Sensitive places
Some places carry particular responsibilities through whakapapa, tikanga, tapu, kaitiakitanga and long relationships with whānau and hapū. The issue is not always that a location is secret. It may simply be that one representation suits a working kaupapa while another suits a wider audience.
That makes sensitivity a question of context, purpose and relationship rather than a universal label attached to a point on a map.
Sensitive Māori spatial information can include:
- wāhi tapu
- urupā
- wāhi tūpuna
- archaeological sites
- mahinga kai
- taonga species locations
- customary access routes
- whakapapa-linked places
- vulnerable environmental resources
- locations associated with private whānau information
- places where wider publication could create physical or cultural harm
Sensitivity is contextual
The same place can be represented differently for different purposes.
A kaitiaki team protecting a place during earthworks may need exact geometry. A planning process may only need a buffer or alert area. A public education map may work better with a named locality or landscape. Some kōrero may not need a GIS feature at all.
A technical access class can help a system behave consistently, but it should describe the current use rather than pretend to define the tikanga of the place.
| Access pattern | Example | Possible GIS implementation |
|---|---|---|
| public | marae contact location intended for public use | public web layer |
| public, generalised | broad cultural landscape | simplified area or locality |
| whānau | whakapapa-linked place information for whānau use | authenticated group |
| hapū | environmental or planning evidence | hapū workspace |
| named role | information used by a kaitiaki or operational team | group-based access |
| temporary external | consultant for one consent project | time-limited read-only access |
| highly limited | urupā, vulnerable site, sensitive whakapapa | separate restricted store |
| not digital | kōrero better held outside GIS | no GIS feature |
Precision follows the kaupapa
The best available coordinate does not need to appear in every output.
For public awareness, a broad area may be enough. For operational protection, the precise record can remain in a working dataset while another representation is prepared for the audience that needs it.
The working record is more useful when it retains source, whakapapa and enough context for a future kaimahi to understand what the geometry means and what it does not mean.
See What belongs in GIS?, Whakapapa of data and Publishing maps with sensitive locations.
Archaeological information
Archaeological records can be both useful and sensitive. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga notes that archaeological sites are protected under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 whether or not they are entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero.
A government or professional record can therefore be useful evidence without being the complete cultural account of a place. Republishing a precise archaeological location is a separate decision from using it in working analysis.
See Pā and archaeological landscapes for the landscape view rather than a site-point view.
Taonga species can reveal cultural places
Environmental data can act as a proxy for cultural information. A rare plant, nesting site, freshwater species or ecological observation may indicate a place of significance even where the cultural layer itself is absent.
GBIF's georeferencing guidance provides a useful technical pattern: retain the best available location in the working record and generalise a shared version where that suits the purpose. Coordinate precision and uncertainty are also different things, so generalisation should not be mistaken for uncertainty.
For related taiao work see Taiao mapping, Mahinga kai mapping and Inference risk.
Think about what another dataset adds
A location can become easier to identify when combined with:
- cadastral parcels
- aerial imagery
- elevation
- access tracks
- historic maps
- environmental observations
- photographs
- public social information
- AI-assisted search or inference
The useful question is not simply whether one layer is public or private. It is what the combined view reveals.
See Inference risk and Metadata can give you away.
Metadata can reveal place too
A feature with hidden geometry can still be exposed by:
- a descriptive item title
- thumbnail
- map extent
- attachment filename
- tags
- service URL
- owner or editor name
- public search indexing
Metadata is part of the spatial product, not merely a technical afterthought.
Practitioner note
Different audiences often need different spatial products. A working layer used by people protecting a place does not need to be identical to the map used in a public presentation. Treating one dataset as the universal product usually creates either too much disclosure or a map too vague to be useful.
Separating a detailed working layer from shared versions is often cleaner. The working layer still sits within the whakapapa and relationships around the place. Calling it a master dataset does not make it culturally complete.
A useful review
For a sensitive layer, a short record can cover:
- kaupapa and expected benefit
- people, whenua and relationships involved
- source and provenance
- audience for this version
- spatial detail useful for the purpose
- likely inference from other data
- metadata exposure
- export and screenshot behaviour
- copy and backup locations
- what kind of change would prompt another review
Use the Sensitive-layer review template for a reusable version.
Related pages
- What belongs in GIS?
- Who decides what?
- Spatial masking
- Inference risk
- Publishing maps with sensitive locations
- Pā and archaeological landscapes
Sources
- Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
- GBIF — Georeferencing Best Practices
- Te Mana Raraunga — Principles of Māori Data Sovereignty
Last reviewed: 26 August 2026