Rory MacKay (no login) from IP address 184.108.40.206
I noted the reference in the July 2010 newsletter to the map of Algonquin produced by one of the executive members, along with the suggestion that "you be the judge".
While I do understand the concept of self-promotion and favoured promotion, I am concerned that there was no mention of the official canoe routes map in the newsletter; only reference to the alternative map.
While I have found aspects of the ABR promoted "better" map to be useful, I am concerned that it is being promoted by ABR as the map offering "more". [Quotation marks here are intended here for emphasis, not as quotations] I have a personal concern that some of the "more" includes inaccurate or unofficial names for lakes. I do not refer here to the historical information, but to changes made by the map's cartographer for his convenience or on a whim. For example, Booth Lake has become Booths Lake and Round Lake has become Rounds Lake. There are many other examples where lake names differ from the official current names, including unnamed lakes that appear to be named after friends of the cartographer. I am aware that such may have been the practice in the historic past when some maps of the canoe routes were made, but at that time there was no official map.
Before someone pounces on me for publicly criticizing the use of these "incorrect" lake names on this forum, or the cartographer in question, let me point out that I have made extensive attempts in private with the map cartographer, separately and involving park staff, by e-mail to persuade him why it is important to use the proper lake names, for the sake of his credibility, for accuracy and for safety. Possibly most important for newsletter readers is the latter, for someone reporting an incident or accident at a lake named one way on the "better" map but not included on the official list of lakes may add confusion of location when time of the essence.
I respect the cartographer's artistic license to create the map as he wishes, but believe that names on the map should be accurate. I have long wanted to know the opinion of ABR members on the importance of the accuracy lake names, but would not have raised the issue in this forum had the "creative" map not been mentioned in the newsletter along with the invitation to "be the judge" of it.
One of my concerns is for historical accuracy -- and here I would probably be channelling Ralph Bice -- but I will concede that some lake names have changed over the years. However, pluralizing a lake name (Rounds) or making it possessive without an apostrophe (Booths) makes me wonder what other creativity has been applied to the map information. The cartographer will no doubt disapprove of the criticism, especially to this public; we have agreed that we disagree.
I understand that you will continue to include the "improved" map in your newsletter, as it does contain useful information available as a service online (and a guy also has a right to make a buck), but please remind users that it should be used only in conjunction with the official map, and please encourage members and others to provide necessary changes to both the cartographer of the "better map" and Park officials so everyone can benefit from improved accuracy on both maps.
Your feedback regarding the names of lakes on Jeff McMurtrie's map is appreciated. Over the coming weeks, your points will be discussed with Jeff. Just to clarify, Jeff distributes his map-book at cost. Mark-ups are by the retailers involved.
If the cartographer distributes "accurate" maps at cost he does a service. Given that he has chosen to modify names to suit himself, then let the ABR -- as a promoter of the map -- be cautious. Some road maps are free, but one trusts the information will be accurate in naming towns and cities.
The examples regarding lake names I gave are but two of many, and perhaps the most obvious. Spend some time comparing maps and you will find many more. I do understand that over historic times lake names have been a bit fluid. The cartographer has provided a good list of historic names for many, and that is interesting and appreciated. I do believe that park authorities would want a modern map to be "accurate" in conforming with the official names.
I don't want this issue to detract too much from the fact that the cartographer has done an immense amount of work on behalf of canoeists. His youthful enthusiasm and map-making skills are acknowledged and appreciated. Perhaps perspective changes with age, but this 60 year old canoeist and historian wishes that his enthusiasm was channeled to working with park authorities rather than saying they won't co-operate with him. I would LOVE to see the two collaborating; what maps those would be!!
I hope you can encourage this talented cartographer to have the lake names conform to the official record, and submit his personally "named" lakes to the Geographical Names Board for inclusion on official maps, like the one produced for Ontario Parks by The Friends of Algonquin Park.
You bring up a good point regarding the JM's 'addition' (compared to other published maps of the area) of S and 'S in the lake/river names. I must admit when I first saw his AP map (v1.1 from '08) and noticed the usage of S/'S on certain lakes/rivers I was a little curious to know the reason(s), but never discussed it with him. I likely just got used to seeing it on his map and so never raised the issue (it's his map after all), but now that you've brought it up again I'd be interested in hearing his take. I personally don't have issue with him naming previously 'unnamed' waters whatever he wants. I know he's been meticulous about researching waterbody names and has used many sources at his disposal (NRCan/MNR/FOAP/CNR/archival maps/etc). So if there's a lake/river/creek/pond bearing a name he decided to use you can be pretty confident it was unnamed on all the other references he's found. There are a handful (a dozen +/-) of lakes within AP's boundary with the form AP-##, and I've brought these to his attention for naming on his new version. I like your idea of submitting a request to GN Board for these personalized previously unnamed waters though - even if that process takes years.
I can't speak for Jeffrey, but from what I understand, FoAP is more interested in maintaining their map as an 'artful' product at the expense of being an accurate navigation tool, they will keep the existing small scale and limited feature/color set. They do not share Jeffrey's more 'grandiose' vision. JM's more interested in accuracy - not just geospatial point/line/poly features but also in all forms of themes (fishing/historic/communication/transportation/logging/toponomy/wildlife/etc). All this packaged within a conveniently larger mapping scale that supports these features yet not too large to become unusable for route planning.
