How Google Maps deals with border disputes: Two Countries, Three Maps | Hacker News Reader

How Google Maps deals with border disputes: Two Countries, Three Maps

blogs.wsj.com

23 pointscwan19 comments

This a pretty reasoned, fair approach. The Maps team is handling this as well as anyone could be expected really. The best part is that most users don't understand dynamic changes based on country or IP, so to them it just looks as they'd expect it.

This reminds me of Raymond Chen's story about what happened to time zone map highlighting in Windows (short version: Kashmir).

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/08/22/54679.a...

Google's approach seems to be a somewhat happy medium to avoid taking sides in any of these complex disputes. These things tend to inspire sometimes odd nationalist tendencies amongst my colleagues. Between the temples of international deliciousness here (McDonald's and KFC) my colleague used to like McDonald's until he happened on their website that listed Taiwan and Hong Kong under different "country" listings whereas KFC recognized them differently.

It's not Google's business to resolve territorial disputes, so Google's decision to show 3 version of maps is a smart choice. Especially considering how sensitive it's for many people who comment about that issue. We should all learn from Google's approach.

This is pretty standard for maps I think. It's also how Lonely Planet does their maps for guidebooks as I recently read in their book "Unlikely Destinations: Lonely Planet Story"

They're inconsistent with this in Argentina; the Falkand/Malvinas islands disputed by Argentina and the UK are not shown as part of Argentina, and the English names of all the landmarks are used rather than the Spanish ones.

http://maps.google.com.ar/?ie=UTF8&ll=-51.76104,-59.8178...

Probably because there isn't really contention over the issue at the present between the two countries involved.

Individual people in Argentina may well believe that they have a right to the Malvinas, but the official Argentinian government has not asserted any claim to them since 1982 (when the Falklands war occurred, for anyone unaware of it :)

You're wrong. The claim over the islands was laid out in Argentina's constitution in 1985, which you can read here (on page 22):

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:RZIivRFbg_8J:ww...

Additionally, the president of Argentina raised the issue with the UK Prime Minister in their meeting in Chile earlier this year.

So anyway, Argentina claims the Falklands/Malvinas as their territory, but your or my opinion on the claim is irrelevant to the discussion. My point is, that maps.google.com.ar, the Argentine version of Google maps, shows a map supporting the British side of the claim, which is inconsistent with the policy described by the article.

I wonder why Tibet similarly is not shown in dotted lines. Google hypocrisy? Or is it that they are so afraid of China?

Probably because Tibet isn't a country. No one disputes that Tibet is currently part of China, just whether or not it should be.

It's actually a huge dispute whether or not it's incorporation is legitimate according to international law. It certainly has it's own territory, ethnicity, culture, and government in exile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate

You could say the same thing for many separatist movements around the world. Just within the PRC alone there are 6, 3 of which have who have claims that seem equal Tibet's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_s...

Google's policy seems consistent to me: actual territorial disputes between sovereign nations are handled one way, and separatist movements are handled another. What would make Tibet special?

No one disputes that Arunachal Pradesh is currently a part of India, just whether or not parts of it should be.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There's a very real territorial dispute between China and India right now, which are both sovereign nations. The area within the dotted lines is under dispute, as to who it belongs to. It's not clear that the default answer is India.

The usual criteria I've seen mapmakers use is the reality on the ground. If you want to travel there right now, who will you need to get a visa from? At the moment the answer is India, so it is part of India.

Whether that is the way it should be or will be in the future is another kettle of fish. Whether that answer will make people upset is also a good question. It looks like Google is taking advantage of the Internet to try to tell everyone what they want to hear.

But right now if you want to take an international flight there you'll need a visa from India. So it is part of India.

I don't doubt the dispute about whether it should be a part of India or China is real. But currently it is a part of India. Maybe China has legitimate claims. Maybe it doesn't. That's what I took your "should" to mean.

What's different about Tibet? China claims Tibet is a legitimate part of its territory, but others claim that China is an illegal occupier. However, at least for now, Tibet is a part of China.

China claims the same about Taiwan. Lots of Taiwanese disagree.

Greece claims Cyprus is part of Greece, whereas if you look on a map your guess would by Syria. The Turks think it is part of Turkey.

There are lots of places like this in the world. The CIA world factbook has a section 'border disputes' for almost every country.

Dispute between two sovereign powers vs. a separatist movement. It's a pretty clear and important distinction.

Also, I'm not exactly sure how it's any more "part of India" than it is "part of China". Says who?

It's funny though the other day I flew China Airlines from SFO to KUL and I noticed their in-flight maps (in the entertainment console) actually depicted the border the way India claims it should be. I'm Indian btw.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com