[pmb]

Countries can tell companies what the maps of their countries should look like and what things should be called.

For example, Google shows different info about the Kashmir region depending on whether you are in Pakistan or India or external to both, because of how the Indian and Pakistani governments define the borders and names of the region. If the US government changes a thing's name, then Google will change that thing's name within the US. Google mostly doesn't choose names, it uses externally-supplied mostly-governmental name databases. Governments have the power to name their own regions.

I don't want Google to choose what things are called, so I think they are doing the right thing here, and the USG is doing the dumb thing.

[nicbou]

When I worked at HERE Maps this was a pretty standard thing to do. Countries have official named in multiple languages. Borders are seen differently by different governments. A map is anything but static.

[roenxi]

And the chaos of translation. It is fun to consider whether somewhere like Johannesburg should be called Johannesburg or Johnscity or YHWHisMercifulFortifiedPlace or what in English. The standard is obviously to keep the local term and pronunciation, but then apply that logic to languages with different scripts and nothing really makes sense in a satisfying way because mapmakers can't avoid some amount of translation. It is a muddle of conventions.

[Freak_NL]

There is no chaos there. When you label something on a map, you never translate any of the names. What you do, is use the exonyms which already exist. That is, local names which may have been literally translated at some point, or might simply have changed to align with local orthography and pronunciation, and which have become common place and accepted.

Like encyclopaedia, most reliable real-world maps document what it is, not what the author thinks it should be (obviously this is a possible use of maps; see China's nine-dash-line bullshit). So you wouldn't be making your own translations. At most, you would transliterate names in scripts not readily understood by your target audience.

[idle_zealot]

I don't want Google naming things, but I don't want a President naming them either. My preference is for things to be named by the people who live there/use the thing, but failing that at least I would want my mapping software to present the fact that there are multiple names/borders and let me pick which I want to view.

[glimshe]

The president was given this power by the people. Crowd sourcing this is a particularly bad idea as countries already have working institutions that map and name things.

One alternative would be for Congress to create more barriers for name changes.

[icameron]

The president is taking this issue as a power grab. He does not have rights to name things. There is a geological naming board appointed by cabinet heads. The executive order instructs his newly appointed department heads to purge their geological naming boards of any members who may not agree to these names. This is not something that has happened before, and not by design.

[danaris]

...Was he?

Is "gets to rename any geographical feature in the general vicinity of the country on a whim" a usual power of the US President? I genuinely don't know the legalities around this, but given that, I would bet that most people who voted for Trump also didn't think they were giving him that power. (Whether they would have chosen to do so is a separate question.)

[glimshe]

Do electors of any politician ever understand the full extent of their candidate's powers? They vote on people under the assumption that the person is the best choice (not necessarily a "good" choice) for the job given the system already in place.

Answering your question: yes, the executive branch can change geographical names in the US. Obama did that too with Mt Mckinley. This power extends solely to the names as accepted by the United States. If Mexico wants to change the gulf's name to "Gulf of the Aztecs" or "Gulf of qetwyetwdhxysysheussg", it can do that too.

SHOULD they do it? Now that's a different question.

[xoa]

>Countries can tell companies what the maps of their countries should look like and what things should be called.

Not in America. The First Amendment means private entities, individual or organization, are free to draw maps and name things however they like and the government may not tell them what to do. The government can decide how it does its own maps, and society at large can decide whether they wish to use a different product or not.

>I don't want Google to choose what things are called

Tough shit. Google may choose for a variety of reasons to go along with what the USG decides is the naming, and in this case it has, but they can't be compelled by force to do so. And other private entities can choose differently should they wish. And of course everyone is entitled to comment or criticize it, and then comment and criticize the comments and criticism in turn, and make use and spending choices accordingly and so on. That's the vibrant market of ideas we're founded on.

[pmb]

plonk

[drawkward]

The Gulf of Mexico is not a country.