were replaced only when a map sheet was revised, which in many cases meant replacement of the 15-minutes series by the more-details seven-and-1/2-minute series over the next 20 years. The only other instance of blanket renaming was initiated in 1974 when USGS mapmakers were ordered to replace Jap with Japanese. If you're curious about the incidence of these toponyms, they are now online in the web version of GNIS, the geographic names information system. GNIS was started as a one-state pilot project in 1976. Its earliest phase included the capture of all toponyms on then-current federal quadrangle maps, a boon for mapmakers and anyone else concerned with racially-offensive place and feature names. The GNIS website now makes it easy to identify offensive names which might survive in a database as so-called variants, a designation that includes obsolete names as well as non-standard spellings. This map shows the instance by state of toponyms with the N word or two similar spellings. It is interesting to note that few of the N-word pejoratives occur in the Southeast, the part of the country with the most violent resistance to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. The source for this map is the Omni Gazetteer, a multi-volume reference work published in 1991 and based largely on GNIS. This more complete cartographic summary is based on a snapshot of the GNIS database obtained in 2003. The large number of N-word pejoratives reflects what USGS called phase-two names compilation, a piecemeal process contracted out on a state-by-state basis and designed to identify additional named features, not just those on federal maps. As the title indicates, these names are mostly variants. Also based on GNIS, this map shows the distribution of toponyms containing negro. As of mid-2003 none of these were variants. Some, but not all of them, reflect the blanket renaming of the 1960s. By century's end negro had become less acceptable as a substitute, but BGN rules rejected cumbersome substitutes like African-American or the utterly generic B-L-A-C-K. Replacement names had to be vetted individually by the locally-initiated process used for un-named features. This slide shows the progression of feature names for a place in Upstate New York along the Lake Ontario shoreline between Rochester and Oswego. According to the town historian, the original name, shown in the top frame from a topographic quadrangle map published in 1943, reflects the place's role as a station on the Underground Railroad. Someone at USGS apparently recognized it as inappropriate before the Udall edict. The redacted version in the middle frame is from a USGS map published in 1953. The lower frame is from a New York State Department of Transportation seven-and-1/2-minute planometric map published in 1977. I was unable to track down the origin of the name Graves. Doug, when people here reviewed my slides, somebody looked into the geonames database, and Graves Point is not there. The only thing I can figure is there is a road that goes up there that's called Graves Point Road, and DOT, being the Department of Transportation, I guess, took it from that. And maybe somebody trying to sell building lots up there figured that that might be more apropos. The most contentious renaming issue involves the word squaw, deemed not amenable to blanket replacement with Indian woman or clan mother. Like feature names containing negro, names with squaw must be dealt with individual. This map, which they made about 10 years ago, suggests the extent of the problem. Here's a choropleth map which reports the same data as the ratio. Each state's count of S-word toponyms was divided by its total number of named features and multiplied by 100,000 to provide a more readable key. Note that the highest rates are in Idaho and Oregon. For whatever reason, the lowest rates are in the Southeast. Minnesota's low rate, as of 2002, reflects a concerted effort to replace S-word toponyms with acceptable substitutes. Although states and localities can change toponyms their actions have no impact on federal maps and databases unless the Board on Geographic Names approves the change. Typically the State Names Board must approve, and tribal officials are also consulted for names on tribal lands or other areas in which the tribe might have an interest. As this list of requirements indicates, the process is bureaucratic, but hardly daunting. How the nation deals with its S-word toponyms will be a noteworthy concern for historians of 21st century cartography. Will political pressure expedite the process? Will Native American leaders give the issue a lower place on their agenda? Will majority public opinion eventually find the word so offensive that public officials at all levels are required to act? Will businesses cooperate or resist when an S-word toponym refers to a branded tourist destination like Squaw Valley? Native Americans are offended by other kinds of names. For instance, the name Mount McKinley for the tallest name in Alaska, also the tallest mountain in North America. The correct name, which the Board on Geographic Names recognizes, or would like to have recognized, is Denali, an Athabaskan word for "the high one." The peak had several names, including Denali, in 1896 when William Dickey, an Alaskan prospector and Princeton graduate, proposed naming it for William McKinley who had recently received the Republican presidential nomination. In Dickey's mind, McKinley's strong point was his spirited defense of the gold standard. In 1897 Dickey mentioned the name Mount McKinley eight times in a short article he wrote for "National Geographic" magazine, an article somehow interpreted as an endorsement. The name was widely accepted by 1901 when McKinley was assassinated, and a grieving citizenry began plastering the name of our 25th President on high schools nationwide, as fans of "Glee" are well aware. Even so, Hudson Stuck, Episcopal Archdeacon of the Yukon, preferred the name Denali. In 1913 Stuck became the first person to reach the summit and described this accomplishment in his book "The Ascent of Denali" published the following year. Athabaskans had no voice on the issue, nor did white Alaskans who pointed out that McKinley had never visited the territory, which was accorded statehood in 1959. Calls for renaming the peak persisted, including a resolution by the Alaskan legislature. Finally in 1980, the National Park Service changed the name of Mount McKinley National Park to Denali National Park and Preserve. The Park Service can rename its facilities without BGN approval if Congress consents, as it did. All the same, the name Mount McKinley stuck for over a century because a single member of Congress could block a name change by the Board on Geographic Names, because one of its bylaws precludes, quote, a decision on a name or its application if the matter is being considered by the Congress of the United States or the Executive Branch, end quote. For a long time the obstacle was Congressman Ralph Regula whose district included McKinley's hometown, Canton, Ohio. Shortly after a new Congress was sworn in, Regula would introduce a bill to keep the name Mount McKinley, basically, as Ralph tells me, by threatening the USDS budget. Even though these bills went nowhere they blocked any action by the federal Board. Now as we know -- well know, the situation changed abruptly last month, and for the good and long overdue, I'd say. Another names controversy related to a murdered President occurred in 1963. In the week after the Kennedy assassination, when the new President Lyndon Johnson decided to put Kennedy's name on Cape Canaveral. Johnson was a forceful politician, noted for having rammed the Civil Rights Act through Congress and sending a half million troops to Vietnam. Florida residents were outraged. Because Kennedy was from Massachusetts, they asked, why not rename it -- why not rename Cape Cod? Moreover, Canaveral was an old name, having made its cartographic debut in 1564 on a map by French artist/explorer Jacques le Moyne. In 1973 the Board on Geographic names accepted Florida's recommendation that the original name be restored. By general agreement, the prominent NASA facility on the Cape remained the Kennedy Space Flight Center. Another consequence was the establishment in 1984 of a rule that banned renaming geographic features after people who had been dead less than one year. In 1995 the waiting period was increased to five years. The five-year rule caused conflict with another state in 2003 when Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano convinced the State Board, strong-arming them, to rename Squaw Peak near Phoenix for Lori Piestewa, the first female Native American soldier to die in combat. Napolitano saw Piestewa's death as an opportunity to expunge a prominent derogatory name that had recently caught the ire of Native American activists. Napolitano was no Lyndon Johnson, and the Federal Board held fast until 2008 when the five-year waiting period had passed. Hawaii was another state in which indigenous people resisted the official treatment of geographic names. The issue was not so much the names themselves, but the system of Romanization that conspicuously suppressed two diacritical marks, the macron and the glottal stop, both of which signify important tonal differences. The macron is a short bar above a letter, usually a vowel. Here's a USGS map showing a name rendered with a macron. And here is the same feature in an excerpt from an earlier edition of the same quadrangle map. This earlier Romanization affects other letters as well and shows two words, not one. This slide from a 1998 map has two examples of the glottal stop which Hawaiians write as a single open quote mark. In 1995 the Board on Geographic Names relaxed the rule that had prohibited diacritical marks used in Native languages in Alaska and Hawaii, and over the next 10 years the federal Board approved several thousand revised Hawaiian names in time for a major revision of large-scale USGS topographic maps. Here's the same feature on an earlier map from 1954. Note that the two glottal stops have been accommodated awkwardly by blank spaces. Another kind of geographic name that might evoke a call for change, at least in some of the more genteel quarters of society, are risque feature names focused on excrement, bodily functions, and most of all the female body which provides geometric metaphors for a variety of feature names like Virgins Breasts and Nipple shown in this excerpt from a 1977 edition of the Geological Survey's Jonesville, Maine seven-and-1/2-minute quadrangle map. The lure of, L-O-R-E and L-U-R-E, of risque toponyms is epitomized by the saga of Brassiere Hills, an off-again/on-again name of a twin-peaks feature 18 miles Northwest of Juneau, Alaska. The name had appeared on a 1948 version, but not on the 1952 map from which I took this excerpt. It had apparently appeared on an advance copy of a 1962 map, but was removed from the final version. Here is is on the 1996 edition. I doubt that the feature would have had a particularly risque significance until overhead imagery revealed its suggestive tree line. This seems a good place to wrap up [laughter]. Most of the examples I've shown this morning are in my book, "From Squaw Tit to Whorehouse Meadow," which the University of Chicago Press published in 2006. The title was imposed by the Press's marketing people who considered my working title, Fighting Words, insufficiently enticing. Well, if you don't count Squaw, only two of the books eight chapters deals with risque toponyms. In my opinion, Fighting Words, was an apt and suitably broad title which captures the importance of geographic names as words worth fighting over. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Douglas Caldwell: We have a few moments for questions, so if you have a question if you could stand, and speak loudly, and Mark, thank you again. If you could repeat the question, since you have the microphone. >> Mark Monmonier: Okay. >> Douglas Caldwell: Then we will [inaudible]. Are there any questions? >> Mark Monmonier: Ah, yes, yes? >> Are you working on a current book? >> Mark Monmonier: Yes, I am. Oh, okay, the question is am I working on a current book? And the answer is yes, I am. If you're curious as to what it's about, it basically looks at patented cartographic inventions, which in producing volume six of "The History of Cartography," turned out to be a significant gap. We have one entry in there concerned with intellectual property, and talks mostly about copyright. I think it has maybe about three paragraphs about patents. There have been a lot of cartographic inventions patented. I maintain that the patent system functioned as kind of a parallel literature. In other words, we have the standard -- excuse me -- technical, scientific, academic literature of cartography, and general articles refereed, and so forth. Well, there's also a literature produced by the Patent Office, "Published patents" and also the "Official Gazette" of the Patent Office. There's some interesting parallels because patent examiners function as editors. We have also patent attorneys who function in many cases as ghost writers. And it's interesting to sort of look at that and then find out some things that people reading the cartographic literature and, in fact, the literature of the history of mapping, seem to be largely ignorant of a lot of these possibilities. There is very little cross-citation between these two literatures. So thanks for the question. One over here. >> Using your history of name [inaudible] what do you predict for renaming [inaudible] the Confederacy? >> Mark Monmonier: After the Confederacy? Boy, okay. Considering my work on geographic names and the history of it, what do I predict on the renaming of the Confederacy? Well, I don't know how many toponyms really involve the Confederacy, per se. You know, I would imagine that the interest of, you know, authenticity, you know, places named Lee are going to still be places named Lee. And I know there -- I don't have the facts on the tip of my fingers -- a lot of facts I don't have on the tip of my fingers these days as one gets older -- but there was a controversy somewhere out West about a place named after a Civil War general involved in the slaughter of Native Americans or something like that. >> Must be Harney Peak. >> Mark Monmonier: Harney Peak, ah, good, thank you. >> That's an ongoing -- >> Mark Monmonier: And you know, and basically the Harney family apparently does not oppose the renaming of the feature, and I guess Board Members are not authorized to talk on their opinions on the outcome of that. And frankly, I have no idea where it's going to go. It's a question, I guess, of how much, you know, pressure is made, especially at the state level to change that name, and whether or not they can come up with an appropriate substitute. And I would imagine that if they try hard enough that should not be difficult. But well, that's a good example. One thing that some people have asked me, you know, about is the squaw issue. And it seems -- and I mentioned this in the talk, and the likelihood of any blanket renaming is nil. And some interesting opportunities to actually identify local people, some Native Americans or some not, or you know, maybe even species of birds or fish that would provide acceptable substitutes. But I guess that -- there's been significant progress made on that, and that is ultimately going to, you know, I think maybe work its way through the system. Anybody -- yeah, question there. >> How do you personally feel about applying hierarchy to generics such as river, creek, stream, rill, rut, applied to a specific size of a stream? Or what the difference is between a hill, a mountain, and a peak? >> Mark Monmonier: Oh, boy. Okay, I guess the question is concerned, again, with my opinion on the applicability of the various generics, referring maybe to -- in the case of hydrographic features maybe stream flow, in the case of topographic features -- elevation features, height, and whether, you know, hill or mountain. Okay, since you asked for my personal opinion it probably -- I doubt that the Board is going to want to come up with a standard for what constitutes a hill, what constitutes a mountain. You can probably figure that there might be some cases which would come up where, you know, calling some feature that is 11,000 feet tall a hill. I don't know what the Board's feeling is about irony. And the same way, and I would imagine there probably are some, you know, what you might call gray areas -- in the case of hydrographic features blue areas -- as to, you know -- I mean, there are also other things. I mean, what is a cove? What is a bay? And I would imagine NOAA might probably have some standards on that, too. You can see I'm sort of, you know, hemming and hawing. And I guess I don't really have much of opinion. >> Douglas Caldwell: Why don't we let you off the hot seat? >> Mark Monmonier: Okay, oh, thanks very much for you interest and thank you for your questions. >> Douglas Caldwell: -- anticipating the [inaudible], and I want to thank you for sharing them. [ Applause ] Our next speaker is Ms. Helen Kerfoot. She is the former Chair of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographic Names and an Emeritus scientist for Natural Resources Canada. As UNGEGN Chair Ms. Kerfoot promoted the significance of geographical name standardization for national geospatial data infrastructures and for the preservation of cultural heritage. UNGEGN is the international group who provides technical recommendations on standardizing geographic names at the national and international level. Drawing on her leadership in national and international geographic names, Ms. Kerfoot will set global naming practices in context and discuss the roles of national naming authorities like the BGN. [ Applause ] >> Helen Kerfoot: Thank you very much, Doug. And good morning to everybody. >> Good morning >> Helen Kerfoot: It's a privilege for me to be here with you today, and I was, in fact, here for the 100th celebrations, so that makes me feel doubly privileged. And at that time the Canadian Board put out a special publication of its journal "Canoma" which recognized really cooperation in toponomy between our countries. And they were all issues which were of interest to both Canada and the United States. So congratulations now on your 125th. The BGN, I'm sure, receives interesting inquiries. And when I was Chair of UNGEGN I had -- or we received one rather curious one. A gentleman from Denmark wished to name the point where zero longitude and zero latitude cross each other In other words, something like this, or maybe it's something more like that. And he wanted to name it Anker Point, which probably is a play on words for A-N-C-H-O-R. And he thought, or assumed, that United Nations could, in fact, do this. Well, as you can see, it's not really a feature It's not in anybody's national jurisdiction. The United Nations does not have a mandate to make decisions on names. The IHO, the International Hydrographic Organization, cannot make that decision. And in fact, it seemed like nobody could. And in case you're wondering, yes, Anker is his family name, so [inaudible]. I've mentioned the United Nations, and you've heard that in fact they support conferences and UNGEGN sessions on standardization. This starts back in 1959 with a resolution of the Economic and Social Council. And the first meetings were held in the 1960s. Since then there have been 10 conferences and 28 meetings of the Group of Experts. And it all started with the idea of improving communication with geographic names, particularly for the U.N. cartography, and the idea being of standardizing spelling and also applications. And the basis for this, as you've heard already, is national standardization. And that forms the background for international standardization with appropriate Romanization systems with a scientific basis. And the Resolution Four of the first conference has lived on and still is one of our very valuable resolutions making these statements. So if the basis is national standardization, then the cornerstone is the names authorities. So people ask, "Well, is there a model to follow?" And clearly there isn't. This depends upon the type of government you have, the size of the country, the population distribution, the number of languages, and so on, and so on. We do have some sort of basic thoughts on this. If there are -- if there is no names authority its probably the national mapping agency that takes charge. This is all right for some countries, but in other cases it means that many departments or agencies have overlapping responsibilities and is rather a waste of time and waste of resources. So UNGEGN does suggest that a names authority be established. It could be a centralized