JM's away for a bit but hopefully when he returns he can explain the logic of the S/'S and any of your other concerns.
This is a great discussion. I am however a little surprised that Rory chose this method to start the debate since this we had private discussions over 6 months ago on the subject. Regardless, I'd love to take some time to clear up my personal policy on naming, but would like to start out by noting that my map has nothing to do with the ABR and that it's inclusion in the ABR newsletter was in absolutely no way suggested or influenced by me in any way. At all times I have been and will continue to work in compliance with the ABR's conflict-of-interest policy.
Rory brings up a few things that I'd like to address seperately.
There are two main issues from what I can tell that he has accidentally blended together:
1)The use of classic names ONLY where the difference is the addition of s or 's - this is beneficial since it reduces the number of 'old' names (to include both Booth's and Booth is a waste of space and adds to clutter) and helps readers understand how names were sourced (ie my map clearly answers the question 'What's a Hogan?') Deviations from the spellings on the MNR map are all pulled from maps in my possession (and hence are never made 'on a whim')
2)Names I added that are not approved by the Ontario Geographic Names Board; they set the standard names for named bodies on Government maps (as noted under section 4(2) of the Ontario Geographic Names Board Act). This comment is actually kind of interesting since the MNR itself uses additional names not approved by the board (the Act seems to only require Ministries to use approved names for features that have names)! For instance, I believe McCormick L and Bean's Boulder (on the canoe and backpacking maps respectively) are not approved names (this is even noted in the park's own 'names' booklet). Additionially I in fact know of a number of lakes which are signed with names but those names are not on the MNR map! For instance, there is O-Lake by Mattowacka and Simone's Pond by Wabamimi (by North River Lake). To complicate things further, Chrismar (and other generally accepted maps) have added names the FoA doesn't use. Lakes I have named my self are in almost all cases far removed from canoe routes. Essentially, I'm stating that I'm not doing anything different than any other Algonquin map INCLUDING the MNR's.
Regarding Rory's comments about no mention of the official park map, I'd like to question the appropriateness of linking to the MNR's map when Rick Stronks (chief naturalist) himself called it 'a piece of art' rather than a map. They can't have it both ways. To me, the ABR's recommendation of my map or any other map should be ONLY based on the accuracy of the map - nothing else! If that means that the ABR wants to recommend mine, that's fine; if they don't that is also fine. I think my relationship with the ABR should have nothing to do with it and it should be treated like any other link of value (or not) that it may have come across (and I believe it was).
My personal feelings? Don't like my naming scheme? Then don't use it. I strongly believe am in no way confusing or misdirecting any map user, but rather am making it even more descriptive, reducing clutter, and continuing on traditions of many other current and historic map makers. The entire goal of my map is to reduce confusion and any deviation from that places me further from my goal. The MNR map is in no way a gold standard or something to strive for!!!
I always want to make my map better, but I am and always will be the one who decides what goes in and what doesn't. I am adamant about this since it's my map, my energy and my time (I really do want to make it the best I can though and will invest my time if I think it will improve it).
For what it's worth I'd like to point out that I don't feel like I'm at odds with any park/MNR staff .
With all that said, if anyone feels like there are issues of confusion (or any other issues) I'd love to further understand your views .
P.S. Although I will show the AP-XX names that the AFA(?) 'created' (it sounds like a computer did the creating) where appropriate, those lakes all deserve better names (The AP-XX names are not Ontario Geographic Names Board approved by the way).
P.P.S. Submitting names to the names board is an interesting idea, but we may simply have different understandings of what constitutes a 'good' name. That's fine. I'll always show their names over mine (to minimize confusion).
P.P.P.S. SM is right, I never name lakes that have ever had names before
Jeffrey has expressed surprise as to why I brought this to the attention of the ABR. I said at the outset of my initial post that I did so because his map was referred to in the ABR newsletter. I note in the Leave No Trace brochure that mention is made to use other maps in conjunction with the official map. If that is the ABR policy, then I have no concern, I guess, other than the concern for historical continuity.
Perhaps the executive of ABR could please check with Mr. Stronks to verify what has been said here about his opinion or that of the Friends of Algonquin Park regarding their official map.
Reverting to the historic conventions was the intent with the caveat that I had thought that there would be no confusion (if you refer to it as Booth and I refer to it as Booth's I didn't expect any confusion as to which lake we were referring to). Still, I'll agree that maybe there probably is a way that confusion can be further reduced and clarity be enhanced (yes, after rejecting this for months, sorry Rory). I've attached two alternative conventions below for consideration. Your opinion is appreciated.
I'd also document this in the legend.
