Skip to main content

A simple working structure for places of significance in Māori GIS

A schema is not a Māori worldview​

GIS needs fields and categories to function. That does not mean the database should claim to reproduce a Māori way of organising knowledge.

A useful working structure can help people find and manage records. It should remain clearly technical and purpose-specific. Tikanga, whakapapa and the meaning of a place do not become true because they fit neatly into a dropdown list.

Before designing the schema, ask what the GIS needs to hold and what existing people, relationships and decision processes shape that choice. See What belongs in GIS?.

Start with the kaupapa​

Define what the dataset needs to support, for example:

  • internal kaitiaki work
  • environmental planning
  • historical research
  • a consent-screening process
  • a public or shared map

Different purposes may require different representations. Do not build one universal sites of significance database and assume every kind of knowledge belongs inside it.

Use broad working groups only if they help​

A small project may find broad working groups useful, such as:

  • whenua
  • wai
  • moana
  • marae
  • mahinga kai
  • ara and movement

These are not a recommended universal Māori taxonomy. Local iwi, hapū or whānau may organise the kaupapa differently, and some concepts should not be forced into mutually exclusive categories.

Use the language and grouping that fit the people and purpose involved.

Keep types practical​

Within a working group, a short type field can help with ordinary GIS tasks. Examples might include pā, kāinga, maunga, awa, roto, puna, repo or tauranga waka where those terms fit the kaupapa.

Do not create a type simply because the software makes dropdowns easy. If a place carries several relationships or meanings, allow that complexity rather than forcing one label to become its identity.

Keep the core record small​

For a simple operational layer, possible fields include:

  • record ID
  • name or working name
  • representation type
  • purpose
  • source or provenance note
  • recorded date
  • geometry status: exact, approximate, indicative or generalised
  • access level
  • review status

For Māori-held information, who provided the knowledge does not need to become a widely visible field. Provenance can be recorded through a whānau, hapū, archive, source collection or controlled relationship record where that better reflects the source.

Geometry does not contain the meaning​

A point, line or polygon is a representation chosen for a purpose.

Keep clear whether the geometry is:

  • exact
  • approximate
  • a broad locality
  • an indicative area
  • intentionally generalised

Supporting kōrero may belong in another record, and some knowledge may remain entirely outside the GIS.

Avoid scoring cultural importance​

Fields such as cultural significance scores, ranked importance or automatic risk scores can manufacture certainty and comparison where the kaupapa does not support it.

Add complexity when there is a real use case and clear local purpose, not because the software makes another field easy to add.

Metadata matters more than an elaborate taxonomy​

The next person should be able to understand:

  • why the record exists
  • what the representation means
  • where the information came from
  • what the record was created to support
  • what process can revisit the representation later
  • what limitations or different accounts remain

That context is more valuable than a perfectly normalised database that has lost the relationships around the knowledge.

Access is not one universal ladder​

A simple project may use labels such as:

  • public
  • internal
  • restricted
  • highly restricted
  • not digital

Treat these as operational controls, not tikanga categories. Different kaupapa may need different groupings, and a public summary may need a different geometry and attributes from the working source.

A useful test​

Ask whether the schema helps the people carrying the kaupapa do their mahi without pretending to define the culture behind it.

If the database starts claiming that all Māori places fit into seven themes, four access classes and one significance scale, it has probably moved from useful structure into false authority.

Start small. Keep provenance and purpose visible. Let the schema serve the kaupapa rather than making the kaupapa fit the schema.

Last reviewed: 26 August 2026

Use What belongs in GIS? when deciding what the working dataset actually needs, Sites and places for representation patterns, and Publishing sensitive locations when preparing a different version for a wider audience.

Last updated on