Skip to main content

Waimamaku 2

Waimamaku 2 is a powerful historical example of why map provenance and version history matter. Different survey plans represented the proposed transaction differently. The plan that became attached to the sale did not show two wāhi tapu as reserves, despite earlier plans that did.

The lesson is not that GIS needs more approval forms. It is that the history of a representation matters when one version can become the institutional record and acquire consequences far beyond the drawing itself.

Three plans​

The Waitangi Tribunal's educational account of Te Roroa describes three relevant plans in 1875.

Smith's plan​

Government surveyor Stephenson Percy Smith prepared a rough sketch plan for the Native Land Court hearing. The Tribunal account says the sketch showed Te Taraire and roughly showed a reserve at Kaharau outside the land intended for sale.

Wilson brothers' plan​

The Wilson brothers later produced a survey plan that clearly showed Kaharau and Te Taraire as areas to be reserved. Te Roroa chiefs saw this plan and believed it would become the official record. The court rejected the plan as imperfect.

Kensington's plan​

Government chief draughtsman W. C. Kensington drew another plan in December 1875 from his office and did not visit the site. That plan did not mark Kaharau and Te Taraire as reserves. It was attached to the deed of sale and became the official record of the land that had been sold.

The Tribunal account states that the wāhi tapu were therefore officially included in the sale contrary to Te Roroa wishes.

Read the source: Waitangi Tribunal — Case study: Kaharau and Te Taraire.

The modern GIS lesson​

Modern GIS makes it easy to create, duplicate, edit and publish versions of the same geometry. That makes status and lineage more important, not less.

A contemporary project may contain:

  • source or field evidence
  • a digitised historical interpretation
  • draft geometry
  • a checked working layer
  • a current-for-purpose layer
  • a legal boundary from its legal source
  • an analytical derivative
  • a generalised public layer
  • superseded versions retained for history

If those roles are not visible, one file can gain apparent authority merely because it is the easiest copy to find.

Provenance is not clerical detail​

For consequential layers, record enough to reconstruct the representation:

  • source
  • date
  • person or organisation responsible for creation where relevant
  • method
  • field or source checking undertaken
  • intended purpose
  • version or status
  • relationship to earlier and later versions
  • known exclusions or reservations
  • whether the geometry is indicative, interpreted, surveyed or legal

A source note such as from old map is not enough when the source history is part of the question.

Keep important versions visible​

A useful lineage might look like this:

Conceptual flow

Do not rely on filenames such as final, final2 and latest to carry legal or historical meaning.

Field knowledge still matters​

The Waimamaku account highlights the difference between an office representation and knowledge available on the ground. Modern imagery, parcels and desktop GIS can create a similar confidence if the map is produced without returning to the source material, whenua or people who understand the place.

Good geometry does not compensate for missing context.

Authoritative for what?​

A project should state what makes a dataset authoritative for a particular purpose rather than treating authoritative as a universal quality.

Useful controls can include:

  • a named source or decision process
  • a version identifier and date
  • a clearly identified current layer
  • a separate editing copy
  • public derivatives linked back to the source version
  • a change log
  • retained superseded versions

A cadastral parcel may be authoritative for one legal-administrative purpose while still being the wrong geometry for a whakapapa, occupation or historical question. See Authoritative for what?.

Public maps can become evidence elsewhere​

A public web map can be copied into reports, council workflows, research and other databases. If its boundaries are indicative or interpretive, say so visibly in the map and metadata.

Where a legal boundary exists, link to the relevant legal or survey source instead of asking an illustrative map to carry that role.

Treaty research​

Treaty and claimant mapping often involves several generations of plans. The important work may be explaining how those plans relate rather than drawing one new polygon and calling the problem solved.

A useful map can show disagreement, change or uncertainty. It does not have to force several historical accounts into one clean geometry.

Continue with Treaty research mapping, Historical maps and Whakapapa of data.

A Waimamaku check for modern GIS​

Before an important spatial record becomes the map, ask:

  1. Which source was used?
  2. What other versions exist?
  3. What was deliberately excluded or reserved?
  4. What source or field checking was done?
  5. What process made this the current representation for the task?
  6. What is its status and purpose?
  7. What does it not prove?
  8. Which earlier versions need to remain visible?
  9. Could another person reconstruct how the representation was reached?
  10. Could a public derivative be mistaken for a legal or source record?

Source​

Last reviewed: 26 August 2026

Last updated on