Regarding non-standardized names, I'm concerned about how best to impliment anything since the MNR itself varies from standards (as I have outlined). I think it would be very confusing to note a 'non-standard' name on the map that is referred to as such on the portage sign for instance! I propose the following:
-Any lake or river on a canoe route will be named according to the relevant portage sign and that no note be added regarding it's officialness or not; if it's on the sign it's what canoeists expect to be on the map
-That for any lake not on a canoe route I consider some sort of notation for any name (used by the MNR or not) that deviates from some sort of standard (maybe the OGNB names, maybe the Canadian Government's topo maps, or maybe some sort of other standard - I'll decide that after taking some time to look at which seems to best follow the naming standards most accepted by canoeists today - this standard will NOT be the Friends of Algonquin map since I'm not convinced that that is an actual standard) - hopefully the MNR and AFA could do something similar where they deviate for the same reasons everyone has outlined
I have been asked, as have you all, for your opinion. Please let Jeff know what you think. In the case of the two examples, I think the lake should be labelled Hogan Lake, without the faded additional 's. I appreciate the inclusion of historic names Jeff has provided on many lakes. It makes for interesting discussion as to the variations and changes around the campfire/stove. But it is still Hogan Lake (and the Earth still moves). I am not so sure of the hyphenation of "Native names" such as Madawaska to Ma-Da-Was-Ka. I find that demeaning, but that may be my opinion alone.
I am not trying to be difficult or obstructive. I have tried for months to determine what is wrong with using the official names on Jeff's map. Jeff suggests as the creator of the map he has the right to name lakes the way he wants. I would agree with that if he did not circulate the map to others. Jeff steadfastly declares, in reference to the map " I am and always will be the one who decides what goes in and what doesn't."
Apparently, Jeff has met once with Mr. Stronks, apparently with other ABR folk, and not at all since this issue arose. He has suggested that Mr. Stronks and the FOAP are not interested in accuracy as much as he is. This I cannot believe, as a member of the Friends of Algonquin Park since its inception, and as a former staff member at the visitor centre. There is no question that their map is intended for a more general audience than is Jeff's and I suspect that the format differs from Jeff's for sound reasons. Why won't Jeff just meet with them and find common ground???????? That way, if park interior staff are placing incorrect signs, they too can be corrected.
I have said enough for now. I really appreciate that Jeff has been thinking about changes to his map to make it better. I respect his creativity and drive. I hope that others can persuade him (where I can't) that correct lake names are important not only as part of the reputation of a map-maker but also out of a sign of respect for such a place so dear to our hearts as Algonquin Park.
Please forgive me for feeling so strongly on this subject. The rest of you, it is your turn now.
I like the parenthesis, unbolded and less intense color font version of the 'S/S in JM's example 2 pict. That's an excellent solution, especially with a legend reference as you suggested. Perhaps reducing the font by a size would help too, but I'm happy with the example provided.
I agree with Rory though with the hyphenation of some text (e.g. some Native names) - imo it's not necessary and will help reduce the length/clutter of these words.
I do miss the contour lines though versus the new shaded relief, quantitative versus qualitative respectively - I like the quantitative approach
Honestly, if FoAP and JM were to get together/share knowledge/etc to create a map I can only see that as a negative for JM. It will slow his creation/production process, water down the map and create another level of unnecessary beaurocracy as both sides have very differing objectives - I just don't see that happening. There is no benefit to Jeffrey that any such cooperation would provide - given that he already has what data is available in addition to those who are sending him almost real-time GPSr files(point/line vector data) and/or simply existing knowledge/experience.
Quick note: I'm going canoeing on Thursday so I can't reply any further for 3 weeks.
As to how the 's is labelled, brackets are the standard on my map, and a specific mention in the legend should make it any clearer. I can't possibly foresee a single person ever confusing the old name and the current spelling if I use the labelling system in option 2.
In terms of the hyphenation of native names, that does not seem to be at all related to any concerns about safety or confusion, rather a feature removal request. If you can suggest a better way of helping map readers quickly and more easily pronouncing native names, then feel free to suggest it. I'd use IPA symbols for pronunciation, but the general public can't understand them. This feature is in response to the difficulty many seem to face pronouncing native names since they're not used to reading some of the letter patterns associated with many native names (ie since they're not prevalent in English). I've actually had quite a few people thank me for the inclusion of a system that allows them to quickly see the syllables that make up the words, increasing their ability to properly pronounce some of the names. I personally find Madawaska easy to pronounce, but at the same time find many other names like Kioshkokwi, Kahwahwaskigamog and Kawawaymog I find harder at a quick glance. I've personally heard more than five ways to pronounce Kioshkokwi and it seems that Kawawaymog is referred to as K-Mog by those looking to pronounce it when they otherwise can't. I needed to decide whether every native name would be hyphenated or if none should be - I need consistent standards to be applied across the map. Ultimately I wanted to reduce the rate at which these names were 'butchered' when people came across unfamiliar ones, and I believe I succeeded. If you find that demeaning, then I'm saddened since my goals were totally opposite to that. I believe I'm successfully achieving those goals and hence in lieu of a better way to communicate that sort of information, I think they should stay.
In terms of something being 'wrong' with the official names, I hope I've made it clear that space concerns and clutter were the reason for the specific design decisions I made. In lieu of some of the ideas that have come up recently, I think I've come up with a system to achieve this goal and reduce confusion. If the map was 1:10 000 this probably wouldn't even be an issue, but it isn't and space is at a premium in many places.
I never said that the MNR was not concerned with accuracy whatsoever (I do believe that some effort goes into it), but simply was communicating that given their limited resources it seems that the map is not the top priority. Given limited resources some things will always need to be prioritized over others. Obviously I feel the map is important and am doing my best to make the best map that I can.
