

How Google Maps deals with border disputes: Two Countries, Three Maps - cwan
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/10/23/two-countries-three-maps/

======
robk
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.

------
kgrin
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...](http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/08/22/54679.aspx)

~~~
cwan
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.

------
dennisgorelik
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.

------
mattm
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"

------
compay
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...](http://maps.google.com.ar/?ie=UTF8&ll=-51.76104,-59.81781&spn=1.169596,1.903381&z=9)

~~~
NikkiA
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
:)

~~~
compay
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...](http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:RZIivRFbg_8J:www.argentina.gov.ar/argentina/portal/documentos/constitucion_ingles.pdf+argentine+constitution+malvinas&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShUH91QYYOXCkCLKxaTiWUFuyjdDFDJKjbwuNLdF3uGVSN0IZQaSdonx4LZ96b4JaGqAb6emoRrVT9zTk5gt_P-
eYCPMbwEDLjCK-4poP4goad3L7BxH2w4OfiZ9-_2VGBiFYSu&sig=AFQjCNFvqNfUFFLnd1DpLUR0MYcb0Q5_dA)

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.

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

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

~~~
marcusbooster
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>

~~~
emmett
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#People.27s_Republic_of_China)

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?

------
mallipeddi
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.

