Skip to main content

Publishing sensitive locations safely

Some spatial information should not be published as points on a map. Even within an organisation, exact locations can spread quickly through screenshots, forwarded PDFs, shared drives, and well-meaning people trying to help.

This page is about practical ways to publish maps that include sensitive locations while still supporting kōrero and decision making.

Default position

If a map could enable harm, do not publish exact locations. Start from protection, then work backwards to what is actually needed.

What counts as sensitive​

Sensitivity is not only about sacred places. It also includes locations that could create risk, pressure, or loss if widely known.

Examples:

  • wāhi tapu and wāhi tūpuna
  • urupā and burial areas
  • mahinga kai, rongoā, and gathering places
  • taonga species nesting, breeding, or habitat sites
  • culturally significant landscapes that are under threat
  • access routes, gates, tracks, or vulnerabilities on Māori land
  • private whānau locations connected to kōrero
  • anything shared in confidence during hui or fieldwork

Decide the purpose before the map​

Most mistakes happen when people publish “the layer” rather than “the message”.

Write one purpose line:

  • Who is this for?
  • What decision does it support?
  • What is the minimum detail needed?

If the purpose does not require precision, do not publish precision.

Levels of publishing control​

Choose the minimum level that meets the need.

  • In the room only: display only, no files shared
  • Restricted internal: limited group access, tracked distribution
  • Controlled partner sharing: named recipients only, time-limited if possible
  • Public: safe for screenshots, downloads, and re-use

If you cannot control onward sharing, assume it will go wider.

Tikanga and trust

Some locations are not “data”. They are kōrero tuku iho. Publishing choices should be guided by tikanga and the people who hold the mana of that knowledge.

Common safe publishing patterns​

Use one of these patterns instead of publishing point coordinates.

1) Areas instead of points​

Publish polygons that represent general areas. Keep them broad enough that a viewer cannot identify the exact location.

Good for:

  • cultural landscapes
  • areas of interest
  • catchments, ridges, valleys, or bays

2) Buffers and distance bands​

Publish a buffer zone around a location rather than the location itself.

Good for:

  • showing a “no-go” planning constraint
  • reporting proximity without exposing a site

3) Grids and zones​

Convert points to a grid cell (for example 500 m or 1 km cells) and publish only the grid.

Good for:

  • showing distribution patterns
  • reporting density

4) Density surfaces and heatmaps​

Publish an aggregated surface instead of discrete sites.

Good for:

  • demonstrating hotspots
  • prioritisation and planning

5) Counts without geometry​

Publish counts by area (for example by catchment, management unit, or land block) without any site geometry.

Good for:

  • governance reporting
  • progress dashboards

6) Category labels instead of names​

Replace site names with broad categories, and remove any attribute fields that identify the site.

Good for:

  • engagement maps
  • high-level planning maps

7) Split the product​

Publish a safe public map and keep the precise layer as a restricted internal product.

Good for:

  • projects with a public-facing component
  • reporting requirements where detail is still needed internally

Attribute risk is real​

Even if geometry is generalised, attributes can reveal the site.

Before publishing, check for:

  • site names, local nicknames, or whakapapa references
  • detailed descriptions (for example “behind the second dune”)
  • photos with identifiable backgrounds
  • file attachments with embedded coordinates
  • IDs that can be joined back to a restricted dataset

Remove or rewrite anything that could re-identify a location.

Georeferencing and historic imagery​

Historic layers can accidentally reveal sensitive sites when combined with modern basemaps. If you publish georeferenced imagery or overlay maps:

  • check that site markers are not visible
  • avoid publishing the control points used to georeference
  • consider publishing the narrative without the precise overlay

A simple decision test​

Ask three questions:

  1. If this map was shared publicly tomorrow, what could go wrong?
  2. Who benefits from publishing this level of detail?
  3. What is the least detail that still supports the kaupapa?

If you cannot answer clearly, publish less.

Safer by design

Start with a safe map. Only increase detail when there is a clear purpose, a clear audience, and clear agreement.

Checks before publishing sensitive information​

Purpose and audience:

  • purpose is written in one sentence
  • audience is specific and named (not “everyone”)
  • sharing level is stated on the map and in the file name

Safety:

  • exact coordinates removed unless explicitly approved
  • geometry generalised using one chosen method
  • identifying attributes removed or rewritten
  • photos checked for identifiable backgrounds
  • combined layers tested to ensure re-identification is not possible

Process:

  • decision recorded (who approved, when, and why)
  • version number and date on the map
  • restricted copy stored separately from public copies

What to write on the map​

Use plain language so viewers do not assume precision.

Examples:

  • Locations are generalised to protect sensitive information.
  • This map is indicative and for internal use only.
  • Do not distribute without permission.
  • Contact the kaitiaki for details.