As to the suggestion, that I won't work with them, I do not understand your point? If you are suggesting I should not create a map and simply help the MNR with theirs, I don't see why that makes sense. Even if the MNR put their map at the top of their priority list, they would always have different ideas about what does as well as what does not belong on the map. There is a lot of creativity and choice involved in map design beyond the raw facts/data that form the structure of the map. The fact that our maps will inevitably look different is not a bad thing, it's simply that we view different audiences and have different visual priorities.
For what it's worth I would like to state that I have offered geographically accurate GIS files to the MNR to correct their map but was rejected. Instead I was asked to mark up a FoA map with a pen. That's something I'll do at some point, but an export of geographically accurate campsites from my database complete with citations takes me a minute while a pen and paper will take me exponentially longer (with much less accuracy). I would also like to point out that I became a bit disheartened when I discovered that many of the corrections I'd be submitting on paper are already in the MNR's internal NRVIS database.
Regarding SM's comments, the type in that example is actually 75% size (6pt vs 8pt) but the ascenders and decenders on the '(' and ')' characters don't make it as obvious as I'd like without closer inspection. I'll change the value form 75% to 65%.
Contour lines will probably be coming back . Illustrator's silly memory limitations mean that it doesn't make sense to add them until the last minute (they're sitting in a file ready to be added).
Jeff. Your solution #2 looks good to me also. I also agree with your hypenation of First Nations names. I also would hate to think of your map-creation process being drawn into a bi-annual FOA 'map-by-committee' process. Thanks for addressing the concerns effectively.
Tks for clarification re: contour lines - I know it has been discussed in the past (lol) and personally hope they do remain - much more useful imo than what the shaded relief provides alone.
If you've heard from individuals who really appreciate the hyphenation than it's your call obviously. I agree that it must be an all or nothing approach for consistency in terms of which words to target.
In response to your statement: -Any lake or river on a canoe route will be named according to the relevant portage sign and that no note be added regarding it's officialness or not; if it's on the sign it's what canoeists expect to be on the map
Not sure if I understand your statement, but I personally would not prioritize the lake/creek/river/whatever name spelling based on what's written on the portage signs - I've come across a number of naming/spelling errors (and distance errors) during my travels through her, and missing/destroyed/unrecognizable signs of course too.
The FoAP CRM is at such a small scale that I'd agree to not use it for any set standard for naming waterbodies, most of which are too small to even show up on their map + all the other issues with it. NRCAN is likely the best source - although I'd be interested to hear your observations given the sources you've viewed/researched.
Rory MacKay (no login) 220.127.116.11
clearing up a misunderstanding
August 3 2010, 12:38 PM
It is good to see some other opinions, and obviously there is much to consider very valuable about JMs map. I have always tried to compliment him on his cartographic skills.
There has been some concern raised about JM being sucked into meetings with FOAP which will delay improvements to his map. It was never my intent to suggest that JM abandon his excellent map, but just a hope that A) he would use the names currently used on the "official" map and B) that he would share information about inaccuracies with the FOAP, perhaps just out of "good will". I gather the formats of the two maps do not use the same computer programs, one being an art based program, and the being a more modern GIS format. Therefore JM cannot suggest those corrections to the FOAP map with just a click of the mouse.
I have found these two quotations on JM's map pages.
"Since the Friend's map doesn't have the same accuracy in terms of lake shapes I had to make some assumptions. This is compounded with the unfortunate reality that there are a fair number of (Usually minor,) errors with their data."
"I created this map because I felt that something was lacking from similar maps. From my own personal canoe trips I found error after error in all of the three pre-exisiting sets of maps; the Friends of Algonquin map, the Chrismar maps and the Backroad mapbook maps. I would submit corrections but get no response, hence creating my drive to design an alternative."
I would submit that I for one think that the FOAP/Ontario Parks would like to make map improvements, but need the information in a format they can apply to their map. JM is correct that it is not their top priority, but they would like their map to have as few errors as possible, I am sure.
From what I have read, so far, there does not seem to be a concern among the members of the ABR for accuracy of lake names to conform with the official names on the FOAP map. I am sure there are others from whom we have not yet heard.
I don't know the solution to the concern I have about retaining the current "historical" names. I do recognize that JM is trying to find a solution that meets the needs of the canoeing community. I do recognize that in the past, early map-makers did name lakes on their own to include in their maps. I do recognize that it is JMs map. Perhaps the lake names on his map will persist, and the names he suggests will be added to the official list because of "local usage".
JM makes a good point about my concern about the pronunciation of native names and the hyphenation thereof. I did consider it only from the point of view of modern natives (and i admit I have not consulten "them"), but then perhaps all lake names should be treated thus, as so many new Canadians would have trouble with the English names. I guess it was the differentiation of native names from the English names that bothered me. I can see where first names, such as Bob or Chris as lake names would be written with an "apostrophe s", as in Bob's or Chris's, but I still believe that Booth Lake or McKaskill lakes, named after surnames of people, should be left without the apostrophe s. Of course these details are moot if JM does not wish to go with the official names of the lakes big enough tand named o be included on the official Algonquin Park Map.
I really do like JM's map, overall, with the lake names exception, and I do recognize his talent. Please do not think otherwise.
I also suspect, although I will have to check my copy at home, that in newer map copies JM has removed a notation about which I had some concern regarding an archaeological site, and if such is the case I thank him for it.
