We often place undue trust in maps, assuming that the sizes of towns and the shapes of continents they display are correct.
Maps are inherently misleading. As geographer Mark Monmonier aptly puts it, "Maps not only lie, but lying is essential." In striving to represent the world as accurately as possible, maps are compelled to "lie." This isn't to suggest that we should distrust maps, but rather to encourage a critical examination of their content. Common distortions include inaccuracies in political boundaries and other forms of geographical misrepresentation.
We often place undue trust in maps, assuming that the sizes of towns and the shapes of continents they display are correct. However, maps are constructed based on data that has been collected by humans, which can be biased. Furthermore, maps further distort reality through the use of symbols, generalizations, and adjustments in scale.
Why We Continue to Use "Inaccurate" Maps
In most countries, the Mercator projection remains the most commonly used type of map.Developed by Gerardus Mercator in 1569, it represented a significant breakthrough in cartography by projecting the globe's surface onto a flat plane.
Although the Mercator projection has become widely adopted, it is not entirely accurate. As Carl Friedrich Gauss highlighted in 1828, faithfully representing a spherical surface on a flat map inevitably leads to distortion.
While the Mercator projection preserves the shapes and directions of landmasses, making it highly useful for maritime navigation, it drastically distorts size proportions. This inherent distortion is a fundamental issue with all map projections.
Map Projections
Map projection is the process of transforming the three-dimensional surface of the Earth into a two-dimensional plane, a challenge that all flat maps inevitably encounter.
Different projection methods depict the Earth in slightly varied ways. For instance, conformal projections are better at preserving the shapes of landmasses, while equal-area projections excel at maintaining accurate land sizes.
Examining maps, you can see significant differences in the size and shape of places like Alaska, Antarctica, and Greenland depending on the projection used.
For example, on an equal-area map, Greenland appears larger than the entire African continent, even though Africa's area is actually 13 times greater than Greenland's. Equal-area maps show size differences more accurately but often distort the shape of Greenland, making it difficult to interpret.
Some maps, like the Goode’s Homolosine projection, attempt to balance both accuracy in shape and size but may result in unusual distortions, such as fragmented oceans or peculiar map shapes. In reality, all maps must compromise, displaying certain features accurately while distorting others.
Map Bias
The creation of maps is inherently influenced by subjective choices and cultural biases. Historically, many global maps were created by European cartographers, often placing Europe prominently—a deliberate choice rather than a random one.
Similarly, positioning the Northern Hemisphere (such as Europe) at the top and the Southern Hemisphere (such as Antarctica) at the bottom is also an arbitrary decision, as Earth does not inherently have an “up” or “down.”
The design of maps and globes does not offer absolute correctness. All maps are created by cartographers with varying interests, which inevitably leads to distortions, omissions, and inaccuracies.
These biases stem from the cartographers' subjective decisions. For instance, a cartographer may center or enlarge a country of particular significance in their study or viewpoint.
Understanding the purpose behind map creation and its cultural, social, and practical values is crucial. Biases in maps are often apparent, such as the distortion of size and centrality seen from a perspective in Northern Europe on a map of the European continent.
We tend to perceive larger items as more important, which can skew our understanding of different regions. Overall, “the way a world map is drawn is based on perspective, but there are other ways to think about and represent the world.”
Controversies and Power Dynamics in Maps
Political boundaries are among the most contentious issues on maps, especially in disputed regions. Most countries experience territorial disputes, and maps not only record geographical information but also reflect the interests and power dynamics of their creators.
As cartographer Dennis Wood notes, "The accuracy of maps is less important than their implicit assertion of a position while pretending to be neutral." Globally, 75% of territories are involved in boundary disputes. In these conflicts, maps serve not only as informational tools but also as vehicles for political expression.
Israel and Palestine
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is rooted in decades of border disputes. Despite increasing complexity, the status of Jerusalem and its boundaries remains a major point of contention.
The international community broadly supports the establishment of two independent states for Israel and Palestine. However, achieving this requires an agreement on borders, which has yet to be reached.
The core dispute centers on competing sovereignty claims over the same land, leading to complex territorial claims and continuously changing political maps.
Propaganda maps are prevalent, and external powers influence the legitimacy of pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian claims by choosing to support one side’s territorial assertions. As a result, there is no unified standard for maps in the region.
Kashmir Boundaries
Another highly militarized and disputed border is in Kashmir, where both India and Pakistan claim sovereignty, with China also asserting additional claims. These contested territorial claims make map-making for the region exceptionally challenging.
Current political boundaries remain unresolved, and even where agreements exist, modern borders fail to reflect the region's complex history, colonial interventions, or the distribution of different groups. When three major powers claim sovereignty over the same territory, determining borders becomes an intricate issue.
Kurdish Regions
The Kurdish population spans across Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Due to political and military reasons, maps of Kurdish regions are often presented differently by various countries. For instance, Turkey and Iran frequently depict Kurdish areas with reduced scope or entirely omit them, aiming to undermine Kurdish self-determination and regional influence.
Antarctic Territorial Claims
The territorial claims over Antarctica involve several countries asserting sovereignty over the continent. Although the Antarctic Treaty stipulates international cooperation and peaceful use, some nations continue to make territorial claims in the region. Political factors often lead to varying representations of Antarctic sovereignty on maps, resulting in disputed territorial divisions.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has significantly impacted the mapping of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Russia's annexation of Crimea is not widely recognized internationally, while Ukraine and Western nations maintain that Crimea belongs to Ukraine. This conflict causes maps of the affected regions to reflect the political positions of different countries and factions.
Western Sahara
The sovereignty issue in Western Sahara involves Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR). Morocco claims sovereignty over the entire Western Sahara, while the SADR seeks independence. This dispute leads to varying territorial delineations of Western Sahara on maps produced by different countries and international organizations, reflecting the political positions of the involved parties.
Interpreting the Biases and Intentions Behind Maps
"Maps are human-made; they do not emerge naturally," as geographer Mark Monmonier notes. While essential for understanding our surroundings, maps have limitations and biases that need to be recognized.
Maps are not neutral. They are created with specific objectives that influence which features are included and how they are depicted. This subjectivity can shape the presentation of information, reinforcing particular viewpoints or omitting details.
Often, we take maps as accurate portrayals of the real world without acknowledging their inherent biases. The design elements, such as colors and scales, are chosen to highlight certain features while downplaying others. For example, classroom maps of oceans may use colors to make continents stand out rather than reflect reality.
Recognizing these design choices helps us interpret maps more critically and achieve a more accurate understanding of the Earth. Understanding the context and intent behind map creation is key to gaining genuine geographic knowledge.