Unless the Maps backend changed since I last heard about it, they didn’t. They use official sources in each country – for the US that would be the USGS I suppose – and if those sources publish an update, Maps shows the update, as a passive mechanism. It’s preserving the normal name against the USGS change that would take an active action.
Mind you I still think they should actively preserve the normal name, and be held accountable for not doing so. They won’t. But they should.
Maps shows the update, as a passive mechanism. It’s preserving the normal name against the USGS change that would take an active action.
That may be true for US customers, but they must have done work to show two names for the Gulf of Mexico to people in other countries, and they plan on doing the same here.
I’m sure the step to put in a small override to maintain the name is not much work - just override any ingest/import, and they don’t even have to do the work to show two names for everyone else that is not in Canada or US.
Yeah, I don’t actually know what’s up for the Gulf of Mexico but it does seem they implemented a mechanism to show two names in certain contexts. I’ll theorize it triggers when a polygon overlaps international jurisdictions with conflicting data, but that’s just a guess and therefore likely wrong.
At any rate there are probably intense internal meetings going on right now…
Most Americans are not going to call it “Lake America” either, FFS. Google didn’t have to rush to change this.
Unless the Maps backend changed since I last heard about it, they didn’t. They use official sources in each country – for the US that would be the USGS I suppose – and if those sources publish an update, Maps shows the update, as a passive mechanism. It’s preserving the normal name against the USGS change that would take an active action.
Mind you I still think they should actively preserve the normal name, and be held accountable for not doing so. They won’t. But they should.
That may be true for US customers, but they must have done work to show two names for the Gulf of Mexico to people in other countries, and they plan on doing the same here.
I’m sure the step to put in a small override to maintain the name is not much work - just override any ingest/import, and they don’t even have to do the work to show two names for everyone else that is not in Canada or US.
Yeah, I don’t actually know what’s up for the Gulf of Mexico but it does seem they implemented a mechanism to show two names in certain contexts. I’ll theorize it triggers when a polygon overlaps international jurisdictions with conflicting data, but that’s just a guess and therefore likely wrong.
At any rate there are probably intense internal meetings going on right now…