one, particularly this is the case in smaller countries. And Madagascar is mentioned here, perhaps has the privilege of having the highest number of members on its Board, 44 members, which sounds a little unwieldy, but I guess may work. We could have a decentralized authority where the decisions are made at the regional level as, for instance, Canada has, and several other countries. Or we could have the arrangement like you have in this country with the BGN cooperating with naming authorities at a state level. Now these are referring to domestic names. When we look at foreign names boards there are far fewer around the world. Certainly the BGN comes to mind, obviously, and the United Kingdom's PCGN. Poland and Bulgaria area also countries that have foreign names boards. Now just as authorities come in all sorts of different phases or different types, so does the mandate of a board differ from country to country. And most countries would have a mandate with, shall we say, geographical features, and probably with unincorporated place names, but relatively few, unless they are smaller countries, would have authority over street names. This usually comes down to a municipal level. But when we hear about China, who report to us that they need 20,000 new urban names every year, you can see this is not insignificant. And by that they mean buildings, streets, suburbs, or completely new cities. And then the United Nations tells us that by 2030 over 80% of us will live in an urban environment. So street names are certainly nothing to be avoided. They are all important to us. And you can see here a few examples [laughter]. In 2005 the World Bank put out a very interesting report and indicated that at least 50% of city streets in Sub-Saharan Africa had no names, and therefore, no addresses. And this was because the centers of the city had become more dense, the urban areas had expanded, and names had not kept up. Now this is very difficult for individual identity, for bank accounts, or postal delivery, or anything like that, for gathering taxes, for urban planning, for following epidemics. With no names and addresses this is a difficulty. So the World Bank did finance several Sub-Saharan African countries to set up street addressing, and associated databases, and maps. To start with they suggested numbering systems, which you can imagine is not as controversial as putting names. And then these could be augmented later. So for instance, in Yaounde in Cameroon this first one would be one of six zones. This is zone one, street number 74. In this case we've got a name added as well as the zone 2 reference. And this one shows one of each, one without a name, and one where a name has been added. So that was the approach that was taken on that. If I can go back to the level of national boards, most exist with some sort of legal framework, an act maybe. And in the older acts usually it was just described in a technical way about approval of names. But in newer boards, as in Burkina Faso recently, there has been much more about the idea of cultural heritage, of conserving face names, or preserving toponomic heritage of culture and of language. The same thing in Tunisia, again in 2013 they talked about national toponomic heritage, of preserving the specifics of Arabic, of the Tunisian form of Arabic, ensuring that studies be undertaken in -- on geographical names. So in fact, toponyms do link man to the land. They are points of reference. They are bearers of our history and our language and carriers of our identity. So this brings up interesting questions. The mantra in the past, particularly from cartographers was one name for one feature, or university. And Nameless Cove is in Newfoundland, so don't take offense from that. But it brings now the question of should there be multiple names recognized in the languages of the country, reflecting, perhaps reality, if you like to put it that way. This is in Norway with Norwegian Sami language and [inaudible], or finish. There's another example in Slovenia with the Italian added, and there are many more examples we could give of multiple naming. This is New Zealand where names might be in [inaudible], or they might be in English. Or in the two examples shown there are various ways of having combinations of names. This, of course, does bring questions for cartographers. And this is in northern Finland with three names for Inari, although I just learned last week that there are now five names for Inari. And the Finnish way of handling this is you either on a map show all the names, or you omit the altogether. You do not just pick one or two of them out. And in Canada this year we have increased the names for the Mackenzie River, and we now have seven names in the local languages of the Mackenzie Valley. Still have to figure out how we're going to deal with this on maps, incidentally. I'd like now to look at something about the sort of time frame when national authorities have been set up. The United States Board, as you know, from 1890, was the first national board established in the world. Canada was shortly after that, for similar reasons, the settlement in the West, and the confusion of names that were taking place. Four other countries, Denmark, Iceland, New Zealand, and Ireland all had boards established by the end of the Second World War. And now in our sort of latest figures we have got some 80 countries that have national authorities. And this would mean, again, dealing with domestic names rather than with foreign names. Most recent of these are Saudi Arabia, and Burkina Faso, and Tunisia that I mentioned, Sri Lanka, the Foroyar area of Denmark, and so on. But we do have to be fair on this, even though they're established by law, there are some boards that are clearly not really functional at the present time, to be encouraged, obviously. If we look at this on a basis of a map, the green areas are countries that have national names authorities. The purple-y color are the ones that without national names authorities. And the orange-y/brown-y color is where we still have to do a bit of work on this where the status is unclear. Now before you all jump all over me and say, "Oh, no. I disagree with this. I disagree with that one," let me say that these countries have self-identified these. This is not something that we have imposed. They have said, "Yes, we have a board," or, "No, we don't have a board." And of course, you can see from the date at the top this is sort of ongoing and changeable. And I could point out that the number of countries in Africa grew considerably in the '60s when they gained independence and set up their names authorities. And then similarly, in countries that came from the breakup of the Soviet Union or from breakup of Yugoslavia were quite quick to establish names authorities. For those countries that don't have authorities, this can be quite a hard sell for us to convince them that it would be useful. Of course, we can't compete with water and health, nor can we compete with trying to have accommodation of some sort, living facilities, or with education, with food supply, or with transportation routes. But basic to all those agencies is the use of standardized geographical names, even if it's under the surface and not clearly recognized. So we can talk about the benefits of standardized names, and we can do this on a sort of overlapping basis. This is just in general terms. We might talk about technical benefits, for instance, in different forms of mapping and information management; of economic benefits for clear delivery services and promoting your tourism it's better not to have ambiguity. If we're talking about social benefits you've got humanitarian aid and search and rescue where you certainly don't want many different names. And we can talk about cultural benefits and the idea of retaining your language, or in terms of identity ambiguity is not very helpful. Some examples of lack of standardized data or standardized names, in Pakistan -- this was back in 2005 -- the United Nations Office for Humanitarian Affairs was dealing with rescue operations or aid operations after the earthquake up in the mountains. And there were all sorts of delays in providing assistance to these remote villages partly because they could not obtain standardized names. The coordinates weren't available for the villages. There were no gazetteers to be handed out. They didn't know the population statistics. And they didn't have maps So all this, of course, contributes to thousands of people who lost their lives as a result of this earthquake and aid not reaching them quickly. By contrast, a year or so later Indonesia had similar problems, but their data was in much better shape and was much more helpful to those providing aid. A similar one, this is in Somalia, and this is the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. And you can see on the list here they are providing different forms for the names in Roman alphabet. And they found that duplication of names, repetition, obviously lack of standardization, and the data not even being available for some areas had a lot of significance to them. They lost resources. Security could be compromised over this. There certainly was confusion with these multiple spellings of names. And this also led to bad decision-making. So this is some of the difficulties when you don't have standardized names available. So I think we're clear that we still need to encourage national names authorities, and we also know well that crises don't stop at national borders. So we do need to have cooperation between countries for databases and for making information available. I just want to look at other international organizations. And I still have a few minutes here. The International Hydrographic Organization -- I know there are people here involved with that -- it is a coordinating body for hydrographic agencies and for the work that they do. It is not a decision-making body in the terms of names of oceans and water features. Although, obviously through "Limits of Oceans and Seas," one of their prominent publications, they do have an influence. And that, as you know, they're still trying to be updated from the 1953 edition. The Subcommittee on Undersea Feature Names relating to IHO does have decision-making authority, and meets once a year, and decides on the names of undersea features that have been submitted to it, and keep an online gazetteer which everybody can access. Another international group -- which I cut the slide because I thought I wouldn't have enough time -- is the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research. They are a gathering group rather than a decision-making group. And I know they have something like 39,000 names for some 17,000 features because they gather the material from the different countries. And I believe the U.S. have contributed something like 1/3 of the names that are in that database. And then we -- lastly, we go beyond Earth and out into space to the International Astronomical Union and one of its working groups. The IAU has been in effect since 1919. And I think particularly with Sputnik in 1957 and man on the moon, if you like, in the late '60s, there was much more general public interest in features on planets, on moons, names outside Earth. In other words, toponyms rather than geographic names. And they set up the Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature in 1973. Now themes have been established for naming with this working group. And just quite recently there were some craters named on Mercury -- this was earlier this year -- and they have a theme of artists, composers, and writers. And I was quite interested to see that a famous Canadian photographer, Karsh, in fact, was put forward and now has a crater named for him. He's not alive, so he won't know that. So they are moving towards a public involvement in these, either by contest, which that one was, and chosen by the IAU and this working group, or as we saw just recently, planets associated with other stars and how they're now having public input and public voting in fact, more crowdsourcing of information. Right. So just to finish off, I would like to say that I'm sure we certainly have continued need for standardization of geographic names to protect heritage, to integrate with other place related data. As you've already heard, the geographic name is one of the main aspects that the general public will use to query databases, so it's an important entry point for place-related data and for linking them together. There's still a need for accurate and up-to-date records. It's greater than ever. Although it may be challenging to name authorities today I think we have to keep up with life, we have to grasp the opportunities of today's communication, and this probably means going to crowdsourcing, which I know for a name's board is quite controversial, but I think we'll hear about that this afternoon. So, thank you very much. [ Applause ] >> Douglas Caldwell: At this point do we have any questions? Kenneth, you can stand up. >> Helen, I'm curious if you have some valid information on legalities regarding [inaudible] copyright and resource [inaudible] that you can tell us. >> Can you repeat the question? >> Helen Kerfoot: Yes. The question was, have we compiled anything about legalities of geographical names and copyright? >> I'm sorry. I should clarify. [ Inaudible Speaker ] >> Helen Kerfoot: Ownership of list of names rather than individual names. >> Good. >> Helen Kerfoot: Okay. No, I would say that UNGEGN has not dealt at all with ownership of names or lists of names. I think perhaps here you're talking about databases and this sort of thing. All right. No, I guess we're trying to encourage countries to make their geographical names data available for free. But, as you know, this is not the case particularly for many countries in Europe. These names are not available for free as a group. Some countries have moved in this direction, though Finland, for example, now has its names data and other topographic data available to the public without charge. There are other issues, of course, of ownership of names. This does come up with indigenous or aboriginal names, and really whether these names belong to the Earth and to the people, whether everybody has access to these names. There are many interesting questions there, too. But I think that's perhaps different from the question you posed. So I can't say we have done much work on copyrighting, no. I'll put it down for future reference [laughter]. >> Yes. I [inaudible] decided you had to show the country that had more than those that didn't [inaudible] you said, don't quote me on this, but I was just [laughter]. It's only that I'm looking at that map and I see quite what you're saying, but in addition to the board's itself, there are other organizations. We have National Mapping [inaudible] for instance, that take on the role of standardizing for these [inaudible] geographic names. What I was going to ask you is, in your experience dealing with [inaudible], do you feel like that that's generally speaking a good thing for various countries like Mexico with their [inaudible] or others like that? Thank you. >> Helen Kerfoot: Thank you, Leo. This is quite a controversial topic I think, the question of whether a mapping agency sort of constitutes a names authority and whether that's the best way to go. I think there are some countries like you mentioned, Mexico. I think Egypt's probably another one where the statistics and the mapping agency are together, and perhaps some of the South American countries, too. People would say this is probably the best arrangement for them. But we have found in other areas like when we've been working with countries in Africa. This isn't necessarily the best way ahead. The mapping agencies are weak. They've, for instance, I was thinking of Burkina Faso before it got the names authorities there. Out in the countryside you saw several names on a sign, and one of them might be some sort of local spelling. Another one was perhaps the French way of pronouncing it. So you got Geekum [assumed spelling] Tango and Geekum Tingo which were -- both been on the sign and essentially the same thing. Nobody was really taking charge of those. So it seems easier and avoids overlap of effort, I think, so that many different departments are not spending money on the same sort of thing, to have a group which advises now. It doesn't mean the mapping agency wouldn't be the lead on this, but at least they could involve others like transportation and agriculture and other groups into the naming authority. I think that's the way Burkina Faso's gone, and also Tunisia has gone. So I don't know if that kind of addresses your point, but I think it can be good, and it's certainly a starting point. But maybe we want something where the names can be used more universally. Sometimes when it's the mapping agency that's the only authority that's the only use these names have, and they don't make it into the media, and they don't make it into other uses outside that government department. >> Thank you. >> Helen Kerfoot: All's quiet? Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Douglas Caldwell: Okay. So now in this next session before lunch we're going to have two talks that are going to focus specifically on the BGN. Our first speaker is Captain Albert E. "Skip" Theberge, who's a retired NOAA Corps Officer, and who currently works at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Central Library. Skip served on the BGN's Advisory Committee for Undersea Features for 12 years. He's written over 75 articles on the history of the Coast and Geodetic Survey and Ocean Sciences. Skip will talk about the origins of the BGN. As an historian Skip is like a crime scene investigator [laughter]. He will take us where the evidence leads. Skip. [ Applause ] >> Albert E. Theberge: Thank you, and as I was telling a few folks here, I have a number of friends in the audience. I hope they still are after I'm done [laughter], but we'll find out here. We'll get going. Okay. I received, when I was asked to do this -- I really was not overly knowledgeable in the history of the BGN, and I'd really like to offer recognition of Don Orth who's in the audience here today who really has delved into many of the nuances of the history and just glad he's here and I use some of his work to help unravel this. So I have this little brochure that was sent to me. The wording in this was a little different than what's in the brochure you have today. Okay. Domestic names. The origins of the US BGN can be traced to the surge of exploration, settlement, and economic exploitation of the American West after the Civil War. Contradictions and inconsistencies concerning names of geographic features were a serious problem for surveyors, mapmakers, government officials, and scientists who required uniform and unambiguous geographic nomenclature. In 1890 President Benjamin Harrison created the Board and gave it the authority to resolve unsettled geographic names questions. Well, that just about says it, so no. [ Laughter ] Okay, so. Okay. Glad a few folks laughed. That was good. Okay. Now, getting a little more serious. The BGN has its intellectual roots in the earliest map-making efforts. As societies became more complex, the necessity to name and define geographic entities assumed increasingly greater importance. These names were incorporated in maps, charts, gazetteers, peripli -- that includes portolani, routiers, rutters, coast pilots, et cetera -- census listings, and related documents. This is an early example. I canvassed a number of people for pronunciations, so forgive me. The Tabula Peutingeriana dates to Emperor Augustus, 555 city names, 3500 place names. Approximately 15 B.C.E., produced under the direction of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa. Moving ahead 200 years, we have Claudius Ptolemy. He put together a listing of 8000 place names with his version of latitude/longitude coordinates. The <i>Doomsday Book </i>-- that's how I'm informed it's pronounced -- put together in England at the behest of William the Conqueror over 13,000 place names ordered by county and hierarchy of ownership. Those of you who are concerned with the IRS, maybe the pronunciation is Doomsday [laughter]. So, moving head. The Cassini map of France. Four generations of the Cassini family put this map together. It was based on -- first map of a country based on geodetic principles. Sixty-two thousand place names were included on this particular map. Going across the Atlantic, we don't think of Noah Webster as having much to do with geography, but his 1802<i> American Spelling Book </i>had a listing of, spelling and pronunciation of selected place names in the United States, so most states that existed then and the major cities. He was trying to impress his will on