Isnt that updated by some national database and google just pulls that data? Apparently Apple Maps will also get it in a few days, since they get the data from them as well.
Yes. We had the same comments about Gulf of America.
Edit: I don't know that there's an actual database served up by the US Gov, but governments control the naming of these things within their own jurisdictions. All of the big mapping products have the ability to serve up different names based on where you're viewing from.
> Per Secretarial Order 3453, Lake Ontario has been renamed to Lake America. The basemaps for GNIS are in the process of being updated to reflect this name change.
We can do that for ourselves, but it's a lot harder for the operator of a massive maps platform, based from its inception on the use of the federally controlled GNIS, to just call things what they want, or even what most of their users want things to be called.
For once I'm posting about this in a forum where I can reasonably expect that most users will understand the technical difficulties that would arise if Google wanted to avoid using the new names.
The average person seems to believe that Google can change the toponyms back to Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario as easily as taking down a road sign and nailing up a different one.
It would be nice if Maps would prefer data from government DBs that have localized versions of foreign place name data (e.g., Germany's BKG) when available.
It makes perfect sense that govs control names within their jurisdiction - I am eyerolling at both the name change and the reaction.
I am curious though - is it convention to leave the data as is, or is it illegal to modify it?
Regardless, itll just be changed back in 2 years; as long as I can type "lake ontario" and get directed to Lake Ontario, I do not care at all what the gov database calls it currently.
>I am curious though - is it convention to leave the data as is, or is it illegal to modify it?
Given the First Amendment, it's in no way illegal for individuals or corporations to use whatever place names they want. But if yout maps platform is essentially wedded to a government database and is designed entirely around the use of that database, using different place names is much, much more difficult.
The president is the government as far as assigning or altering place names is concerned, but only for names not established by an act of Congress. That's why Trump was able to change the name of Denali back to Mount McKinkley; he was simply reversing an Obama-era executive order. But he couldn't rename Denali National Park because that was established by Congress.
Well, because I expect this to last for two years. Nobody likes it except for birthday boy and his sycophants. All of the signs around Lake Ontario still say the name; same goes for the people that live by it.
Google should override it but I don’t expect them to, because theyre selfish and suck. Only thing to do is win elections.
I have been wondering this as well. I cannot imagine having this be autoupdated without review from a centralized database is a good idea. This is a process that needs to be frangible and have some friction in it.
In this day and age, GPS mapping tools have major implications for societal function, safety, economics, national security, healthcare, etc. I'm struggling to think of an industry where a sudden absence/subtle changes of named GPS mapping data would not have an effect.
If everyone relied on the same data base which could push changes to the map in the pocket of every resident of a nation that would be the first thing I would think to hack. Probably easier than actually jamming or spoofing GPS/GNSS over a huge area.
There are thousands of small street changes across the country each day. New subdivisions, road expansions, lane changes, new traffic lights. Of course the vast majority should be auto-updated without manual review, what would a person add to the process? The public database is the system of record in the first place.
Seems like something that should be user-configurable (like DNS servers). While the recent annoying renamings have drawn attention to the issue, landmark names have basically always been political.