I have the paper (book 2.0) copy of Jeff's map and while it may have a few small errors, of which every map I've ever owned contains a few, it's still the most comprehensive, detailed map I've ever seen.
The few errors it may contain are far offset by the corrections from the FOAP map and the absolutely astounding amount of secondary information displayed, although the ('s) was somewhat confusing at first. The interesting thing I found was when at the visitor's centre bookstore, the clerk directed me to Jeff's map (I forgot my maps at home) as the best guide for tripping and even had it right beside their own version.
As for the "official" names- if you look at the old topo's from the 60's and 70's many of the names are quite different from today's versions, as well as being different from the FOAP maps from year to year, and even some of the old scans of park maps, so which is really the "official" name- the historic name, the name on the newer maps, the local name, the FOAP name, or Jeff's name.
Just for the sake of argument, what would you call the name of the street I live on- the north end has had the same name since it was constructed in the 60's, but the "official Highway map" calls it something else, and now so do Google, Mapquest, and Garmin even though the town plan calls it by the original name.
The point is that Jeffrey has used the "common" or "historical" name wherever possible which in my opinion is more accurate that the "official" name assigned by a clerk who may very well have made a typo and forever altered the name.
I'm sure everyone respects and appreciates your comments/suggestions - they are good points you make and worthy of debate/futher discussion.
There is much that's been unsaid here regarding the history (not just JM's own but between various members/users) regarding his map. It's ground that's been covered before for the most part. So please don't feel too defensive if some detail is missing/skipped regarding the responses.
The campsite data, in GE form, could easily be exported to support whatever format the FoAP uses - using applications such as GPS Babel for one. The fact they wanted JM to 'mark up a FoA map with a pen' every site on a copy of the FoAP maps speaks volume of where they stand. Many lakes/rivers in the FoAP map are missing bays, islands (treed or not), points, influx/outflow rivers/creeks, etc - just not good enough.
JM's map, like most, is a living document. Even after v3 is 'released' there will likely be a v4 and so on. As more historic/current pt/line/poly data is obtained (GPSr'ed or not), thematic updates received (e.g. fish species), users' opinion considered, name changes, park boundary additions/removals, campsites/portages/roads/canoe routes activated/retired whatever - each, based on JM's assessment, may be appended respectively to the latest version to help keep his map current. Power in numbers and his map reflects that.
Prior to his maps, whenever tripping in AP I'd use the hard copy relevant NRCan's Topo, 1:50K for fairly detailed shoreline/waterbody/landfeatures mapping. These were great for navigation, bushwacking, feature id, etc - something the FoAP map just couldn't do to the degree required. That in addition to GE captured satellite stills (quality dependent) was it. Now with JM's map I forgo the Topos and use sections of his maps with support satellite imagery from GE only when/where specialized activities are required.
Rory MacKay (no login) 18.104.22.168
August 5 2010, 5:15 PM
No offence is taken when people praise JM's work. I agree that his map is very detailed and accurate. I admire his skills. I know the FOAP people would like to meet with him if there are improvements that need to be made to their map. Mr. Stronks has made such overtures. Apparently JM is not willing to meet them part way. That is sad.
I have been thinking about JM's love of the 's and his proposal to put same in brackets in faded font where he feels necessary (I am still uncertain as to his reasoning, except that the map is his 'creation'.) I would be willing to concede that it is a solution that I could personally agree to, as long as the names in the regular (unfaded)font are those on the canoe routes map. Having discussed this at great length by e-mail, I believe JM will understand what a concession and demonstration of good will this is for me and how hard.)I hope it will be a happy surprise when he returns from his trip. I would be happy to assist him in this, as i have told him previously.
I want his map to be used and enjoyed by ABR and others, but I would like to see the current names used. Indeed I know that William Bell's map had some creative names, and JM is acting in that tradition, even to adding names. However, it seems as if my requests that he use the current names of lakes etc. is to him the same as asking to change the smile on the Mona Lisa. That is art, not cartography.
I like the hyphenation of the English spelling of Native named lakes.
At one time in the past not so long ago, Natives of this region had no written language.
I see proper pronunciation through the aid of phonetic spelling (In English) of great benefit to non-native speaking peoples, not a disservice or an insult.
I also like picture#2 with respects to lake names ammedon. It compliments both the original names as well as the map author's ideals.
If the FOAP really wanted to have their map mentioned in the ABR newsletter, maybe the FOAP should contact the ABR, no?
It is not the responsibility of the ABR to include FOAP literature and such in ABR material.
By contrast, I have never seen any ABR literature mentioned in FOAP publications, and the ABR has never contacted them in this regard. So with respects to not publishing an inclusion of FOAP's map publication, who is at fault here? Certainly not the ABR.
The ABR hasn't adopted a policy of 'promoting one map over another'. It's worth noting that in the "Backcountry Of Algonquin Park - Leave No Trace" booklet's "Plan Ahead and Prepare" section we wrote ... "Traditionally, Algonquin backcountry trips are planned with an official Canoe Routes or Hiking Trail map spread out on a table, with pencil and paper in hand."
Many trippers now supplement whatever their traditional map is, with other maps and/or imagery .. each with whatever strong points .. details, accuracy, legibility, photobase, etc.