the spelling of these areas' features. Two years later we have the Lewis and Clark expedition. This is November 7, 1805. Well, we'll go three years later. "Ocian in view! O! the joy." "Great joy in camp we are in view of the Ocian, this great Pacific Octean which we been So long anxious to See." That was William Clark, all right. In one sentence he basically gave the reasons for the Board on Geographic Names. [ Laughter ] Actually the -- and with that I'd say that -- two things here. He finally found the -- he completed the connection between the Atlantic and the Pacific. For the first time the true nature of our continent and nation was understood. There was still a lot of exploration had to go on, but William Clark and Meriwether Lewis were the first. Okay. In my opinion, and once again I'm starting from a view that -- I sort of came into this cold. The history I really wasn't aware of so I sort of just did my own thing in thinking about how I would approach this. What I discovered was that the Post Office was probably the first government department that was really truly concerned with orthography of place names. They published lists of post offices of the United States, the names of postmasters, the counties and states, et cetera. Okay. So this is an example page on your right as you're looking at it. They also published as well as these listings -- well, backing up a little bit. The post offices grew from 75 in 1789 to 7,003 in 1827; 18,417 by 1850; and 62,000 by 1890. Besides naming new post offices, many were either stricken from the listing over time or renamed. The Post Office kept track of all these changes through time. The early 1900s, I read one article that stated that there were 30 or 40 new names of post offices per day that were being brought to the -- well, it was necessary the Post Office to keep track. They also had a cartography department. This is the legend of the first United States Post Route Map, 1796. Abraham Bradley, Junior. I didn't look into his history. That should be fairly interesting in itself. This is what the map looked like, and looking at a blow-up, this is the Washington to, let's see, Washington area up the Philadelphia Corridor. You can see place names, you can see mileage between various post offices on this and the routes that were followed. The Post Office had a great tradition. By the late 19th century they were making beautiful maps of other post routes of virtually all United States states. Okay. Ferdinand Rudolph Hassler came to the United States in 1805. First Superintendent of the United States Coast Survey. The Coast Survey was among the earliest mapping agencies concerned with orthography. This is a quote from Rear Admiral Benjamin Franklin Sands, a naval officer who was assigned to the Coast Survey in the 1830s/1840s. Actually worked with Ferdinand Hassler. "He was quaint in his language, particularly in his orthography, cautioning his assistants always to inquire closely into the derivation and spelling of the names of localities in our surveys. He would never accept the spelling of 'Neversink, one of the prominent points near Sandy Hook, but insisted upon 'Navesink' as the correct orthography; and upon every name put down by us on the charts he would make his comments." So here we have the first chart of the New York Harbor. We see -- Well, somewhere here is Navesink. Yeah, Navesink. Yeah, here we have Navesink lights, and that's what it's been. Neversunk, Neversink, Navesink, and so it is today. Both of those first terms were actually -- showed up on various nautical charts through time, prior to the adoption of Navesink as the correct orthography. Alexander Callas Bache, for those of you who wish to know. There was always a Bache or a son of a Bache in the Coast Survey [laughter]. He was a great grandson of Benjamin Franklin, second Superintendent of the Coast Survey. He issued instructions concerning the correct orthography of place names. Also commissioned the first study of Native American place names that I'm aware of. There could be others that occurred before that but I'll stipulate that this was the first. This is an 1853 chart of Neah Harbor which is just east of Cape Flattery, Washington. A couple of things you can see on it. There are a number of Indian place names, Neah being one of them. Watta [assumed spelling], Island, Battah [assumed spelling] Point. Virtually all of these names are still on the chart, but we also see Anglo-English terminology and we see the Spanish version of the Greek pilot's name Juan de Fuca. So the United States has always had a mix of various languages, the various explorers, they're echoed in the place names of our nation. Eighteen-fifty-six Bache commissioned this list of park bays, harbors, and anchorages of U.S. waters. There were about 500 at the time. This was to establish the, once again, correct orthography to be used on the charts that were produced by the Coast Survey. The signature, A.P. Hill, a future Confederate General. The Coast Survey, prior to the Civil War, had about 70 Army officers, many generals that were attached to the Survey, and about 400 naval officers of which about a hundred ended up being admirals following the Civil War. Once again, Native America names. "The transliteration of Indian names has everywhere been a fruitful source of differences in spelling, inasmuch as no two persons understand alike or render into the same English characters the obscure sounds of Indian names." That was in the second report of the Board of Geographic Names, published in 1899. Eighteen-sixty-eight annual report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey. We have this letter from the Reverend Edward Ballard. "I have the honor to present to you the following attempt at an examination of the geographical nomenclature of the coast of Maine, for the purpose of furnishing a list of the names of Indian origin, with their proper orthography, as far as it now can be ascertained and their interpretation." So this was a list. It was probably about a 20/30 page listing that was in the Annual Report of the Coast Survey for that year. Eighteen-sixty-nine, following the inspection trip to Alaska by George Davison, a Coast Surveyor in 1867. He published the first<i> Coast Pilot of Alaska."</i> <i>Within that Coast Pilot </i>-- oh, and I would like to pay homage to Miss Kerfoot. She mentioned the list that occurred, listed maps, and I guess I'm going through a list here as well. But, anyway. Eighteen-sixty-nine. There were hundreds of place names of Indian, Anglo, Spanish, French, Russian names that were included in that particular document. The commercial entities also were interested in orthography and place names. <i>Gazetteer of Railway Stations in the United States and Dominion</i> <i>of Canada 1874 </i>publication. If I remember correctly, there were about 4000 place names that were included in that particular document. So this brings us up to 1890. These two men, Thomas Mendenhall, Superintendent of the Coast Survey, or Coast and Geodetic Survey as it was then known. Lieutenant Commander Richardson Clover, he was the Superintendent of the Naval Hydrographic Office and also the Naval -- well, the Hydrographer of the Navy. They met in the first week of 1890 to discuss problems with Alaska place names. Mendenhall expanded the concept to include all government agencies concerned with nationwide orthography. He wrote to other agencies suggesting formation of a board to discuss names issues. An informal board was formed that brought the names issues to the attention of President Harrison. He concurred and issued an Executive Order dated September 4, 1890 that stated, "As it is desirable that uniform usage in regard to geographic nomenclature and orthography obtain throughout the Executive Departments of the Government, and particularly upon the maps and charts issued by the various Departments and Bureaus, I hereby constitute a Board on Geographic Names." That Board was composed of Mendenhall as the first Chairman, Herbert Gouverneur Ogden, Henry -- of the Coast Survey, also a Vice President of the National Geographic Society, Henry Gannett, Chief Geographer of the USGS, Secretary of the National Geographic Society, and Lieutenant Richardson Clover, Hydrographer of the Navy. This comprised the Executive Committee. It prepared the material for the full Board to review. The remainder of the Board was comprised of Otis T. Masson, a Smithsonian Ethnologist, Captain H. L. Howison, United States Navy, of the Lighthouse Board, Andrew H. Allen of the State Department, Marcus Baker of the USGS and a National Geographic Society Manger, Pierson Bristow of the Post Office -- couldn't find a picture of him [laughter]. Sorry. That is his grave. He's there. Okay. Major Thomas Turtle, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Okay. I'd like to return to this thought. "After the American Civil War there was a surge of mapping and scientific reporting associated with the exploration, mining, and settlement of the western territories. Inconsistencies and contradictions among the many names, their spellings, and applications," et cetera, et cetera. Very similar to the wording of the brochure that was at the beginning. Now I went through the first 4000 names that were decided upon by the Board of Geographic Names and attempted -- well, in my way, analyzed them to check whether or not that was a -- if that statement or some other statement would better describe the work of the Board. It would seem that if the above statement is correct, that was related to the western states, decisions concerning western states place names, particularly those of the [inaudible] west should dominate the early activities of the BGN. Alaska also, because of the initial meeting between Mendenhall and Clover, has also been invoked as a prime mover for the formation of the BGN. Okay. So here's the -- here's Bulletin Number One, 1890, December 31, 1890. Alaska, 155 decisions. That sure looks like Alaska's driving the whole thing at that point in time. Next closest state, Maine, with 15. But then we look at the [inaudible] west. We have Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, zero. I skip ahead 10 years here because a nice convenient number, more than anything else, and I figured 10 years we'd be able to see the priorities of the Board and to some degree also what really led to the formation of the Board. So, the Second Report was published in 1899. Now, looking at generic terms within the Board, Civil Terms like towns, cities, even railroad stations, post offices. There were 2132 decisions. Nautical Terms, and by that the sort of thing you'd see on nautical charts, 1,496. Terrestrial Physiographic Terms, 172. Post Office, 1045 decisions in that first 10 years. Townships, 436. Islands, 358. Railroad Stations, 330. Then we start dropping down significantly, but these were the generic features with over 100 occurrences in that particular document. There were over 40 additional generic terms found in the first 10 years of decisions, most of which are nautical in nature. Regional Decisions by BGN 1890 to 1899. Decisions east of the Mississippi River, 2319; west of the Mississippi, 1297; foreign, 503. Highest number of names decisions per state in the first 10 years of the BGN, and this was like approximately one-third of the decisions. New York came in first, 258; Alaska, 228. Keep in mind that the first bulletin had 155, so there were 73 additional decisions in the next 10 years. Then Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, California. We get a western state, a coastal state that had been a state since 1850. Then New Jersey. That's the middle third. Just significantly there is no [inaudible] state in that group. Then when we go to the bottom 24 states and territories, I have a total of 593 decisions. New Mexico anchors the mass at three decisions; Nevada, seven; Arizona, eight; Idaho, nine; et cetera, et cetera. Now if we put this into map form, initially we see the cumulative blue states or the top third of names decisions during that period. We have the Eastern states. California is a coastal Western state, and Alaska were the top third of the decisions. The red states were actually the bottom bunch that were mentioned, the 24 bottom states. White states being sort of the middle of the road. We put that into a cartogram. This is the relative size of an area or relative size as a function of the area of the state and the number of names. Now the East Coast dominates. California shows up and Alaska shows up. The West is disappearing. Looking at it a different way, seeing if maybe it would come out a little different which, I guess, rationally it shouldn't have, but names decisions per thousand square miles per state. This is a statistic I made up, a measure of BGN decision intensity on the [laughter] -- well, what else would you call it? I don't know. But anyway, with that, Washington, D.C. only having 68 square miles and eight decisions sort of wiped out the statistical package, but the rest, the next nine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, all Eastern states. Then we look at the 10 lowest intensity states -- Montana, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Texas, North Dakota, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, and New Mexico. Then we look at that map form. First of all, the red being the lowest, blue being the highest, once again dominated by the East. Here we have a cartogram that the West totally disappears. I can't resist this. Texas has decision names envy. Okay, never mind [laughter]. New Mexico disappeared. Idaho virtually disappears. The rest are pretty hard to find, at least by the algorhythm that was used to develop this map. So, let's look at Alaska. That's also been invoked. Beginning in 1869 with the George Davidson Coast Pilot. That was followed by William Healy Dall. All of these had hundreds if not thousands of -- at least a couple of thousand names associated with them. William Healy Dall, also of the Coast Survey, Pacific Coast Pilot, Coast and Islands of Alaska, 1879. Go to Marcus Baker. He was Dall's assistant on the Coast Survey before going to the USGS as did Dall in the 1880s. Then Herbert Gouverneur Ogden. He worked on Alaska for the BGN, 1890 to '93. So Alaska and the BGN. Two or three hundred Alaska names presented to the Board early-on for consideration. First Bulletin of the BGN reported 155 Alaska decisions and 241 Alaska names superseded, the majority of which were coastal. The magnitude of Alaska names decisions issues became apparent, so the Board appointed Marcus Baker of the USGS, and Herbert Gouverneur Ogden of the CNGS as a committee to research Alaska names. By 1893 Ogden had compiled 2400 names in Southeast Alaska; Baker, 1900 names for the rest of Alaska. Work stopped for eight years after that time on Alaska. Thence the first great territorial compilation of names was published by the BGN. A year later, the Alaska compilation was published by the USGS. That first great compilation by the BGN was the geographic names of the Philippine Islands. So, ask how that happened. Okay. That was brought forward by the Naval Hydrographic Office, published 1900 or 1901. I can't read this right now -- 1901. That was based on the atlas of the Philippine Islands which was produced by the Coast Survey, and that was based, in turn, on the work of Father Jose Algue of the Manila Observatory. So, next year, 1902, Marcus Baker's <i>Geographic Dictionary</i> <i>of Alaska </i>was published. How does this compare to USGS efforts concerning place names during the formative years of the BGN? Well, Henry Gannett, the Chief Geographer of the USGS published the following Geographic Dictionaries between 1894 and 1906. Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut. We get to Kansas in 1898. Then after the first 10 years, Utah is the first [inaudible] state, 1900. We go Puerto Rico, Texas, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. My conclusions that may not be somebody else's conclusions, are an analysis of the work accomplished in the BGN early years. Number One, numerous governmental organizations had been wrestling with problems of orthography for many years prior to formulation of the BGN. Two, although the Alaska meeting of Mendenhall and Clover was the catalyst for the formation of the BGN, they recognized that it, a BGN, was an idea whose time had been a long time coming. As opposed to names issues with frontier areas, both the BGN and its member organizations, including the USGS were more concerned with the highly developed, more heavily populated eastern states. Four. Needs of communication, transportation, and commerce followed by diplomacy, defense, and exploration were the driving forces dictating the formation of the work of the BGN. A final thought. In 1816, Ferdinand Hassler, Founder and first Superintendent of the United States Coast Survey, wrote, "The duty of every man is to be honest and to do good." The United States Board on Geographic Names embodies that spirit and concept. Its work is one of the invisible underpinnings of our civilization and society. Its work has truly done good, in the best sense of the word, for our nation and citizens. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Thank you, Skip. Do we have any questions? Yeah. >> Albert E. Theberge: Yes, sir. >> Please stand and -- oh. >> Loved your presentation. I have a comment on the -- I'm a student of Alaska history. I would suggest that the discovery of gold in Juneau in 1880, and the subsequent discovery of gold in the Klondike in 1896 might have had a huge influence, because of the number of ships that were taking people to Southeast Alaska. >> Albert E. Theberge: Yeah. I would concur with that, particularly the 1896 and the -- I guess the -- that was we're going to the Klondike and -- Marcus Baker in his introduction to the <i>Geographic Dictionary</i> <i>of Alaska </i>, he made the statement that the Director of the USGS came to him at the time and said we need to get the <i>Alaska Dictionary </i>going because we need this for our work now at this time. It had been put on the back burner for a bit following the initial meetings of the USBGN but because of the gold rush and the influx of people, I'm sure that was the driving force, ultimately, behind finishing the <i>Dictionary of Alaska Place Names </i>. Don Orth may have a different view on that, maybe. Okay. You're good with it. Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Douglas Caldwell: Okay. Our next speaker. We're very fortunate to have Miss Sandra Shaw here with us today. She worked at the CIA and the Department of State, and was the first woman to chair the BGN. Among the assignments during her distinguished 31-year Federal career, she served in the Department of State as the Deputy Executive Director of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. She was also the Chief of Cartography in the Office of the Geographer where she oversaw cartographic support for key diplomatic initiatives. Given her experience with all facets of the BGN she is exceptionally well-qualified to help us better understand how the Board has evolved. Sandra. [ Applause ] >> Sandra Shaw: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the U.S. Board in Geographic Names and its Chairman, Douglas Caldwell, for inviting me to participate today in this 125th anniversary symposium. It's an honor and a pleasure to be here, to be re-acquainted with former BGN colleagues, and to meet current members and the many distinguished participants and guest who have gathered today to recognize and honor the extraordinary work of the BGN. Captain Theberge has presented you with a fascinating introduction to the origins of the BGN. Its evolution's been a journey down a long, winding, and sometimes weary road from its creation in 1890 to its expansion of authority in 1906, its abolishment as an independent agency in 1934, the granting of its statuatory authority in 1947, and the eventual transfer of the domestic names to the Geological Survey, and the foreign names to the Army Map Service. The BGN has endured the 125-year journey through the dedication and innovation of its members in support of their respective organizations. Sixteen years after its establishment, President Theodore Roosevelt issued an Executive Order which added to the BGN "the duty of determining, changing, and fixing place names within the United States and insular possessions. All names suggested for any place by any officer of the government shall be referred to the Board for consideration and approval before publication." A second Order was issued in August 10th changing the official title of the United States Board in Geographic Names to the United States Geographic Board, and granting it advisory powers concerning the preparation of maps compiled in the government to avoid unnecessary duplication of work and to unify and improve map scales and symbols. The Board would only hold the advisory powers for 13 years before they were transferred in 1919 to the newly established Board of Surveys and Maps. The new authorities presented the Geographic Board with a formidable task. With only 13 Board Members, most of whom held senior positions in their respective departments, no staff support, and an edict that the Board and its work would entail no expense on the government [laughter]. Lack of staff and funding would persist throughout the history of the BGN, even after it gained statuatory authority in 1947. In my discussion of this period of 1906 through 1934 the Geographic Board will simply be referred to as the Board. The records did not reveal why or by whom these new authorities were proposed, but it seems reasonable that the Board itself sought broader authority to maintain uniform usage of names in the government. Additionally, many Board Members were involved in mapping activities, including its Chairman, Henry Gannett, Chief Geographer of the Geological Survey, who is often considered to be the father of topographic mapping in the United States. Henry Gannett chaired the Board until his death in 1914. On his deathbed, he was informed that he had again been elected Chairman, and he replied [laughter], "You were determined I shall die in the harness, and I will." The last of the original BGN members, Mr. Gannett was also a founder of the National Geographic Society and concurrently served as its President from 1910 to 1914. You'll hear more about the BGN and the National Geographic this afternoon from Mr. Valdez. Following the 1906 actions, the Board moved quickly to develop principles for new names. It streamlined the names approval process and addressed the advisory powers, establishing a committee to standardize map symbols. By 1911, the Board published conventional signs adopted by the United States Geographic Board that provided a standard set of signs, symbols, and abbreviations for use on all government maps and charts. The work of the Board was primarily conducted by the Executive Committee with their recommendation of names decisions sent to the full Board before promulgation. However, to expedite the new duties, the Executive Committee's authority was expanded to approve or reject all new names submitted by the Geological Survey and the Coast and Geodetic Survey without waiting for Board approval. The Chairman was to act on behalf of the Board in all names submitted by the Post Office. Postal names had been confusing and an issue from early in the Board's history, with many instances of the Post Office and town name differing. There was a new urgency in the approval process since between 30 and 40 postal names were established daily. Between 1906 and 1934, the U.S. would enter World War I and suffer the Great Depression. But through these events the Board made progress, no matter how slowly. World War I, unlike World War II, did not require mass production of foreign names and had minimal effect on the work of the Board. If anything, it slowed the work since many of the members were away at war duty. This was a period of Board outreach. It established an Advisory Board of outside specialists, enlisted the assistance of state names authorities, and encouraged establishment of such authorities where none existed. It strengthened and developed international collaborative efforts with names authorities such as the Geographic Board of Canada, the Royal Geographical Society, and the Permanent Committee on Geographic Names for Official British Use, and also increased the focus on foreign geographic names. Also, after 30 years of requests for funding, the Board received its first direct appropriations from Congress. Starting in 1920 and continuing until it was abolished in 1934 as an independent board, it received about $79,000 in direct appropriations. That would approximate about 1.2 million in 2015 dollars. The funding peaked in 1934 which reflected the salaries of the Chairman, the Secretary, and Assistant Clerk, all devoting full time to the work of the Board. Another Board first would come in 1925 when the first woman, Dr. Helen Strong, was appointed to the Board by the Department of Commerce. She had prepared a Congressional study on U.S. foreign agricultural trade that garnered her the position of Geographer of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. During her nine-year tenure on the Board she would be instrumental in the Board's work on foreign geographic names. Dr. Strong is seated in the lower right of the 1932 Board photo. Since World War I there had been a growing need for decisions on foreign names within the government, as well as the private sector. In 1926, Board Chairman, Frank Bond, appointed a committee to consider the entire subject of foreign names. The final work of the Committee, composed of Dr. Samuel Boggs of the State Department and Dr. Helen Strong, was published in 1932 as the Board's "First Report on Foreign Geographic Names." It was a tutorial on the treatment of foreign names addressing policies and procedures, guides for transliteration, pronunciation, abbreviation, and even gave tips on proper business protocol, as well as a list of 2500 foreign names decisions. The report gained press coverage, even a quarter column in the <i>New York Times</i> titled, "Foreign Place Names." The reporter observed, "One of the evidences that we've come into a consolidated world is a United States Government report about the spelling of foreign geographic names. If only there had been added another hundred pages by some Homeric Earth wanderer who had seen the cities of many men and learned their manners, it might easily be the book of the month." Though the report was well-received, the Board conducted practically no other work on foreign names until it was faced with the monumental task of standardizing millions of names in support of World War II. I call 1934 "The Board's Waterloo." April 17th, Franklin Roosevelt signed an Executive Order abolishing the United States Geographic Board and transferring all of its functions to the Department of Interior. The Executive Order attributes the President's actions to the 1933 Reorganization Act, but there also seems to be a back story to the President's actions. It involves his Secretary of Interior, Harold Ickes, and Hoover Dam. At inception, the Dam Project was simply known as Boulder Dam. But at the ceremony to start the project Hoover's Secretary of Interior, Ray Lyman Wilbur, announced, "I have the honor and privilege of giving a name to this new structure. It shall be called Hoover Dam." When Roosevelt took office in 1933, his Secretary of Interior, Harold Ickes, changed the name to Boulder Dam, justifying his action by saying, "The men who pioneered this project knew it by this name." Ickes' action was not without critics, some writing directly to him and others to the Geographic Board. It seems Secretary Ickes was not pleased that a Federal Authority existed that could overturn his naming action, so in 1934 Ickes drafted the Executive Order to abolish the Board for Roosevelt's consideration. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised Roosevelt against such action. However, he did not heed his advice. It created concern about many in the government as well as in the private and scientific community, including Dr. Isaiah Bowman, a member of President Roosevelt's Science Advisory Board and Former President of the American Geographical Society. He wrote to the Secretary indicating he had read about the abolishment of the Board and hoped that "If it is discontinued under its present name its functions will be carried on as effectively as in the past. It is of great importance from every standpoint that such an organization should exist in the government. Under no circumstances should this work be assumed by an outside agency. It would be a relatively simple matter to set up an adequate Board in the Department of Interior." Bowman closed his letter by offering his services to discuss such a plan. Secretary Ickes actually may be credited rather than vilified for providing a home in which the Board could more easily structure and ramp up its work to effectively support the upcoming requirements of World War II. Also, if the Board had maintained its independent status, would Dr. Meredith Peat Furrell [assumed spelling], a Geographer in the Department of Interior, be in the history of the BGN or International Standardization of Geographic Names? Following the transfer the Secretary established the Division of Geographic Names and an Advisory Committee on Geographic Names which has centrally mirrored the membership of the abolished Geographic Board, but also included individuals representing a number of geographical societies. He appointed Walter Mendenhall, Director of the Geological Survey and nephew of BGN Founder, Thomas Mendenhall, as the Executive Officer of the Division. Shortly afterward, Mendenhall recommended that an authoritative name for the two units was needed for publication of names decisions. At first, Secretary Ickes was not receptive to essentially reestablishing the BGN, but reconsidered upon advice of Dr. Bowman, and issued a departmental order explaining that for simplicity of reference, these two units together will be designated United States Board on Geographical Names. At the first meeting of the Advisory Committee, Secretary Ickes said he and the President were both opposed to naming place after living persons, and that he had more than once been shocked by the names selected for some of our natural objects. Names of people that the American people would like to forget have been affixed to the objects that were inanimate and thus unable to protest [laughter]. "I hope that this Committee will adopt a policy of not yielding to political pressure in such an important matter as the selection of a name." Until World War II, the work of the BGN was conducted by the Executive Committee and the full Board met only about once a year. In 1941, the BGN broadened its responsibilities to include the standardization of traditionally or newly named undersea features, which led to the establishment of the Advisory Committee in Undersea Features in 1963. With 3- to 400 domestic names decisions published yearly, the BGN did practically no work on foreign names. Upcoming American military and intelligence requirements brought sweeping change to its work and would be the coming of age of BGN's foreign names activities. With the U.S. Declaration of War, the BGN entered a new era of production that no longer allowed the luxury of approving individual names. For the first time, the Board had ample staff and funds to support its work, or at least its work on foreign names. Through an agreement between the Interior and the War Department, approved by the President, the War Department transferred funds to reimburse Interior for the BGN foreign names activities. As you can see, the funding peaked in 1944 which came to about $400,000 that they were transferring into Interior for the Board's work on foreign names only. Secretary Ickes selected Dr. Meredith Burrill, a Geographer serving as the Chief of Analysts and Research in the General Land Office, to lead the reorganization of the Board. In a 1967 interview, Dr. Burrill indicated that he was about the only Geographer around, "so the Secretary of Interior picked me." By the end of 1943, the Division had increased from a pre-war staff of two to of about 180, which included geographers, cartographers, linguists, historians, librarians, and clerks. In the words of Dr. Burrill, "The task of making ready these geographical tools of war was not unlike that faced by the manufacturer of airplanes." The goal that had to be attained would have been considered fantastic before the war. The name of the Division was changed to the Division of Geography, and the work of the Division staff and Advisory Committee was redefined. To expedite work, the Secretary delegated to Dr. Burrill the authority to approve all domestic names conforming to existing procedures, and all foreign names either derived by approved or unapproved procedures. The Division took on the responsibility of establishing major rules and policies for the treatment of both domestic and foreign names, investigating and recommending action on names issues, while the Advisory Committee simply reviewed principles, policies, and name recommendations prior to approval by the Secretary. A special Committee on Antarctic names was established that also became the Advisory Committee in 1947. The BGN became a clearing house for names, producing indexes for European invasion maps, gazetteers, and the transcription of some 3 million Chinese, Japanese, and Korean names. This is an example of a long-range air navigation chart which is a typical product that was produced by the BGN during that period. The Army would submit a blue-line proof of the map, and the BGN would prepare what they called a names overlay. All of these black areas are names that they've gone in and applied by hand in ink. Once they applied the names overlay, they would return this to the Army for application and final production. The war ended in 1945, but standardizing foreign names was only beginning. The BGN would continue work on a reimbursable basis producing gazetteers and other names requirements for the military and intelligence programs for years to come. However, Cold War funding for foreign names that ranged from about 200,000 in 1946 to a high of 580,000 in 1965 became a two-edge sword for the BGN. In 1945 the Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations stated that all agencies of the government that lacked authority for lawful appropriations must seek legislation. The BGN took action and on July 25, 1947 President Harry Truman signed a bill establishing the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. Conjointly with the Secretary of Interior, the BGN would "provide for uniformity and geographic nomenclature and orthography throughout the Federal Government" and would be authorized to be appropriated such funds as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. Additionally, the Act authorized the Secretary to take action in any matter wherein the Board does not act within a reasonable time. This has been mentioned before, but we saw earlier in August or late August that the Secretary exercised that authority when she changed the name from Mount McKinley to Denali. In my opinion, I think this is the only time a Secretary of Interior has exercised this authority. The BGN's first meeting under statuatory authority was spent on organizational matters including the establishment of committees, election of officers, and the appointment of Dr. Burrill as the BGN Executive Secretary. However, gaining statuatory authority did not have the results the BGN sought. Between 1947 and 1950, the Division continued to receive small direct appropriations for the work of the BGN, but efforts to seek additional funds for domestic names activities was hindered by the large sums available for foreign names. In the early 1950s, concern grew among the Domestic Names Committee members over the lack of adequate funds to address its backlog. Some agencies no longer submitted cases for staff processing. Several Interior management reports published between 1952 and 1955 indicated that the work of the domestic names was in chaos because no funds were available for needed work. The reports recommended options such as transferring the domestic names activities to the Geological Survey, divesting the Department of the work on foreign gazetteers, and transferring the foreign names functions to another appropriate agency. No action was taken until 1958 when the domestic names activities, including several staff members, were transferred to the Geological Survey, and an Executive Secretary for Domestic Names, Jerome Kilmartin, was appointed by the Survey to head the program. Dr. Burrill remained the Secretary for Foreign Names and the BGN. It took until 1962 for the domestic names staff to clear the decisions of its backlog. In 1959, Donald Orth joined the Domestic Names staff. He was appointed the Executive Secretary for Domestic Names in 1963 and was a formidable leader of the program, expanding its work and guiding it into the digital age until his retirement in 1991. Roger Payne succeeded him as the Executive Secretary for Domestic Names. Another 10 years elapsed before the Foreign Names staff functions were transferred from Interior to the Department of Defense Army Map Service. During that period, the BGN became actively involved in international standardization efforts. In 1956, at the request of the U.N., Dr. Burrill drafted a proposed program addressing international standardization of geographic names. His work was instrumental in the U.N.'s development of its current program and he continued to play a role even after his retirement in 1973. Upon his retirement, Dr. Richard Randall was appointed as the Executive Secretary for Foreign Names and the BGN. He was the steward of foreign names and an admirable leader of the work of the BGN for the next 20 years. With the transfer of the Foreign Names activities in 1968, the foundation for the modern day BGN had been laid. The evolution of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names has progressed from Theodore Roosevelt's Geographic Board through increased interaction with state and international naming authorities to massive support of World War II efforts. It's been established, reorganized, abolished, absorbed, and reestablished. Its focus has changed from dealing only with unsettled questions concerning geographic names to rendering thousands of decisions that span the Earth, Sea, and Antarctic. It now deals with 50 states, 195 countries, and dozens of languages. The BGN has adapted to vast technological changes with 2.7 million domestic names and 9.8 million foreign names online available at a few keystrokes. It has indeed been a journey down a long, winding, and sometimes weary road. In closing, I congratulate the U.S. Board in Geographic Name, its members and staff, both past and present, on 125 years of providing outstanding national and international leadership and the standardization of geographic nomenclature. Thank you. [ Applause ] It's gone now. >> Here we go. Dave. >> Do we have any questions? It's been an interesting history and thank you so much for sharing a long-time [inaudible] but. Well, we do have a question. Yes. Please stand. Thank you. >> With the recent surge for deleting Denali and other -- [ Inaudible Speaker ] -- do you see the movement where the Board's facing the next 125 years of renaming what was named in the past 125 as well as continuing on [inaudible]? >> Sandra Shaw: Well, that's a good -- >> Repeat the question. >> Sandra Shaw: She wanted to know if the names that have been approved in the last 125 years, if we're faced with renaming some of the names. Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> Sandra Shaw: Yes. Well, I think this question was sort of asked earlier also. I'm not quite sure about how many renamings. I think that with -- of course, on the foreign names side you will always have issues that -- with countries changing of -- with the Soviet Union like right when it broke up, many of the other countries that were becoming independent, you would have naming changes. In many instances governments themselves will change a name and require, say, the Department of State to use a name approved. Such one issue was with the Ivory Coast many years ago. The Ivory Coast insisted for diplomatic purposes we use Cote d'Ivoire, the French form, which we did. However, we did approve a conventional form for U.S. Government mapping. On the domestic name side, it's a little more emotional. When I was Chair of the Board, it was interesting because I worked on only foreign names and, of course, we had always had issues with countries that wanted us to do certain things. Usually, if we had established diplomatic relations with them, we would accept what they wanted us to do. But at the encouragement of Don Orth, he got me involved in domestic names. I was not aware of the emotions that were involved in naming domestic features. It's really a different issue on both sides of the house. But I can't see us going in and renaming masses of names that -- that's all I can say on that I guess. It's [laughter]. >> Thank you. Do we have any other questions? >> Douglas Caldwell: Good. At this time, what we'd like to do is -- you've heard the names of several people mentioned. These people -- the Board is many things. It represents the Federal Government. It represents different agencies. But it's really the people behind it who make it work. Now I'd like to take a few minutes to introduce you to some of those people, particularly our distinguished leaders. You've heard the name Don Orth mentioned several times today. Don, could you raise your hand? Okay. [ Applause ] So Don has worked with Geographic Names at the U.S. Geological Survey starting in 1959, and he was the Executive Secretary for Domestic Names from 1973 to 1990. The Executive Secretaries are our senior staff positions. He consolidated the working policies of the Domestic Names Committee into the principles, policies, and procedures that we use today. He signed the Transboundary Agreement with Canada, and he directed the production of a number of gazetteers. As if he wasn't busy enough, he also authored a very interesting history of the BGN and its evolution, some of the things that we've heard about. One of his best-known publications, <i>The Dictionary</i> <i>of Alaska Place Names</i> was published in 1971. It's known by many people simply as "Orth." It has been referred to as the Bible for Geographic Names in Alaska. I have heard it said that there are people in Alaska who have two books, the Bible and Orth [laughter]. The next person I'd like to acknowledge is Mr. Roger Payne. Roger, could you stand up. [ Applause ] Roger worked at the U.S. Geological Survey with Geographic Names from 1974 to 2006. He served as the Executive Secretary for Domestic Names from 1990 to 2006, and the Executive Secretary of the entire BGN from 1993 to 2006. As if Roger couldn't get enough, he currently serves as Secretary for the Advisory Committee on Undersea Feature Names, even though he's retired -- Antarctic names, sorry, sorry. Got that wrong. Roger -- sorry about that. Roger is the father of the Geographic Names Information System or GNIS which led the BGN from the age of print to its digital future. The GNIS remains today the separate repository for information about approved domestic and Antarctic names. In addition, Roger's been a leader in the geographic names community for many years. Among his positions, he was formerly the President of the American Names Society, the Vice-Chairman of the Place Name Survey of the United States, and the author of a section on applied [inaudible] in the <i>History</i> <i>of Cartography, Volume Six </i>. Okay. At this point, I'd like to also acknowledge Mr. Randy Flynn who was unable to be with us today, and Dr. Dick Randall, who passed away earlier this year. There's a little mention of him in the brochure with his many accomplishments. So those are some of our senior leaders, and we've been very fortunate to have such wise and knowledgeable people leading the Board. At this time, I'd like to introduce some of our current leadership, and these are pretty amazing people, and they're a lot of fun to work with. The first is Mr. Tony Gilbert, can you stand, from our Government Publishing Office [applause]. He's the Vice Chair of the full Board. I think as we go through these, you'll get a flavor for the interagency aspects of the Board. Mr. Lou Yost from the U.S. Geological Survey is our Executive Secretary for Domestic Names. [ Applause ] You'll often see Lou quoted in the newspaper [laughter]. Mr. Marcus Alsop from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is our Acting Executive Secretary for Foreign Names. [ Applause ] He's filling in for Mr. Trent Palmer who is currently detailed to the Department of State [inaudible]. [ Applause ] Mr. Doug Van der Graaf from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is the Chair of the Domestic Names Committee. [ Applause ] Mr. Leo Dillon from the Department of State is the Chair of our Foreign Names Committee. [ Applause ] Dr. Scott Board, who I don't believe is with us today, from the National Science Foundation, is the Chair of the Advisory Committee on Antarctic Names. [ Applause ] Roger, as we mentioned, and I mis-mentioned, is the Secretary of the Advisory Committee on Antarctic Names. [ Applause ] Mr. Jerry Walters, from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is the Chair of the Advisory Committee on Undersea Feature Names. [ Applause ] Mr. Jimmy Nurantes [assumed spelling] from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is the Secretary of the Advisory Committee on Undersea Feature Names. [ Applause ] I have to say, the Advisory Committees are somewhat unique. So we have our Standing Committees which are domestic and foreign, and all of the people who serve on those are Federal employees. The Antarctic Names and Undersea Feature Names are somewhat unique in that they are names for features on areas for which the U.S. Government doesn't recognize a sovereign leader, and there are areas where there's no permanent population. So they have a lot of unique characteristics. And so they -- they do an excellent job on these things because it's -- it's quite complicated with all the players involved and all the work that remains to be done. So it's -- it's a great pleasure to have them and if you have any questions, just give them a chat. Our final person is Miss Meredith Westington, who also couldn't be here and -- and she is actually the organizer of this event and the person who made everything possible. She's done a wonderful job keeping a lot of moving parts together. She works for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She's a wonderful person, the chair of the Special Communications Committee and she's currently in Colorado -- [ Applause ] So -- so those are some of our leaders and they're like the cabinet, that -- that makes things run and -- and they -- they're a great cabinet. But the BGN could not operate without its members and staff. The members are the ones who actually make the decisions and develop policy. So this time I'd like to ask the current BGN members to stand, if you're a current BGN member. [ Applause ] Do we have some former BGN members here? Yeah -- [ Applause ] And -- and naming is kind of a funny thing because you -- you can't go to college and get a degree in toponymy. It's something that you learn through experience, and often years of experience. You have to understand what's gone on before and some of these things don't happen every day. And so, institutional knowledge is very important to the BGN. Now our staff, we have an incredible staff, not a lot of them, but they're incredible people. And they maintain our databases, they interact with the public. When you call the BGN, you're probably going to be talking with one of them. And they do the research that's the foundation of all of our work. So would our -- our current BGN staff members both from NGA and the U.S. Geological Survey, please stand? [ Applause ] And do we have any former staff with us today? They're all working, so. And finally, the BGN works closely and this is a really important thing, so the -- the names that we work on and the decisions that are made apply to the federal government, but we work in certainly a broader environment. And so we have international partners, state partners, local partners, and tribal partners who work with us as well. And so if anyone here today is from one of these authorities, please stand up and let's acknowledge your work. Anyone here? [ Applause ] So, I -- again I'd like to thank again, all of the members and staff. It's incredibly -- they work very hard every day making sure that we have the best quality of work on our names. So now this morning, we were focusing particularly on the history of the BGN and the history of our geographic names. This afternoon we're going to pivot, the theme of the day is traditions and transitions. So now we're going to the transitions. And we're going to be looking at some of the things that are facing the BGN in the future in our world of geographic names. Our next speaker, who it's a pleasure to introduce, is Dr. Luis Bermudez. He is the executive director of the Open Geospatial Consortiums Compliance and E-Learning Program. He's an adjunct professor at the Master of Professional Studies in Geographic Information System at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Now Dr. Bermudez is in a very special position. He's not one who worries so much about the problems of today. He's looking at the solutions of tomorrow. He's sort of one generation and one step ahead, and so he brings a very interesting perspective. He not only thinks about the future of geographic names, but has been involved in several experiments looking at technology and concepts that will bring our geographic names to the next level. So, Luis. [ Applause ] Oh, sorry. >> Luis Bermudez: Okay. So, good afternoon everybody and thank you, Doug, very much for this kind invitation. It's really a pleasure to be here. When I was listening to the previous speakers about how sentiment is too -- is put when you place -- when you put names into places and how the first one that says, this is how I publish what name belongs to what geographic feature. I thought about a good example. So this was about seven years ago and my daughter was about to get born, my third child, and then we're thinking about what's the best name -- Natalia or Sandra? Perfect in English and Spanish, right. And then my son came, he was six years, and he wrote Isabella [inaudible], and put it in the crib. And boom! He publicly published the name [laughter]. He won. So, I really appreciate all the work that the board and staff does because it's really heroic in how you solve conflicts of putting names and resolving conflict names between even borders. So, congratulations and -- and thank you very much for your work. So, I -- I broke up the content of this presentation, it's in four parts. First, to talk about the maps and name of places, but I'm going to show previous examples of some of the previous speakers before. But now I have the technology lens, so I'm putting this in another context. Then I'm going to talk about two problems, basically name and search, next the third revolution and finally, to infinity and beyond. So, most of you are familiar with this, right. This is a very early map. The humans at that point wanted to draw things in caverns. This was when agriculture started to take place, so the humans had more time to paint their surroundings before they were painting animals and so forth. You see have no names. Now, Ptolemy as some of you also mentioned before. He was an Egyptian geek. Now come one, Greco-Egyptian [inaudible] sometimes. But he had a list of names with latitude and longitude. Now so you can imagine first the humans were trying to draw their environment and how they were placed. And then, this guy was able to put a list of names with coordinates. You can imagine what comes next, which is a map with names, right. This is one of the first maps created by Martin. So, historically this is how I think from my perspective, this is how we have sort of moved from drawings to list of names and then to maps that have names associated with those places. Now two problems that -- that I've been able to -- to distinguish. So if you see this map, this is Tennessee, but is not spelled as we usually encounter Tennessee, which I don't know even how to spell, but I know -- I know this is not the correct spelling. [ Laughter ] So, solving these problems is very tough because sometimes one thing -- one geographic feature can have different representations, even in the same language, right. And we have all seen a lot of different examples related to that. And that's why one of the first works here in the U.S. and we have all seen these work on Alaska, was trying to standardize on a place of names, a dictionary where everybody can look and say, "Okay, this is the standard name, this is the approve d name and I'm going to use it." I'm not going to talk more about the history because this has been talked before. Now, so that's one problem, right. [Inaudible] geographic feature with different representations. Now we have a second problem. Where is Ontario? Who knows? [ Inaudible Speakers ] So -- somebody? Huh? [ Inaudible Speakers ] One in California, where else? >> One in Canada [inaudible]. >> Luis Bermudez: One in Canada, yeah. So, Ontario is there, right. It's like east of Pomona, north of Chino. All -- everybody agrees? That's Ontario. No. As we know, Ontario is also a province in Canada. So, we can have one name, now in this case, representing different features. So, that's the second problem, right. And all these problems are called [inaudible]. And we have now virus technologies that are able to solve these problem. Now I've been lucky enough that I was involved in previous works about semantics. I was at Drexel University and we're trying to do hydrologic interoperability [phonetic] in terms of how do we call observatories, water sheds and so forth. And we were the first ones to publish ontologies and semantic works on hydrology. So then when I came to you -- to OGC, I was able to lead some cross [inaudible] and that's where I met Doug and at the end, I'm going to present some of the work that we have advanced related to -- to that. But these are the two typical problems when we talk about semantic heterogeneity. Now, more interesting is when we want to please a hungry fisherman. So, it's 4 o'clock in the morning, this guy just parked somewhere in a hotel. All he's fishing poles are in the car. He's hungry. What is the nearest lake from my current location that I can go fishing? It's not an easy question to -- to respond right now. If somebody can point me to a map that says -- I don't know, insta-fishing map buddy or something like that. I don't think it exists. Because it requires to cross link a lot of information. Not only where are the lakes that hopefully we can solve, right, with proper names, but we also need to know if fishing is allowed, if the fish that I want is there, if it is open when I want to go, if there is any closing, you know, all these related information is hard. So keep that in mind. This is what I call the problem of the hungry casual fisherman. So, over these years, we have evolved various techniques. I'm going to see how much on time, good. We have evolved through virus techniques and first is, I'm going to show techniques on how we have agreed on geographic names. And second, how we have make those names accessible to the public. And in particular made only accessible to a web interface, right, but accessible to the developer that wants to create this app insta-fishing buddy gram or whatever [laughter]. So, agreement via controlled vocabularies or for those of you that are familiar with semantic techniques and the different levels of controlled vocabularies, every community and every endeavor starts with list of terms. And that's how we saw Ptolemy, right. He created the list of terms. And then those evolved into dictionaries. I'm going to show more examples and at the end, we can capture these tables and relations. When an organization decision starts with these process of, oh, now we need to create controlled vocabularies because there is an executive order or somebody says, "Yeah, because it's cool," or because open link data, all of those -- the first thing is its create a list of terms. Then define those list of terms and then create tables and relations. So you have seen these, it's bulletin one published by the board. And here we see a list of decisions which basically provide categories, right, list of countries, for example, list of foreign countries, the U.S. and basically it has a list of names, right. This was the first part. Then we have good example, this was the first official stat e gazetteer, the Gazetteer of Rhode Island. Where we see a lot of elements of dictionary style and thank you doc for providing a lot of very useful slides. So you will see elements, for example, like the name, like the class or type, where's the location and where is it located. So all those different components form part of a structured definition and then we can easily capture in the tables and relation. But this is like the second part. And then, this is an example of gazetteer maps of Thailand, now this is 1944 and then we see a table representation. So you see the name, you see the type which is the second column, you see even a link to a map. So we have the map reference that you're able to locate the information in that table and the information on the map, and then latitude and longitude. So 1944, this was represented as tables. So I'm talking about the techniques, remember. Now something happened -- since I'm going to talk about technology, I need to also tell a little bit about this -- something happened between 1960 and 2000. Internet/web revolution and the digital revolution, this is what we call the third revolution. What was the first revolution? >> Agriculture. >> Luis Bermudez: Thank you. And the second one? [ Inaudible Speaker ] You guys are super awesome, thank you. So in 1947, something incredible happened. We were able to get ones and zeros [inaudible] from electrical signals. And that allow us to do what? Create computers and more interesting, to be able then to transfer information across computers and across servers, across the world. And this is when Internet was born, 1969. University of California, Stanford, they were able to share some information doing a link called ARPANET link -- 1969 -- 2230. And then between the 70's and 80's, also something interesting happened and it's that we were able to create systems that were able to store information and retrieve information easier. Before relational databases, we had graphs. And then if we wanted to search information, want to go from -- I don't know -- we have a customer and a customer had invoices, invoice one, invoice two, we had to traverse invoice one, invoice two until we get to the last invoice. We were trying to search something in invoice 40 and we wanted to search how many products did we want -- we want -- had to search every graph for every invoice. It was crazy. So they came from these relational databases were born, that allows you to capture tables, link tables and be able to be more efficient in the store of information. In 1993, you know, almost three years after the Internet was born, we have one of the first popular browsers, Mosaic. And this allowed people to search the web, right, so we're not only talking about links about University of California at Stanford, but in a simple interface, we're able to click and access servers around the world. This was incredible. This was an eye opener for a lot of people. Knowledge became widespread and not only knowledge, but maps. So in 1996, MapQuest was created. Four years after MapQuest was created, AOL -- you remember some of you, AOL, okay. One -- but MapQuest for 1.1 billion. So this is how crazy it was mapping in the mapping industry on the web, bringing that information that previously was hard, right. We used to use printed maps to travel -- I used to, you know, I look young and -- but I still use those. And then came the fourth revolution. No, no, came OGC. So, it was created in 1994, right at that point was eight members mostly. Government from the OpenGIS project and we wanted to create interfaces, web interfaces to share geospatial data. So in 1997, the first open geospatial consortium, OGC standard -- that's where I work, right, created the first specification, which is Simple Features Specification. How do we store data in that geospatial database? That was the first time [inaudible]. Why? Because spatial databases were popular at that time. So this is the first standard, right. So Oracles, you know, all those companies got certified and they were able to properly put geographic information in their base. There were certain queries that you were able to do it. And today, most geospatial databases support simple features. Then in 2000, came another interesting standard. So, what's the next step? Oh, well, the next step is to publish maps on the web. Cool. So, what would you like to do? Well, can we have common links, common URL's that we type in a browser and get maps? And let the server do all the crunching, meaning that if we want a map 400 by 600 in JPEG, with certain styles, that the service do all -- does all the crunching and I just get an image that I can reuse in the website that I can then put with another image on top. So that is what double UMS is about. Very popular, is -- is the most popular OGC standard, I think. All governments around the world have implemented when they are started to implement or recall spatial data infrastructures, that's -- maybe the first thing is the inventory catalogs, but the second thing is publishing maps. And then in 2002 was the question of, okay, now we can publish maps, can we publish vector data on the web? So only the images, but can we ask for -- give me all the polygons that represent the U.S. or give me all the roads and that is web features service that came in 2002. Now, so you see this is 1997, 2002, so maps crazy now -- 2004, more people