THE SYSTEMATIC USE of place-names is not a new thing. Ever since the first geographies, maps, and gazetteers, place-names have been a main source of localization. Until recently localization was usually only indirect and stated by association with a certain administrative unit or country. It was not until the so-called “spatial turn” that direct location—coordinate-based geodata—came to be considered important. Now direct location is of scientific and societal importance and in everyday use everywhere. In digital onomastics, however, geolocated place-name data are only just beginning to play a serious role as master data for cultural and historical research, as well as for research into linguistic data with a geographic profile. There are several reasons, but this is largely the result of what has been described as the “nature” of place-names: linguistic and locational complexity.

This chapter shows that place-names may have multiple references in terms of both place and name. No one has previously focused on this methodological and theoretical problem, although the examples given are common to geolocation-oriented digital onomastics. The solution is to introduce the notion of a unique place-name concept identifier to geographical datasets to enable the linking of the same place-name form across feature locations. This will enable coordination between multiple features with the same place-name origin, strengthen place-name standardization management, and, not least, more exactly represent place-name data across time, space, and domains of usage.

Place-names constitute one of the more important means of communication, as they furnish us with spatial “anchors” around which we construct our lives, identity, and history. Without the possibility of forming a mental map of reference to understand our relation with other places, people, and events, we would not be able to place ourselves in relation to the world in which we exist.