I believe its like using trip-logs in the planning stage. Using just one could be problematic. Referencing more, is definitely more informative. Obviously, at some point using too many can lead to 'info-glut'.
I've come to view Jeff's map as a 'detail-rich-info-source' for the planning stages and as an 'info-review' while at the campsite. On the other hand, I've come to appreciate a marked-up section of the FOAP map as a simplified 'field-map', suitable for quick 'on-the-water-reference'. That's just my personal preference.
On my last trip (to Little Trout Lake), I had a pocket-sized, plastic-sealed, two-sided map of the area. One side was from Jeff' map and the other side was from the FOAP map. One happy camper!!!
Rory mackay (no login) 22.214.171.124
August 12 2010, 5:29 PM
I know all do not agree with me on lake names, but where did I suggest that FOAP didn't feel represented in ABR literature? There is no blame game here. JM has found it difficult to accept my argument that lake names should be the same as FOAP map. That is my only disagreement with that map. Had it not been mentioned in your Otter newsletter as a matter of interest I would not have brought it up.
Rory you mentioned, "I am concerned that there was no mention of the official canoe routes map in the newsletter;"
I wondered why you would mention this? As you may or may not know the ABR is not affiliated with the FOAP in any way.
This is not to say anything negative against the FOAP, quite the contrary. ABR can only hope to follow in the footsteps of success that the FOAP has achieved. I am a paid member of the FOAP as well. As it is, the ABR have simply not yet established a relationship with the FOAP. Maybe in the future we will take the time to pursue a dialogue with the FOAP.
I apologize if I mis-understood your remarks, and am glad to hear you are not taking sides. I had felt that you were and that put me on the defensive.
Any non conforming names will be marked in the format: Inbetween* L (ie the name will be marked with a trailing asterix - a standard that will be explained in the legend).
A few quick points in response to some of the above comments
Rory said "I gather the formats of the two maps do not use the same computer programs, one being an art based program, and the being a more modern GIS format. Therefore JM cannot suggest those corrections to the FOAP map with just a click of the mouse." - I can provide the data in any standard geographic format - whether it be Google Earth readable or a custom map export with accuracy denoted for each site (ie just a plain old image format)
Rory said "I also suspect, although I will have to check my copy at home, that in newer map copies JM has removed a notation about which I had some concern regarding an archaeological site, and if such is the case I thank him for it." - In taken a look at all of the notes on the map in making up the new version I've tried to clean stuff up a little bit in that sort of direction - ie I know in one place there was a notation about artifacts still being found on a beach that was a centuries old native campsite; I removed any mention of artifacts but kept the idea that it was a native campsite. There's still the possibility that someone could exploit that information in a negative way, but hopefully it removes some of the suggestion that almost seems implied that really shouldn't be there. I also plan on adding a 'don't remove historic items from historic sites' notation in the legend beside the historic zones symbol
Rory said "I have been thinking about JM's love of the 's and his proposal to put same in brackets in faded font where he feels necessary (I am still uncertain as to his reasoning, except that the map is his 'creation'." It is simply a space issue. If you look at version 1 and compare it to version 2, I think that version 2 is much cleaner in some areas because of this. The new system for which I gave the example image should allow for the space savings but hopefully should eliminate any confusion.
Regarding the native names, looking over the map when I was on the trip I made a number of realizations that I wouldn't have without going through the process of hyphenating the names. Namely. I'm pretty sure that it's not the Pet-A-Wa-Wa River, but rather the Pe-Ta-Wa-Wa River. As well, I don't think it's Mag-Net-A-Wan L. but rather Mag-Ne-Ta-Wan. I think these common mispronunciations stem from the fact that 'Pet' and 'Net' are legitimate sounds in English, but not in Algonquin.
Jefferey, I hope you had a good trip. I was thinking of you on some pretty blustery days in the Park.
I have been thinking of the hyphenation issue. While I agree that some "native" names are hard to pronounce for speakers of English, I would still prefer to see the names unhyphenated.
My reasoning is this: I gather that the frequency of Park use is increasing by many groups of New Canadians, of many languages. While I accept that some would like assistance in correctly pronouncing native names, there are a whole bunch of New Canadians who might have difficulty in pronouncing even English and French names. Rather than provide hyphenation (and pronunciation) for all lakes and rivers in the Park, (ie Ar-bu-tus, or Can-oo, or Er-a-ble, or Mac-ken-zie) the names should all be unhyphenated, and thus equally difficult for everyone. That sounds odd, but I hope you know what I mean. Perhaps it would be a good idea to consult with the Algonquins at Golden Lake regarding the hyphenation of "their" words.
Jeffery, thanks again for fixing the concerns about things historic or archaeological, particularly with reference to certain sites. It means a great deal to me that you did that.
The only "side" I am taking is to try to help Jeffery maintain his claim that his map is "accurate", by which I mean specifically the names of rivers, lakes, etc. I don't know to whom the Otter newsletter is distributed, but I guess I incorrectly assumed it would be available to the general public, and thus thought the FOAP "official" map should have been mentioned as well.
I recognize that the pronunciation of First Nation name-words can be a sensitive issue. I came across a "First Nations Peoples of British Columbia Map" online at .http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/abed/map.htm (the British Columbia Ministry of Education).