use maps online than e-mail. And in 2007, we knew what happened, right. We ready now to have digital maps in our pocket, thanks to -- to -- to Steve. And okay, now when back a little bit of what USGS has done. This is one of the first screenshots -- I think so. Geographic Names Information Systems where you're able to search some places via a user interface. So this was in 2002, maybe I got it wrong, but this was the -- the best information I got from Geographic Names Information System. So this was quite advanced at that moment, right, 2002 was about 12 years ago. And then -- so there was a web interface, but what about then for the developers? Is there a web service? Is there somehow, I can access that information and do my cool app insta-fisherman buddy helper? So in 2008, the first web service appeared, this was an XML based service. They can also -- were able to get elevation from the National Elevation Dataset. But in 2008, you guys also published the OGC Web Map Service, so you were able to get that information via a standard OGC service. And in 2010, via Web Feature Service. And there is a prototype, which is WFS-G, which is Web Feature Service for Gazetteers, which is very special functions that I'm going to talk at the end that provides better search capabilities, better interface capabilities that go beyond this [inaudible] vector data. Okay. So now to infinity and beyond, right. So, we talk about -- so we started from maps, then list of names. We were able to put names on a map, technology advance, right, digital revolution where we're able to create computers, Internet, put maps on the web and create web services. So we are now at this point, a position that I can go to a web service and I can get the vector data that I want, right. And maybe it has proper names, maybe it has some attributes, not all of them, but attributes likes what type is it, right. Where is it contained, a little definition. So, what's next? So I have four topics here. One is advanced location representation, advanced semantics, linking and search. Now, where is Russia? Yeah, in California, west of Chico, right. No, usually what we do with names or in -- in the previous years, well, Russia is here and how it was this place and how I got the information, was sort of a dot on the map that represented maybe the center of the polygon. But now we can have advanced representations, right, so it's not only a point, but now we have better vector data, better web services, better databases that allow us to not only link names with points, but also sometimes bounding box, that are very useful for searching, for linear rings, polygons and multi-polygons. And all those vector types or presentations are all also standardized as part of OGC. So we can better answer the question of, where is Russia, but saying Russia is here, all these polygons, right. It's much better than saying, it's this point because I can somehow use the data for other purposes, right. Containment, I can calculate the area, I can link with other information that I can somehow find that it's inside Russia and -- and -- and so on. Now, this is also related to somebody that -- that asked a question in the -- in the morning session. So, how do we solve the problems of these category types, right, but it's a Summit. It can be maybe all of these or part of these, or related to these. How -- how do we do it? Well, there is a formal way to do it. We have the technology right now, so the worldwide web consortium -- this is W3C, right. They are doing a lot of web -- a lot of work on the next web, right, because they already did all the work on the web HTTP, that's how we publish information on the web. But their moving towards something called the semantic web that says, "Well, if we can describe things that we put in the web with a correct name and you can provide a correct unique identifier for that name. Then we can start playing and linking all those types and instances, and all the data and build these rich semantic web that we can infer more stuff. And maybe solve the problem for the hungry late fisherman," right. So, and this is very, very small example of maybe what ontology would look like. You can see, for example, that we have volcano and volcano we can say is a type of a mountain. Mountain is a type of natural elevation, that is a geological formation and mountain has a mountain peak, which is a type of peak and some it is a peak, right. So we have somehow information that says, you know, this Summit something, something and has the name of the mountain like, for example, Denali has two significant Summits. The south Summit is higher than da, da, da, da, da, da. Then if we have the type of information and we have, for example, like machine -- machine learning algorithms are able to construct from text or from queries, use ontology. Then you're able to infer more stuff. If you have proper names, proper categories, then you are able to query, get back the information and provide information useful to the end user, like again, the fisherman. So now there is another problem, right, we have a lot of -- now I had all my notes here, I have not been able to read one -- okay. So we had -- we have a lot of different ways to divide our geographic, right, can be counties, it can be by watershed, and we somehow need to share that information. If I'm interested in what lake is inside this watershed, it's a different question from, what lake is inside this county, right? Watersheds come across counties and [inaudible] and so forth. So having the boundaries is not enough, but having information of how do we calculate, for example, these in real time because we are able to properly save the watershed polygon and the county polygons, and then calculate what is inside what. That is very powerful. And right now we're able to do that. The -- the keynote presenter talk about -- and if -- I think this was his second slide or so, about the importance of unique identifiers. And some of the experiments that we do at OGC, so again, open this special consortium, which you know, we're about 500 members. We publish standards, but one of the cool activities that we do is, can we prototype some technology and solve problems? So sponsors, like USGS and GAFAA and so forth, they come and say, "Hey, OGC, we have these problem and want to be able, for example, in this case, to be able to search NGA, but using USGS names or be able to link with these other type of information. Can you do some prototype and then we can create [inaudible] practice, publish a report, improve the standards?" And we say, "Yes." And that's part of the [inaudible] Program Activities. And so we invite other members to participate, these are very fast activities, like six months. A lot of participants around the world, we interact -- I think Doug, we had a lot of fun time. I had a lot of fun time. But it's -- it's very cool because we're able to really move technology in the future and I -- and get some things, you know, software running and -- and then we can publish our report for others to look and improve their systems. So in this case, we had [inaudible] National Geospatial Agency data, now we had USGS data. And we had also Dbpedia, right. And we wanted to be able to link these three and if we have one user interface that search one name, can we also get the information from the other sources, so that -- that way we get a more comprehensive set of information? The first thing we need to do, unique identifiers for all those folks. We have unique identifiers, then we can use the power of ontologies to do explicit representations of types, attributes and then we're able to do powerful searches. So, for example, we're able to get this information, which I think is not part of -- of what you guys published. Like, for example, rain days average in a year or the population metro density and other information that can be accessed somewhere. So again, going back to the fisherman exercise, if we're able to link with a database that provides information about lakes, if they are close, not close, what type of fish, etcetera, we were able then to create this for the fisherman. We were able also to play with advanced searches, right. And we had the scenario where, what if there is an event in the border of Mexico and U.S. and something happened in Rincon, but you didn't know how to spell Rincon? If you know Spanish, sometimes you need to open [foreign speaking], but if you don't speak Spanish so well you say Rincon. And then you don't know how to -- how to write it sometime [inaudible] whatever. So you can write it with different ways, but can we even search that way, and we call it Fuzzy Match. And not only [inaudible] -- in a web interface where we -- we can put, you know, all the -- all the code, but can we put it via web services? So we're able to improve the web services for gazetteers and provide these in -- in a service interface. Also, the nearest neighbor, right -- again fisherman, nearest lake and the best coffee around, best espresso around, organic, whatever. How can I do this in a programmatic way so we interact with web services? So we also advance these searches via web services and also using the ontologies and the categorizations that we have for Summit and the radius. Can we search for all Summit types in this 20 kilometer radius? So we're able to play with ontologies and find names that have, for example, mountain, hills, peaks because they were related. And beyond, so there are a lot, a lot, a lot, a lot of sources around. There is a trend that if you didn't know you need to be aware of, but this is called linked data, which allows you, organizations, agencies, everybody to publish this information on the web and to link it and to provide more information that the current source and improve it. So then you query all this information and get very interesting answers like, the lake example and the fisherman example. So link data and I think that's all. Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >> Douglas Caldwell: That just sort of took us out of our own little world of geographic names and put us in the larger context of other information and how we can be a big player in the information ecosystem rather than just more broken. Is there any questions? [Inaudible] so what -- what are you think in your experiments was the most interesting and unexpected find that you had? So you -- you knew about the data and things, what was the biggest surprise in -- in working through this? >> Luis Bermudez: So -- so the biggest surprise is when we said, "Yeah, we have the technology, yeah, we [inaudible] with ontology search." Then the services, the data of the services didn't have a unique URI. That was the biggest problem. So we published data and agencies, organizations -- yeah, of course, it's not -- they had priority, nobody said, "You need to publish those names with unique identifiers on the web." But that was one of the big issues. And then, what if we have multiple services that are serving the same name or the same feature? How do you deal with that? Yeah, okay, if you have unique identifiers and we can find ontology, this is -- this is the same as. But the -- the main problem is unique identifiers on the web for everything, for digigraphic features, for the types so we can do a nice categorization of them. >> Douglas Caldwell: And I -- I think one of the most interesting things to me in that experiment was, we were able to take a gazetteer ID from NGA, for a feature, and we did Saint John in Canada. And within a couple links, we had the mayor of Saint John, we had the picture of the mayor, we knew what his occupation was and all of these things, just starting with that one ID from NGA. And that I think is in this link data, that's the power of this. There actually are -- there are billions of pieces of information out there just waiting to be tied to our names. And -- and this is one of the things I think that we're going to look forward to in the future. Question, yes? >> I'm curious if you yourself or [inaudible] has gotten into the -- the moral standards [inaudible] aspects. You have places that have previous names and it's all the same place. >> Douglas Caldwell: Can you repeat the question? >> Is there a standard or -- or [inaudible]. >> Luis Bermudez: So if OGC has a standard to -- >> Douglas Caldwell: Repeat the question. >> Luis Bermudez: -- yes, the question -- question. If OGC has a standard to deal with how the names changes and -- and temporal names, right. Yes. So we are dealing with two things there. One is provenance, so we have done a lot of work in provenance activity and in particular, reusing the word, the W3C again, is done -- is doing it's called [inaudible] something like that. But they have a model for provenance. And second, GML 3.2 provides temporality, so you can attach to features time. Aviation uses this a lot because they want to know when an airport is closed and when it's going to be open, when an event occurs. So in aviation, AXM is the GML profile, they use time a lot. Yeah. >> Douglas Caldwell: Any other questions? Thank you. >> Luis Bermudez: Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Douglas Caldwell: Okay, our next speaker is going to be David Stage, who was formerly the state GIS coordinator for the state of Florida. And the eastern cadastral coordinator for the Federal Geographic Data Committee -- or FGDC. As the state GIS coordinator, Mr. Stage had a view of names outside of BGN federal activities. So he was able to see them, and work with them, and use them as someone not in the federal government, but as someone outside. He understands how outside government organizations work with the BGN and geographic names. And today he's going to talk about the connection between two really seemingly incompatible things. On the one hand, we have our authoritative names, which obviously can only be approved by an authority, in this case, the federal government. But we also have this world of crowd sourcing, which is emerging. And in the crowd sourcing world, we're tapping into a huge labor pool of volunteers. And he's going to talk a little bit more about that. Thank you. David? [ Applause ] >> David Stage: Okay, great. Okay, I'm David Stage. My presentation here obviously is on authoritative data and crowd sourcing or how can volunteers provide authoritative data to BGN? This is based on my own experience working at the state and local governments, as well -- not only governments, but associations. I've worked with the National State's Geographic Information Council. I've also had discussions with the National Map Corps, that's part of the USGS. And I talked with Elizabeth McCartney and Erin Course, who were very valuable and who cannot be blamed for anything that I'm saying [laughter]. Okay, I've looked into the research on crowd sourcing and -- and I use the terms crowd sourcing and VGI or volunteer geographic information interchangeably often. There -- there are differences. And on the last slide, I have references that if you are interested in -- in this whole business of crowd sourcing, that you should take a look at. So this is a new area. I'd like to note two things that, one is this is a governance issue. And I've made things a lot simpler than they really are. So, with that -- let's see if I got my things right. Down. Thank you very much. Authoritative data and BGN's business requirements -- so, as a -- it's an -- a BGN or USGS, is an authoritative source, it's an organization that has a legislative mandate or just learned, an executive order and budget to create data to meet specific business needs. In short, what those things are, our place stands for the USGS quads, provide an official process to create and maintain official place names, maintain the currency of that data and [inaudible] place name history -- provide a place name history. Now this next slide is the National Map Corps website. This is the door for crowd-sourced data to become authoritative data. It's a very interesting website. You go home, register today and you can get to work. There are a number of crowd sourcing efforts that have taken place or are taking place. Probably over the past 10 years, it's starting to build momentum. There's a -- some couple of interesting references, there was one to the World Bank that's crowd-sourced geographic information for governments where over 30 case studies were looked at or published, both from governments and the private sector. This is a really good one. The one that was given to the -- the United Nations 10th Conference on Geographic Names, Laura Kotanski, a crowd source and geographic information for government gazetteers where she interviewed 20 public/private entities. And I'll be getting back to her later on. And she talked about -- well, I'll be getting to it. And then BGN's National Map Corp. Okay, now to be a little [inaudible] here and come up -- and look at some terms. I've broken things out into two spheres. There's the authoritative data sphere and there's a volunteer geographic information sphere. So I'm going to kind of go through some terms, so there's some common definitions. First, authority and we use this all the time. And it is -- my understanding of it is it's the legal responsibility by a public agency to conduct business for the public good. That's what authority is. We have an authoritative data source. It has legal authority that's really important to collect data for specific business purposes. And BGN and their staff constantly remind me of what they are supposed to do and things that they're not supposed to necessarily do. Okay, authoritative data is officially recognized data that comes from the authoritative source. There are data stewards, this is the entity within that source that has a responsibility for collecting data. That's often confused with the authoritative data source. And then you've got certified data and uncertified data. Certified data is data that's been vetted by an authoritative source and has legal standing, that's really important. The name has legal standing for -- between federal agencies, not necessarily the state governments or anybody else, but it does have legal standing for -- between federal agencies, the place name. There's uncertified data, which you kind of think of is either data that hasn't been quite vetted yet, has -- hasn't been anointed or its supporting data for those place names. Okay, the volunteer data sphere has two types of -- I kind of use the notion of friendship because that's what you're dealing with when you're working with volunteers. There's two types of data sources, I call them strangers of the night and friendships of utility. There is shadow sources, we used to -- we used this in partial data all the time and we were talking at lunch how it comes -- how people are -- take government data and then provide it to you, and then you have no idea where this came from. You have no idea the currency of the data. We call that the sources, the shadow source, the data is shadow data because you really don't know what that data is. There's no way to confirm it. Whereas, your friends are trusted sources. This is an entity whose trust has been earned. Please note that. Trusted data is data from outside the authorized process whose limitations, currency and attributes can be known and verified. Okay, now in the volunteer sphere, I have identified three types of volunteers. There's the Type I and II. These have infrastructure. The Type III are the true volunteers, when you think about it, and these have no infrastructure. The Type I, these are intergovernmental cooperatives. There might be something signed where you have some people with an organization, they're working with other people and other organizations to kind of help pull things together. You have Type II or indirect management support where an entity -- or where your boss just tells you, "Well, it'd be nice if you could find time to work on this, but you've got to get your other stuff done first," and there's no task involved with that. The Type III are individuals that are outside of the infrastructure and their participation is altruistic. One of the big difference between the Type I and II and the Type III is that Type I and Type II have a paycheck coming in and the other folks don't. It's a big deal. So this is a -- the next slide shows what it's like. We have some sort of legislative authority or executive authority that's provided to an authoritative source. In this case I would say it's the USGS. The data steward is BGN. And then you have GNIS, the Geographic Names Information System, is a processing system that goes into the authoritative data bucket. The GNIS database. And out comes the authoritative data. Now the VGI, the volunteer sphere, what you have over on the other side is -- oh, I need to mention the one on the bottom. You have shadow sources and see that