[devindotcom]

If you read it, you find the reasoning is this:

“Any reference to the ‘Gulf of America’ initiative on your Google Maps platform must be exclusively limited to the marine area under US jurisdiction,” the letter read. “Any extension beyond that zone exceeds the authority of any national government or private entity..."

So the issue is not the renaming per se, but that waters previously known collectively among all countries bordering it as the Gulf of Mexico have been wholly renamed.

The argument seems sound: America has no authority over waters beyond its territories, and its territories end some miles off the US coast. Beyond that border it is only logical for a company to refer to a body of water by the name more commonly accepted internationally.

[jandrewrogers]

This is not how mapping works internationally. There is less agreement than I think you imagine. To give a simple non-political example, how many oceans are there and what are they named?

There are myriad authorities that maintain the official database of geographic names for use within their jurisdiction. Conflicts between these various databases are common. No one has the authority, either in theory or practice, to determine what a "correct" map looks like. To accommodate this, all mapping companies maintain a huge number of deltas for each authority.

There isn't One True Map. It is really a vast number of separate maps maintained in parallel, one for each jurisdiction that claims the authority to dictate what a map should look like. To the extent possible, companies try to minimize the number of parallel maps they must maintain. Geographic boundaries, even uncontested ones, give a hint of why this is necessary. An international border is commonly shared by several administrative jurisdictions (national and then subdivisions of each nation). If one of those several jurisdictions does a high-precision survey that moves some inconsequential line a few centimeters, what gives them the authority to edit that border for every other jurisdiction that shares it? Managing these inconsistencies is one of the basic challenges of making quasi-authoritative maps.

Mexico does not have an argument here. Everyone in every country uses an opinionated map that reflects a self-interested narrative that therefore is in conflict with maps used elsewhere. This isn't a surprise or shocking, things have always worked this way. The US, like Mexico, absolutely has the authority to make any map they want. No one is required to use either of those maps and in fact many countries reject both the American and Mexican versions of the map.

[moralestapia]

Your whole essay is vacuous, because:

If there's no "One True Map" as you say, why wouldn't you use the "name more commonly accepted internationally"?

[jsnell]

That would apply equally well to other bodies of water with disputed names, which have been stylized as e.g. Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf) and Sea of Japan (East Sea) on Google Maps for like, 15 years?

How much outrage have you seen over those names?

[devindotcom]

well, there sure was a lot in the countries involved!! they have all lobbied and argued extensively in favor of their selected name for many years, and their people do seem to feel strongly about these matters.

I don't have a final answer for all situations, but certainly if you look at those things on the map right now they read one name, then the other in parentheses. The "Gulf of America" has no such parenthetical. That seems like an acceptable compromise that Google has already adopted in other disputes. I suspect it will rile the current administration, however, if they do so here, and so they have not.

edit: oh, I find Google has already addressed this, and it is only in the US that it is just gulf of america:

https://blog.google/products/maps/united-states-geographic-n...

ah well.

[EdwardDiego]

/Me looks at the sea that China, Phillipines and Vietnam dispute.

Names matter.

[bawolff]

Outrage and illegality are not the same thing.

That said, those disputed territories are a bit of a hot button issue in the territories in question, just like this is a hot button issue for mexico.

[sgnelson]

I take it you've never heard of the Nine Dash line?

[soerxpso]

This certainly seems sound for whatever portion of the gulf is Mexico's territory, but, does Mexico have jurisdiction over the 'middle part'? My non-expert understanding is that the US owns the portion of the gulf that's within 200 nautical miles of US land and Mexico owns anything within 200 nautical miles of Mexican land, leaving a bit in the center that's international waters. Maybe there's a treaty that gives most of it to Mexico somehow?

The solution where we cut it in half on the map and give it two names seems silly, since it is a single geographic feature. `Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)` (and the reverse when connecting from the US) seems like a reasonable middle-ground. It doesn't seem that Google Maps generally indicates who controls which ocean territory.

[squigz]

The real question is... why a middle-ground is necessary about this?

[kennysoona]

What seems reasonable is just to ignore the crazy rulings of the guy temporarily in charge and wait for order and normalcy to be restored in 4 years.

It's the Gulf of Mexico. Period.

[what]

And Mexico has no authority over the waters beyond its territories and its territories end some miles off the Mexican coast?

[IncreasePosts]

What governing body enforces the naming of that body of water?

I'm fairly certain anyone can call it whatever they want.

If Mexico has a law that it needs to be named the golfo de Mexico then display that to requests coming from Mexico. Otherwise how can Mexico force Americans to call anything anything?

[AStonesThrow]

"Enforce naming" seems an oxymoron

isn't cartography and GIS crowdsourced to some degree? Why aren't y'all using OSM?

"Mexico" is not some homogeneous monolith of amorphous identity and yes the history of "New Mexico" and Mexican citizens/nationals residing in the E.E.U.U. and Indigenous groups such as the Tohono O'Odham or Yaquis' governance and voices count. To varying degrees and some are sovereign tribes or communities; some self-identify in ways that may surprise us

There's a feature in Maricopa County that is popular for hiking and nature, and now we carefully refer to the hill as "Piestewa Peak" to honor a fallen warrior who served her/my/our country to defend liberty, and I guess the freedom to rename stuff for posterity or prestige.

[vkou]

Mexico should officially rename the US to "North Mexico".

[lenkite]

Don't hit me, but maybe they should just combine the name: The Gulf of Mex-Americana or The Gulf of Amerimexicana. Sounds more cooler.

[bawolff]

> The argument seems sound: America has no authority over waters beyond its territories, and its territories end some miles off the US coast. Beyond that border it is only logical for a company to refer to a body of water by the name more commonly accepted internationally.

While i hate this gulf of america bullshit, i'm not sure i agree this argument is so sound. I don't think there is any rule of international law requiring countries to refer to other country's territory by the preferred name of the state that has soverignty over that territory. Maybe if you take it as an implicit threat of annexation or claim of soverignty, that would be a violation of the prohibition of acquiring territory by force, but that seems a bit of a stretch at the present juncture. [Ianal].

Basically i think there is a big difference between saying someone is acting illogically and someone is acting illegally.

[alabastervlog]

A better argument is that the president doesn’t determine the common, accepted name of bodies of water in English. Even American English. And especially ones outside US borders.

The name’s the same as it was.

[JKCalhoun]

Assistant to the Gulf of America.

[Onavo]

In international affairs, might maketh right. Rule of law doesn't hold much water if the primary enforcer is also the violator.

[unyttigfjelltol]

Mexico is trying to compel Google's US-based systems to display a preferred name to US users. This is exactly the same issue AP was protesting, in reverse, with the kicker that Mexico has no sovereignty over the US. So, when Mexico does it no outrage? That's just reserved for the US president?

[motorest]

> This is exactly the same issue AP was protesting, in reverse, with the kicker that Mexico has no sovereignty over the US.

You somehow got it entirely backwards. The Trump Administration decided it was a good idea to rebrand random geographical areas with nationalistic names and force that change upon the world. The world woke up to see this "freedom fries" nonsense forced upon them through the likes of Google Maps. In the very least, Google must not change the experience for anyone else accessing their service outside of the US.

Ask yourself this: why would anyone in the world be subjected to these whimsical nationalistic banana republic renaming stunts?