3 ms·
Eh, that seems rather harsh. The question is whether or not Google should show these borders as disputed, and I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that, in
by Carpetsmoker 7y ago
Eh, that seems rather harsh. The question is whether or not Google should show these borders as disputed, and I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that, in fact, these borders are a matter of dispute. Showing them as disputed is considerably more neutral than just taking one side (whether that's also realistic/feasible politically is another matter, and also not agreeing with the parent commenter btw).
- wanderer2323 7y agoThen the viewpoints you are forcing becomes whether the border is 'disputed' which is not much better and it makes your map a mess.
- retsibsi 7y agoWhen the dispute is only formal, yes, it's a subjective question whether both parties are important enough for us to take the dispute seriously. But when a border is disputed in the 'troops and border skirmishes' sense? Ignoring that is verging on denying physical reality.
- Carpetsmoker 7y agoWell, yeah; maps are a mess sometimes; that's just the way it is. The core criticism in this article is that Google presents maps as simple without context while in fact they are not.
- anigbrowl 7y agoWho in the offended country is being forced to use an external map they find annoying? Those governments can make their own maps and share them with your population, like any other product or service that conflicts with regulations in some jurisdictions. What they're looking for, and some corporations are willing to provide, is the appearance of endorsement by external authorities for their political stance. Anyone in the country who disputes the border layout can be 'refuted' with 'just check Google, that proves the border runs thus and so.'