verboten symbol down at the bottom. Okay, now what -- doesn't happen very often and it's not very efficient is when somebody comes from the outside and just out of the blue they provide you with something and say, "Well, here, what about this one?" That's not where the majority of the information comes from. What happens is always -- I mean I've looked at some of the research that's done, and they may not like talk about it, when you go and you look at it, there's some funding that goes to some sort of coordinating entity. And in our case, it's the National Map Corps. And what happens is you have a -- in -- a shadow source that comes into the system, they provide shadow source data, which is vetted, there's usually an overhead for that, it goes into your trusted bucket, and then it could be pumped into the GNIS processing system. And then you have trusted sources who can go directly into your data bucket, or almost directly into the data bucket, and then pumped over into it, with much less overhead. And one of the jobs of the coordinators is to get people to volunteer and the second one is to move people from your shadow sources to your trusted sources. Now it should be done here, right, but no, no, no. Okay, so this is an interesting diagram for the National Map Corps. This is 2014-2015. This is when they first started operationally really getting going. And what you found here is they have, they've got 2000 accounts, these are 2000 people who have registered into the system over that time period, and they provided 125,000 contributions in that time period. That's pretty good. I'll just put this in context. I managed a project in Florida for collecting data. Over a year we had four geography students work with us half time and we were paying them. And we were able to collect 40,000 records over the period of about a year. So this is really pretty good. Next, this is really an interesting one. This is a logarithmic curve of data provided by user. Which states there are a few users that provide you a whole bunch of stuff and the rest provide just a little. This is a universal phenomenon. All right. Of all the literature that I read, it happens everywhere. There's a few people that do all the work, whether it's the soccer moms, there's one person that's running the show. It's the same thing here as it is in all volunteer organizations. It's not that the other stuff is not important. I mean there is data coming in and usually people do it by their interest, their particular geographic location. Now, let's look at coordinators and leaders' relationships to the volunteers. Your job is to create authoritative data using volunteers. You're a coordinator. How are you going to do that? What tools do you have? You have no authority over the volunteers except to tell them to not participate. You have no funds and you can't give them timeout [laughter]. So what can you do? Okay, now this is something I always found very valuable. A manager's job is to make it possible for their employees or volunteers to do a good job. If you ain't doing that, you're not necessarily a good manager as far as I'm concerned. I've worked under a number of them, and you know, yeah if you've got a paycheck coming in, yeah, you'll stay there for a while, but you'll be going looking for something else. If you're a volunteer, you're going to be there for about a minute. So, there's three things you can work on as a coordinator, and that is motivation, quality assurance, and working towards improving the number of trusted sources. Okay, so let's first look at motivating your communities. And you'll notice, I keep circling back because there's these concepts kind of overlap and build on themselves, it's almost like a Venn diagram, or multiple Venn diagrams. Okay, so how do you get -- you increase the participation of your volunteers? Well, you provide them with recognition and reward. It seems pretty simple, but it's pretty straightforward. I got a pen. You know, it makes me feel good and I appreciate that. Okay, you make it easy. And this is probably one of the most important things, and it's been pointed out with people I've talked to multiple times, is you make their work, you minimize the amount of input that they have to do. Minimize their work, make it simple. Give them tools to work with. Provide them training and with user guides, WebEx is great. You know a lot of the travel that we've done has been cut down simply because you can stay in your own office and talk with a group of 20, 30 people, and get everything you get done as if you'd flown and got everybody together in one place and it had taken two days. Document success. One thing you can do is if you've got a best practice, well, you know, you could pay somebody to put together a best practices document. Target specialist communities, and I'll get back to this again, that have an interest in the resulting data. These are Type I, Type II, and Type III volunteers. And accept the idea, and this is real important one, that the idea of going beyond your mission can be a valuable motivator. BGN's requirements are pretty strict. And hopefully I'll give you a way of looking at it where maybe you can think about it a little differently and kind of go beyond that -- those boundaries. All right. Quality Assurance. There's a misconception crowd source data is unreliable. Remember that little verboten, you know, source? Well, when people -- Nancy [inaudible] and I call these people the "Yeah but'ers." You know people don't really understand what's going on. Don't understand the complexity of the system. And you know, you tell them something, what you've been working on for a year, and they say, without thinking much about it, "Yeah, but." That's pretty much, you know. So people like tend to condemn things without having really looked into it. So there's a bunch of things that you can actually do to assure data quality. There's self-regulation. The Wikipedia approach is great. I mean, I give money to that organization. Peer review is a wonderful thing. It's really good info. You need to make it simple. I've already talked about that. You need to develop data checking procedures, and I'll get back to that. Whether it's sampling, you can go and sample the data that's coming in by volunteers, or there's automation processes that are being developed. And track and evaluate the data input by provider. Which leads us right into creating a trusted data source, which the core of it is tracking and evaluate the data by provider. That's how it's done. Because what you're doing is developing familiarity with what the person is providing you. And if a person's doing a good job, then what you should do, or -- and actually what the National Map Corps does is they create levels of responsibility or authority based on the track record of the provider. So you -- those super providers are provided with a fast track pathway into the authoritative data sphere. That's key here. National Map Corps identifies these super providers as advance editors. They have -- they've got 200 entries and they're good, all right, you can trust that person. It's like your friend. You can count on them. Make use of that. This is an interesting diagram. This is the data they provided in the past. Well, since 2012-2015, these are data points just from the National Map Corps. And you can look -- there's two really interesting things about this. One is there's a lot of points. The other one is you look at Nevada and you go, "Wow, they ain't doing much in Nevada." Well, you know, if you know anything about Nevada, 82, and actually the I have to preface this by the focus on the data they're collecting is structures, emergency management, schools, etcetera. If you know anything about Nevada, it's 82% federal land. So is that little border of -- there's a lot of federal land in that border in California too. Now the other one is Iowa. See Iowa is yellow, right? It's all yellow. This is pretty interesting. This is somebody on the logarithmic curve. On the end of it, there's a -- I was told that from the National Map Corps folks, that there was this young lady in, I think she was in Iowa, and she got interested -- she's like 15 -- 14, 15. And she got interested in career paths and found the National Map Corps and got interested in putting data in for over the summer, and got interested in putting data in, and then got focused on cemeteries. And so over the summer, four or five hours a day, she punched in -- she -- those are mostly cemeteries -- she punched in a lot of cemeteries in Iowa. Okay, so if you want to know anything about cemeteries, you could talk to that little lady. And so that's a best practice that should be documented. And there's great value in that. This is another very interesting -- I mean it kind of goes back to some of what I've been talking about. This is the National Map Corps, this is the number of providers. Starts over the period of year, I think this is 2014 and 2015. That's the bar graph. Those blocks up there are things that they've done. From newsletters that have gone out. Things of that nature. Well there's two peaks. See two peaks in there where, or that the line is the number of active providers, okay? So the first peak was a call that went out from the National Map Corps to reach 100,000 records. See that peak? And the next one was a map challenge that they made to their volunteers, who said, "Okay, here's something to do. Let's -- got to make that happen." So these things that they do, if you've got a good coordinating entity and you fund these people, and I know I've kind of been a coordinator and people have a tendency not to fund them, you can get a lot done. Okay, now I've never met this woman, but she's my buddy. Laura Kostanski. She's from Australia and she wrote an article called "Crowd-Sourcing Geospatial Information for Government Gazetteers." It's like a 60-page research paper that she did by talking to -- well she came from Australia. I think she was the gazetteer person there. She went to the United States, England, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and she interviewed like, well 20 entities, private and public, and she gave up 10 lessons learned. I call these the 10 commandments of volunteer geographic information. And I'm just going to march through these because I think it's -- oh, oh, no, I was right. One is focus on the end user. You need to motivate them. There needs to be something in it for them. You can't do just what you want. You've got to do what they want. And this is -- the second one is don't rely solely on digital technology. Here in the U.S., everybody's got it, but in the undeveloped countries, maybe not. You can use a map and a pen and paper and collect information that way. The other thing to recognize is your volunteers can only do so much. So don't like fire your staff and try to, you know, just hire volunteers. It's just not going to happen. So, you're going to have to be able to fill in those gaps. You're going, you know, the idea is to make it simple for the volunteers so they can get that information in. Well, you may have to fill out some of the other information that goes along with it. Be happy with what users want to provide. Give them guidance and scope, etcetera. Okay, you also need to work with these special interest groups, Type I, Type 2, Type 3, all of them. These include state and federal agencies, other -- and I know the Census Bureau works with BGN and provides data, but there's others like the Department of Natural Environmental Protection, parks and recs, school systems, state GIS boards, the NGO's, borders, hikers, those people all have an interest in providing or having name data. Okay, and then provide easy and simple assessable technology. I mean these were her lessons learned, okay. The National Map Corps doing a real good job about that. Develop policies for quality assurance. There's a great focus on that, using both kind of like, you're using both a lesson you're providing them with how to do it, as well as procedures for checking the information. Track entries. I mean this was kind of what was already done and what they're doing. Provide greater responsibility to your trusted sources and give rewards and attention to the volunteers. This is tangible things such as data points and some of the places where they need information real quick, cash. Give them, you know, if you really need to collect data in an emergency management situation or in an undeveloped country, provide, you know, people collect data, if it's good, pay them something. That's a real good motivator. Intangible things, this is communication, improved information for the user groups and more independence. And most importantly, I think very importantly here, is to reevaluate your data spectrum to attract user interest. I know what the requirements are for the GNIS. And it's written out, very specifically, and in a federal agency it's really hard to wander from that and I hope I have a solution here. But, provide unofficial data, along with official data. This is target the data to the users but also not only points, but lines and polygons. That's what people really want to use. It's been talked about multiple times on what value there is, by being able to have a point, have a place name, that's on a point, and then connect that to a footprint. And then offsite trusted sources. Okay, so let's look at offsite trusted sources and how I think this might happen. So you have your authoritative data sphere and you have your trusted data sphere. My suggestion is that you -- the BGN provides guidelines to the state. The state geographic information counsels for example. They have databases in there, right? Tell them what it's supposed to look like for an unofficial names database. They can do what they want to. They can hook up shape piles to it. They can put the lines and the footprints in there. They probably already have them. Get them -- get some way to encourage them to get those things connected together with the GNIS ID and then, you know -- so that will be available to the people in that particular state. And then over time, you can use that tool to be able to pull stuff into your system, and if ever it happens that, you know, you get the authority to put those lines and polygons, they'll be sitting there. Okay, I used to have a boss when I first started with technology field and I'd go over and talk to him. I was in the technical part and he's the policy-type person, and he would give us kind of a work order to do and I'd walk over and talk to him and then we'd discuss things. And I'd say, "Well, what about this?" Or, "What about that?" And his response was always, "And do that too." [ Laughter ] Now, I kind of cut back on the number of things I suggested after a while. [ Laughter ] But this is my "And Do That Too" list for BGN. And I'm just completely ignoring, you know, all practicalities and budget and everything else. First of all, a user needs assessment. Oh, you see this "LK?" That's Laura Kostanski's Commandment One and Commandment Four. That's how that all matches up. Okay, so do a user needs assessment. These are not very complicated to do if you've got the right people doing it. You can do phone calls and just ask people. Do a user needs assessment by organization to figure out what they really want and then kind of start thinking about how you can like, if they can get something, it has to be a win-win for everybody. Go to State GIS organizations. There's a National States Geographical Information Board where all those folks get together. It'd be a really good way if you've got a plan set out, to communicate with these folks about what you'd like to have happen, such as giving them with a suggestion, put on the table, that whole notion of guidelines for an offsite names database. Challenges. Identify tasks to be completed for particularly where you've got your gaps. I mean, it's not only for outside, but also inside. And allow users to identify data opportunity. One of the things in the effort that we did in Florida was that I found out that at the state level, the Department of Education had a database of all schools and coordinates. So we took that data and pushed it into GNIS, as part of what we were doing. But of course, they're -- that database still sits with just that. So my suggestion is that you would have somebody that's identified a data source, or whatever the heck that it happens to be -- this is just an example. They can send a letter to BGN. BGN could say, yeah, this seems like a good project, we trust this guy. Send a letter to the Department of Education, give it an introduction, anoint this person to go talk to him. And then they could put their proposal forward, which would be, hey, this is how this whole thing fits together, because they have no idea about this BGN and the [inaudible] database. This is how it all works, if we put the unique idea in here we can use this -- we could use this to be able to pull this data together, do what the previous -- we talked about connecting everything together. And we can keep that up on a regular basis. And then, by the way, we'll put the names in for you, and all you got to do is add a field and dump it into your database, which is about a four hour work order, you know. I mean -- and you're there. I mean, it could work. So it's actually, you know, kind of pushing the whole business of giving, you know, more responsibility to your trusted sources. Provide access to official and unofficial data. Kind of talked about that. Footprints, lines of polygons, that's what people really want. It's okay, you already sell that point in the middle of Russia, that's not nearly as good as polygons, all right? So if you got a state park or a city park, points great but you really -- I mean, if you're local -- I mean, it's great if you're looking at the national level, but a local level you really would like to have access to that polygon [inaudible] index or a dictionary to the polygon. It ties things together for you. And publish successful data collection procedures. Run out and grab that little girl in Iowa and get her to write down what her procedures are. Okay, so here's the conclusion. VGI, crowd sourcing, can be used to create authoritative data. I truly believe so. It's here now, it's being done, it's been done for 10 years. And to paraphrase an alleged Chinese curse, the future will be interesting time [laughter]. Okay, here's my references [inaudible] number right there. Questions? I have no idea where I was. I wasn't looking at you. [ Applause ] >> Yes. So what do you think about [inaudible] now? >> David Stage: You know, I know a whole lot about the OpenStreetMap, where I've read [inaudible] said, I mean, she seemed like she pretty much liked the idea. But one of the things that I did note, which is not a direct answer to your question, is that I think it may have been OpenStreetMaps, and I can't -- I forget which one it was. But when they talked about -- somebody talked with them about, you know, taking on the responsibility of providing authoritative data, and they said, no, we don't do that. It's like it's a government job to do those sorts of things, and we just can't handle that. But she did suggest [inaudible] did suggest that the entities, you know -- I mean, VGN would [inaudible] she talked to would work out relationships with Google or OpenStreetMaps to upright within that volunteer sphere, that's the way I would describe it. >> I think it's really interesting because it is -- it's a very fine line. I mean, you could see a time obviously authority plays a role and that's a role that is being -- it's government's responsibility to make sure that the names are official, and to work within the process. So if you can imagine a world where social media totally [inaudible], so we can say, oh, Washington D.C. is trending, oh, it's Washington D.C. [laughter]. Thirty seconds later, oh, no longer, it's Miami again. You know, the crowd can be tickled, but the crowd is very powerful. And this is really something that's going to be worked out in the next few years. >> I don't know if you are [inaudible] but they've done something somewhat similar to this, but they didn't go out to the crowd overall. Like in their mapping system you can say, oh, I'm in this hotel and I want to know where I can [inaudible], you can do that [inaudible]. But the way they did it was [inaudible] Chambers of Commerce of each area and got them to agree [inaudible] business interest that way and they get the Chamber of Commerce to then maintain the [inaudible] into the mapping agency. It's more of a common [inaudible]. >> David Stage: Yeah, I could see where that would work. I mean, that would be a source, because there's other stuff, like, you know, the peaks on a mountain and creeks and rivers, and all those sorts of things that maybe they wouldn't have. But if would be a very