On that page is a qualifying explanation "Names and pronunciations used on this map are as close as possible to those currently used by the First Nations .. This map is intended to be an educational tool. Educators and First Nations people are encouraged to work together in interpreting the map, and incorporating new information to it."
The page further explains " .. First Nations Peoples as they are generally known today with a phonetic guide to common pronunciation. Newcomers to these phonetic pronunciations may still find a huge gap between what they say and what they hear a native speaker saying. The best way to learn these name is to listen closely when in the presence of someone more familiar, and perhaps even ask for a quick lesson."
My reference to this page is intended to illustrate that efforts to educate about First Nation name-words should be done sensitively, but at the same time can be quite a rewarding undertaking. When all is said and done, the best source of information and pronunciation appears to be the First Nations themselves.
I admit that what I've said here isn't really all that helpful, but hopefully it has broadened the discussion a bit.
after reading through this whole discussion it appears to me that one glaring issue is still unresolved/unaddressed and lost in a larger discussion.
rory, it seems, would prefer that jeff uses the lake names on the FOAP map, and nothing else. he refers to these as the "official" names.
jeff, it seems, does not think that the lake names on the FOAP map are actually the "official" names, and prefers to draw that information from multiple other sources before making a determination on what to call a lake.
to me, it seems, there really are NO "official" names for some of these lakes. the FOAP map will call a lake one thing, a government map will call it another, while a privately map topo map calls it yet a different name. which one is "official"? who's to say?
perhaps the variations with parenthesis/faded/smaller fonts are the only real way to cover all the bases.
Rory: Sorry for the delay in replying. Been busy with the map since I got back. It's pretty much done now . All of the changes I've spoken about implementing have been implemented.
You are right that same new Canadians may indeed have trouble with english pronunciations. The trouble is that I ultimately have to choose a target market and tailor the map to their needs and skills. The assumptions I make in doing so will not be true for every map user, but (hopefully) are for the majority.
Just so I can try and understand the issue better, would I be correctly summing your thoughts up if I were to said that you feel that in hyphenating the words that I'm making (hopefully this is the right word) a bit of a demeaning statement?
Obviously there is always room for future change as long as it enhances the value of the map
n.dru: I think you've summed it up well (in my opinion at least). The approach that I'm now taking - using the data set I mentioned in a previous post - and then supplementing it with names from other sources while noting that those are not all currently widely accepted names and putting slight variations of names in faded brackets is a good one I think. It should help eliminate confusion, yet still shows the additional information I wanted to communicate.
Ultimately the most important thing is to not confuse users of the map (something that I hope will be somewhat improved with these changes).
Thanks so much for all the work you do on your map. I do appreciate it, and I used it on a recent excursion in the Park. I do understand that you have to pick a target audience for your map.
You are correct in interpreting that I think the hyphenation of "native" lake and stream names is demeaning. I know it is not intended that way, by you or by anybody. However, let's look at it this way. You know how the way aboriginal people speak has been handled by Hollywood. I won't attempt to duplicate it here. I think you know what I mean. I am certain that the original inhabitants spoke very fluently, in their own language and even in a second language. Yet even to this day there is a stereotypical manner used in portraying the way native people talk. To me, and maybe only to me, the hyphenation of Ma-Da-Was-Ka suggests such a stereotype. I think Madawaska is a perfectly good rendition of that term. It also takes up a lot of space on your map, which might be better used for other information, or just to provide space between names.
I hope you might take up my suggestion to consult with Kirby Whiteduck or another of the elders at Golden Lake before you determine what you will decide to do. The members of that community may very well support the hyphenation of the native lake names. I would not want you to decide based on my suggestion, on that matter, alone. I may be dead wrong.
On my recent archaeological-purposed canoe trip I could not help but think of the perspective of the ABR as I observed the condition of the portages and lakes. That there is relatively little litter is due in part to the encouragement of the ABR, and I am most appreciative of that.
I can't make a smiley face like the ones you use, but based on my recent trip could you now add to your map estimated times to paddle each segment of lakes including when it is calm and when paddling against the wind. Such information would have been most helpful in planning my trip.
I hope you had many enjoyable trips this summer.
(no login) 126.96.36.199
Gego ga-nend ziinaa - Let it not be forgotten
October 29 2010, 11:53 AM
Dear Barry Bridgeford,
Rory MacKay has recently brought to my attention your Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists project.
I feel that the issue of the spelling of the Algonquin language must be resolved immediately. We are concerned about an issue brought to our attention through Rory MacKay, I am not so sure of the hyphenation of "Native names" such as Madawaska to Ma-Da-Was-Ka. I find that demeaning, but that may be my opinion alone. I would advise you to use the proper spelling of the Algonquin language, as recommended by the Algonquin Nation.
OmÓmiwininý PimÓdjwowin (The Algonquin Way Cultural Centre) strongly recommends that you follow the educational learning format of PikwÓkangÓn. There are no spelling tests in our language, but we do encourage that our spelling format be followed. If desired, next to Madawaska you may in parenthesis put in the pronunciation.
Format 1 example:
On our website we have an online dictionary.
