[elevensies]

What I'm trying to say is, if you are going to visit a certain location, the territory belongs to whoever controls it -- and that is who you need to reckon with.

China (PRC) says that Taiwan is a province of China, but they don't control it. If you show up at the Taipei airport with a entry visa from the PRC, you will find that out.

A similar but more extreme example, Google Maps says Raqqa is part of Syria, but due to the war that isn't exactly accurate at the moment.

Determining which organization rightfully owns which territory is political.

Determining which organization actually controls which territory isn't political though maybe not any easier.

[dragonwriter]

Both are political questions. "Political power" and "effectively exerting control of people, including in a particular territory" are tightly-bound concepts.

But they are different political questions, and it is important not to confuse the two.

[elevensies]

It is a political question for the organization that wants to maintain power in a certain area. Assad's ability to control Raqqa is a political question. Google's ability to identify who is in control of Raqqa, much less so.

If Google negotiates the border location with the governments, according to the governments political needs, that is Google's choice -- Google can do this to try to maximally satisfy the governments. This is politically complicated.

If Google wants to maximally satisfy the practical needs of the people who are actually going to the locations on the map -- all they need to do is identify the sovereign power. Exerting control is politically complicated, but this is not what Google needs to do, Google only needs to identify.