good data source. I mean, that's what you're suggesting here, is it would be an excellent data source to look at the Chamber of Commerce as -- I mean, that's the people that have an interest in these sorts of things, so maybe you should contact them and figure out what their business interests are, and figure out how it connects together. Yeah. >> As people interact with the digital mapping [inaudible] and they interact in their environment and record things out [inaudible] in these open source mapping systems, what do you see is the potential for creating new names and getting acceptance for those names that somehow then become [inaudible]? >> David Stage: That would be -- you know, I'd go back to the model where is you've got a source of information that goes into this sphere, you've got this place where it can operate. Where so if you have -- you know, if you have like an entity that's actually collecting this -- this information or this data, I mean, you know, one of the suggestions -- you know, I could just [inaudible]. One of the suggestions that I would make is, you know, provide these people with some guidelines on what to do, you know. And if they can meet it, then they're more of a trusted source than, you know, if they didn't have that information. And so you can see somebody that's actually -- or some entity or some application that's doing something of this nature, and then you provide them the guidelines, and they're following them, then it kind of moves that person from a shadow source more towards a trusted source. >> [Inaudible] bottom up move of naming where people begin to accept the name and then that name becomes authoritative [inaudible]. >> David Stage: Oh, as opposed to BGN looking at it and saying yay or nay? >> I'd have trouble with that personally [laughter]. >> David Stage: Yes? >> My question actually [inaudible] that. You mentioned authoritative [inaudible] through BGN. But I'm a geography teacher and my authoritative source is my curriculum, so right now my curriculum actually has me teaching [inaudible] names of places. >> David Stage: Well -- >> So what do you see as the future of [inaudible] maps? >> David Stage: Well [inaudible] has aliases in it, and they have a single [inaudible] ID and they have one name that sits on top and they have aliases and you can pull them all up, and it seems to work, if you ask me. [Inaudible] names, but you really -- I mean, you can just see an [inaudible] management you got like a single name here and somebody says something that's not sitting up on the top, somebody calls in and says, I'm at such and such. Well, if you got -- you can call that name up, you know, with technology, and match it up with the real name, and match it up with coordinates. I mean, that's how that whole linking together stuff works. So, you know, conceptually, I mean, that's -- the technology pulls that all together for you. >> If I could ask Helen maybe to stand up. She can -- has seen how different countries handle this dual naming or it's called by different things. And maybe you could just mention that. So do you want to come up the mic? I think this is a very interesting issue and it's a very -- it's a challenging one and it's an emerging one. >> Helen Kerfoot: Well, first I guess this dual naming or multiple naming at an official level, an authoritative level. And I think there are many countries across the world now who are processing more than one name for a feature or a place. For example I showed you Norway and [inaudible] this morning, in Sweden and in Finland there's more than one name for places. Australia has, Canada has, and I could go on further than that. So that's sort of an official level. At the unofficial level, as you've heard about the -- from David now, Sweden has had a project where they collected names on a cell phone and that was with an app that they had produced in [inaudible] and they did it for just one city, it was a pilot project. They collected I think quite a lot of names, but haven't found a way of processing it, but have passed these over to the municipality for potential use. There are I guess other people who are trying this out but haven't quite found a way of working it in with their names of authority. And the example of Denmark that was given, I saw a demo of their database and heard about it last week, and I think that's a very interesting concept. Maybe it's a much smaller country, but they, for instance, would like to say, well, I'm at point X, what administrative unit am I in, what's my -- where do I go to vote? In other words they want to have multiple links on this. And they were gathering names from various sources, like the police were interested in putting names in, and obviously they would be one of the trusted sources. And this would be, again, for such a rescue [inaudible] emergency uses. So I think Denmark was making a lot of progress on this. Other Scandinavian countries, such as Norway and Sweden were wanting to put into their databases what they call points of reference, and this might be even down to the level of sort of restaurants. But then they have to be very careful to keep commercial names separated from other names. But, again, it's all a question of use, I think, for probably emergencies. I think that's what happened with the street mapping examples like in Haiti when [inaudible] great collection of names very suddenly to meet a particular situation, but that doesn't mean to say that they were terribly reliable. It doesn't mean to say they have been maintained since. So I guess there were many questions on this name, both at the official level and the unofficial level. And for many authorities I think it's -- even with the steps provided, it still takes a lot of resources, and I guess that's really how to even start doing it is a big question. >> David Stage: Yeah, I mean, [inaudible] good example of one of them personally. I can say anything personally. >> Helen Kerfoot: Yeah, that's not just names, is it? >> David Stage: Hon? >> Helen Kerfoot: That's not just names? >> David Stage: This is the name and the coordinate. >> Helen Kerfoot: Yeah. >> David Stage: This is the name and the coordinate. To be honest with you, I do not know what other information they collect, and there's a lot of other things that goes along with it. You know, other -- there's the authoritative process where a lot of stuff is collected [inaudible] database. And so this is like the minimal information to get things like moving. >> Douglas Caldwell: Thank you very much. >> David Stage: Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Douglas Caldwell: And I should be clear on this, because sometimes there is some confusion. For names in the United States there is one official name that the BGN provides. For foreign names there may be multiple approved names. So that's just the way it is. [ Laughter ] But you can imagine if some countries have multiple languages, some countries have multiple languages that apply only in certain areas [inaudible] run through multiple countries. So it's not quite as easy in those situations. Our final speaker today I'm very pleased to introduce, Mr. Juan Valdes. He is the Geographer and Director of Editorial and Cartographic Research at the National Geographic Society. He is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and consistency of National Geographic maps and products. Now approaching 40 years of service, he has worked in one capacity or another on every type of map produced by the National Geographic Society, including map supplements, globes, page maps, dynamic mapping platform, and five additions of National Geographic's renowned Atlas of the world. National Geographic is internationally recognized for their exceptional cartography. Mr. Valdes will conclude our presentations with an insider's view of geographic names and the association between the BGN and the National Geographic. Thank you very much. [ Applause ] [ Inaudible Speaker ] >> Juan Jose Valdes: All right, very good. Well, on behalf to the National Geographic Society, I would like to extend our congratulations to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names on its [inaudible] centennial. And I'm going to take you in a very different direction than the last two presenters. I'm going to give you some history as to the relationship between organizations. And in putting this paper together, I found out a lot of information that really I couldn't put down on less than 33 slides. I could have been here for a couple of hours, so I condensed this as much as possible. Prompted by a desire to share their scientific interests, ideas, and findings, the 33 founders of the National Geographic Society first met in the Cosmos Club in Washington D.C. on January 13th, 1888. Among them were four men; John Wesley Powell, Henry Gunnett, Marcus Baker, and Herbert G. Ogden. Powell played a key role in promoting the creation of a special government board to deal with geographic names. Two years later, Henry Gunnett, the father of government cartography, along with Ogden and Baker would be among the first members of a board created for the purpose of standardizing geographic names throughout the executive departments of the government, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. In the beginning, National Geographic relied on cartographic houses to produce most of its maps, like the Russia in Europe inset in the January 1898 issue. [Inaudible] source on this map was its producer, Dodd Mead and Company publishers. Place name conventions were first addressed in the August 1890 issue of the National Geographic Magazine. Herbert G. Ogden, now a Society vice president, and Marcus Baker contributed to an article entitled, "A Geographic Nomenclature." Of [inaudible] was there suggestion that a board should be formed consisting of representatives from the different departments and bureaus in Washington. They issued maps, charts, and other publications requiring geographic names. This issue also contained an appendix which presented the British, French and German systems for the autography and pronunciation of foreign geographic names. It also stated that all Society publications would follow the rules adopted in 1855 by the Royal Geographical Society in London. Later, in April 30th, 1891, Herbert G. Ogden reported on President Harrison's creation of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names on September 4th, 1890. Interesting enough, Ogden titled the piece, "The American Board of Geographic Names." It addressed the composition of the board, 10 representatives from different departments and bureaus of the government, and included its first bulletin, which announced the adoption of the English system for the treatment of foreign place names and transliterations into Roman characters. In the July 1986 issue, Henry Gunnett expounded on the accomplishments of the board, noting the number of meetings it had held to date, 48, and the number of decided cases, 2835. He also defended the board from its detractors, noting that geographic names may be broadly distinguished into two classes, "Those which are established by local usage, and those which are not so established." [Laughter] I had to read that a couple of times. He stressed that in regard to the former class, the primary principle which controls the decisions of the board is that commonly local usage [inaudible] prevail. Although Puerto Rico had been among the first names to be adopted by the board, many including renowned Geologist, Robert T. Hill, as the title of his March 1899 article attests, continued to promote the use of the variant if not archaic form of the name, Porto Rico. Nine months after this publication, his -- of his article, Hill continued the debate over the name of the newly seated territory by making an elaborate case for the adoption of Porto Rico as the islands conventional name. His view of the board was clearly expressed in the first of the five points in his argument. In that same issue, John Hyde, the magazine's interim editor, refuted Hill's points, stressing that the National Geographic Society regards the board as one and only standard of authority on geographic nomenclature as far as the government and people of the United States are concerned. So there you go [laughter]. To emphasis the Society's support of the board, Gilbert Hobygrovner [assumed spelling], the magazine's first managing editor, began publishing it's decisions in the August 1900 issue, and would do so periodically until March of 1907. When warranted, the magazine informed its readers about the board's special reports. In this case one on the list showing approved spellings for 4000 coastal place names in the Philippines. To compliment the Korea and Manchuria map insert, the board's pronunciation guide for place names in Eastern Asia was republished as a ready reference feature in the March 1904 issue. The editor justified it's inclusion by stating that, "The breaking out of the war between Russia and Japan is bringing trouble to every household in the land. For place names of Korea and Manchuria are spelled differently by different newspapers, and on different maps. A system which is simple, easy of application, and which if generally followed reduces these variations of spellings to a minimum. Therefore, use this guide." The March 1905 issue continued a lengthy article on the [inaudible] history of the United States. Its aim was to let the readers know that among the best ways to determine the history of a place, be it a region, city, mountain, or body of water, was by its name. A premise that still holds true today. While the July 1905 issue contained a listing of the board's decisions from April through June of that year, it would be the first and last time the decisions on foreign names would appear in the magazine. On occasion the magazine notified its readers of key board related events. Here, President Roosevelt's January 1906 extension of the board's responsibility was duly noted in the March 1906 issue. In the July 1906 issue, which featured the first wildlife photograph, signaled a start of the magazine's move from a purely scientific journal to becoming an illustrated monthly magazine. To this end, the March 1907 issue was the last to carry decisions on the United States Geographic Board. Three years after it's formation, in March 1915, National Geographic's Map Department published its first map supplement, the Western Theatre of War. It was described and promoted as, "Presenting a complete and authoritative survey of all places, forests and river systems figuring in the [inaudible] dispatches from the western front." Among the sources used to produce this map insert were official maps of the French and Belgium Departments of War, with place name assistance from the board. Adherence to the board's policy was not only prevalent in place name usage in the Society's second insert map of Africa, but in its equivalence table as well. The table emphasized the use of the board's approved British transliteration system, and the spelling of native names, and in expressing the English sound equivalence of French, Italian and Portuguese spellings. Soon our other maps would follow his convention, including our first Political Map of the World published in December of 1922. The December 1944 issue of the Society's new map supplement of the Soviet Union boasted that it was the first and only available detailed map of Soviet Russia with place names in English. It promoted the fact that the spelling of more than 8000 place names with the English alphabet was in itself a formidable task, a task made much easier with the assistance of the board. In 1958 [inaudible] 70th anniversary of the Society's founding, a new map series was started in which the entire world was mapped, region by region. The maps in this series would eventually evolve into [inaudible] published in the first edition Atlas of the World in 1963, and would go on to serve as a cartographic platform for all future editions. Per Society policy, both the domestic and foreign name branches of the board were consulted on appropriate place name usage on all plates. In announcing the publication the revised sixth edition Atlas, the November 1992 geographica feature noted that every map naming any part of either Yugoslavia or the USSR, even a map of Alaska, which shares the Bering Straits with Russia, changed. And here's where I vividly recall a former geographer, Ted Dakara [assumed spelling], going to BGN offices on a weekly basis and coming back with reams and reams of place name changes, and the new countries of Eastern Europe. This is the way we used to do place name changes in the past, by hand. Slow and meticulous process. The 1990s witnessed the introduced a new feature titled, "Behind the Scenes." It was intended to provide our readers with an inside look into the workings of the geographic. The November 1995 issue contained a piece on Kazakhstan's new spelling as confirmed by the board. Ironically, after changing our maps to reflect the new spelling, and promoting this piece, the ancient Kazakhstan was to be restored a mere two years later [laughter]. As you've seen the Society's first began disseminating BGN approved place names in its journals quickly to be followed by its supplement, page maps, globes, atlases, apps and other cartographic products, including our giant traveling maps for students, which averaging 26 by 35 feet in size, are the largest maps we have ever produced. Our cartographic line still adheres to some of the place name conventions whose origins can be traced back to the early day sort of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, including the prolific use of conventional place names for cultural and physical features. For shared geographic features. For variant place names. For transliterated place names. As well as for contentious place names. Today the collaboration between the Society and the board remains as strong as ever. Any pertinent information that we obtain, in this case the Cuban government's official announcement on the creation of two new provinces on January 1st of 2011, it's quickly shared not only with the BGN but with our colleagues at state. So in keeping with John Hyde's comments in the December 1899 issue of National Geographic, the Society has always regarded the U.S. Board on Geographic Names as the authority on geographic nomenclature. A fact that is duly addressed in the Geographic Style Manual, which is accessible to the entire world. And one that we will surely recognize in the board's bicentennial. [ Applause ] Questions? No questions? Okay. >> Douglas Caldwell: Okay. >> Thank you. >> Juan Jose Valdes: Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >> Douglas Caldwell: Okay. Again, I would like to thank the Library of Congress for hosting the event, and the Philip Lee Phillips Society for their sponsorship. I'd like to thank the Special Communications, in particular the former chair, Meredith Wessington [assumed spelling], who is [inaudible] now and not able to be with us today. I'd also to thank Mike Fornier [assumed spelling] from the Census Bureau who helped originate the idea for this and got it off the ground. And I'd like the members of the Special Communications Committee to please stand up. So, thank you. So they've done all the work that's gone into -- [ Applause ] I'd also like to thank the agencies that provided financial support for the event, including the Forest Service, the Library of Congress, the Department of State, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey. In particular I'd like to thank our speakers who made this such a wonderful event today, and shared knowledge that you just -- you just can't find elsewhere. This is the experience and the insight that just is not available elsewhere, so I really want to thank our speakers. And most of all I'd like to thank you for coming. I tell you, our Geographic Names would not be functioning without the support of the public, and the interest, and the input and everything. And so I really appreciate your coming today to share our birthday party. So now at this time we're going to be moving downstairs to the Geography and Map Division, which is in the basement, for a very special open house, where the staff has prepared a display of artifacts relating to geographic names in general, and the BGN in particular. You'll not only have a chance to see rare materials that are not usually on display for the public, but you will also have the opportunity to mingle with [inaudible]. The exhibit will close promptly at 5:00 p.m., so without further ado, thank you. [ Applause ] >> This has been a presentation of the Library of Congress. Visit us at

See also


  1. ^ Only candidates with at least 1% of the vote listed

This page was last edited on 14 December 2018, at 22:39
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.