For Canoe ribs
Many people are comfortable through using double letters for long vowels
Format 2 Example:
You must use either format 1 or format 2. Be consistent in which format you use. Either use the accents or the double vowels. I highly recommend the use of format 1 (WÓginÓg: Wah-gi-nah-g), as this is what is taught in our curriculum of Native Language.
I like the hyphenation of the English spelling of Native named lakes.
At one time in the past not so long ago, Natives of this region had no written language.
I see proper pronunciation through the aid of phonetic spelling (In English) of great benefit to non-native speaking peoples, not a disservice or an insult. (Mark Rubino)
The Algonquin language has been severely damaged through colonization. Here in PikwÓkangÓn there is no language left, a sad and heartbreaking truth. We must turn to Kitigan-zibi (the nearest reserve in Quebec) for language support. Our mission is to revitalize, reintegrate, enhance and protect the cultural traditions, customs, practices, heritage, language, and arts of the Algonquin Nation. Therefore, the Algonquin Nation reserves the rights on how our language will be represented. Should-non-native-speaking-english-man-or-women-need-a-proncounciation-guide-,-please-use-either-a-legend-or-an-appendix-which-follows-either-format1-or-format2.
The page further explains.. First Nations Peoples as they are generally known today with a phonetic guide to common pronunciation. Newcomers to these phonetic pronunciations may still find a huge gap between what they say and what they hear a native speaker saying. The best way to learn these name is to listen closely when in the presence of someone more familiar, and perhaps even ask for a quick lesson." (Barry Bridgeford)
Barry, I highly recommend that your follow your own advice. Make a guide, a legend, or an appendix, use a proper format, in respect for our language.
OmÓmiwininý PimÓdjwowin gives you permission to link our website to your maps, in reference to our online dictionary, in compliance with the proper presentation of our language through either format 1 or format 2.
The Cultural Centre is here to help. We would be delighted to sit with you, drink some tea, and write down the phonetic pronunciations for your legend or appendix. Please contact me a.s.a.p.
Miigwechwewin Thank You
Gego ga-nend ziinaa
(Let it not be forgotten)
(The tongue that to us was given)
Gaa-miin'goying pii esgooying
(Countless generations ago)
(At the time of our creation)
Manager and Curator
The Algonquin Way Cultural Centre
1674 Mishomis Inamo, PikwÓkanagÓn
Golden Lake, ON K0J 1X0
I phoned Michele Gervais at the Algonquin Way Cultural Centre (Golden Lake) and explained that the map in question is the creation of Jeff McMurtrie and is not part of ABR operations, although we have discussed it on our forum. I also informed Michele that Jeff is a member of the ABR Executive Committee, that the committee is having meeting tomorrow in Ajax, and that I will advise Jeff of her concerns.
Rory MacKay (no login) 188.8.131.52
October 30 2010, 2:32 PM
I did mention to Jeff through this forum that I thought it would be good to contact the Algonquins about his hyphenaton of First Nation names of rivers and lakes. I do not know if he has done so. He asked my opinion, and I gave it.
I did not want my thoughts alone to be the benchmark. (It was for just this reason that I contacted the ABR originally, in the hope that others would agree that the "official" names should be on his map. I accept that there are differences of opinion on that.)
I did mention the map, and my concerns about the hyphenation, to Michele at a meeting we both happened to be attending a few days ago. I had asked another Algonquin person about the hyphenation, and she was upset at the hyphenation, but she directed me to the Band website as she did not think she could speak for all. I tried to make contact that way, without success, but then I met Michele. She is in a position to respond on behalf of the Algonquins.
Our discussion at the meeting was very short. I did tell her that the map was Jeff's, and indicate she could find the whole discussion at the ABR website.
Please note: I did not suggest that the ABR was directly involved with the map.
I have thought about the map and the lake names issue a great deal, and accept it is still up to Jeff to decide how to apply names to his map. Once again, I emphasize that I respect his ability to make maps very much, and have only had issue with his changing of names. However, we now all have a better understanding of the issue, across cultures.
Once again, I suggest to Jeff that he use the names as accepted by Algonquin Park staff. I accept that I can only suggest. I hope this discussion will be of assistance to Jeff in making a very accurate and useful map in its next form.
Well, sometimes Christmas comes early, and for you I hope this e-mail will
be that for you. A big part of my discussion about lake names and accuracy
that we have had over the past year or more has been about the use of an
apostrophe in certain lake names.
A big part of my argument has been the maintenance of your personal
integrity by being accurate to modern lake names. Well, the flip side of
having that integrity is admitting when one is wrong, and that
responsibility now is mine, specifically with respect to the term Hogan
Lake. (I still have trouble with the apostrophe S on many other lake names,
but I accept your compromise).
I know I have told you, emphatically, that I have never seen a reference to Hogan's Lake (with the apostrophe S)
anywhere, let alone on a map. I am currently working on research for the re-writing of "Algonquin",
my history of Algonquin Park. Over the last week, I have twice found
historical reference to Hogan's Lake; once in an early magazine article on
Algonquin National Park, and also in the diaries of ranger Mark Robinson.
I also noted, while considering preparation of a brief outline of Park map-making, that Hogan's Lake appears on
both the Arthur Brown map of the 1920s and Bell's map of 1908.
My admission of error is limited to that example only, but I hope you enjoy
the moment. I would.
Current Topic - map reference in newsletter and lake names