Analyzing Google Maps from a Critical Cartography Perspective

Home , Critical cartography, ReCAPTCHA, Waze, World map

Analyzing Google Maps from a critical cartography perspective: How the map represents a commercially oriented representation of the world and is framed as a counter-mapping tool in the Local Guides community

MA Thesis Anne Marte Gardenier Student number: 2045794 Online Culture / Department of Culture Studies / School of Humanities and Digital Sciences June 2020 Supervisor: dr. Inge van de Ven Second reader: dr. Ico Maly Acknowledgements

Writing a Master’s thesis during the COVID-19 lockdown period has been an interesting occupation. There were no distractions; which was improving my efficiency, but also limiting my open-mindedness. I missed talking to other students and teachers about my research topic, and learning about theirs. A plus, however, was the endless solitary thinking-time. During my breaks, I went cycling by using my favorite map (which I will explain in the introduction), and while cycling I could empty my mind (which was completely full with map theories) and think about what exactly I admire about maps. I also read the book The Magic Mountain (Der Zauberberg) of Thomas Mann (1924). In this story, the protagonist Hans Castorp visits his cousin who resides in a sanatorium in the Swiss Alps. The visit was planned to last three weeks, but he stays there for seven years. The sanatorium guests live their repetitive, occasionally thrilling but mainly boring life shut off from the rest of the world. One day, Hans Castorp decides to go skiing. Without much practice, he floats off into the white winter world of the mountains. Then, a terrible snowstorm starts, which blinds him and he loses all sense of direction: his only reference is the feeling of the ground under his skis. Based on this feeling (his skis are either pointed up of downwards), he tries to find his way back to the sanatorium. He fails: he is only moving in circles, and has to wait for the snowstorm to stop. When I read this chapter, the first reaction that came to my mind was: how careless! Why would you go out skiing without a map! – and I realized that maps are ingrained in my life; more than I expected. That is why I wanted to find out everything about the map that I (used to) use the most: Google Maps. I hope that my thesis also ignites some map fascination in the reader. I would like to thank my supervisor Inge van de Ven for advising and inspiring me, my parents for unconditionally supporting me, and my boyfriend for being there for me, at all times.

Anne Marte Gardenier, June 2020.

Abstract

Technical developments in the practice of cartography have changed how maps are produced and consumed: now, maps can be interactive, and consist not only of geographic information but also of location and time based data. In this thesis, I combine the transformation of the practice of map making with the theoretical framework of critical cartography. I will provide a theoretical analysis of maps, which focuses on how maps are produced, framed, used and what they depict. This is followed by a critical analysis of the most used map in the world: Google Maps. I argue that Google Maps presents a commercially oriented representation of the world. This representation influences how map users experience and act in the represented space. Map users comply with the logics of the map, and by doing so, the maps’ commercially orientated representation of the world becomes naturalized. This is contradicting, given that Google frames its map as a counter-mapping tool that can be used for social transformation.

Table of contents Acknowledgements 2 Abstract 3 1. Introduction 5 1.1. Map example: the Fietsknooppuntennetwerk 5 1.2. What is a map? 8 1.3. Google Maps 9 2. Critical cartography 9 2.1. Example: The Mercator projection 10 2.2. Questioning a map’s ontological foundation 12 2.3. Example: Choropleth and navigation maps 12 2.4. How a map influences a user’s perception of the represented space 15 3. The new era of mapping 16 3.1. Technical developments: participatory mapping and counter-mapping 16 3.2. Technical developments: the mapping of geospatial data 18 3.3. Location-based knowledges: capture and addition 19 3.4. Example: optimized route suggestions 20 4. Analysis of Google Maps 23 4.1. Google Maps’ commercial orientation 23 4.2. Mapping platforms 25 4.3. OpenStreetMap 26 4.4. User participation on Google Maps 26 4.4.1. The Local Guides community 27 4.4.2. Trusted Photographers 27 4.4.3. User participation channeled as database maintenance 28 4.5. Framing: counter-mapping discourse in the Local Guides community 29 4.5.1. The problem of online invisibility 32 4.5.2. Online invisibility discursively constructed 32 4.6. Consequences of the commercially oriented representation of Google Maps 33 4.7. Possible solutions 34 5. Conclusion 35 5.1. Final notes 36

References 37

1. Introduction Before I start with my research, I will give an example of a specific situation of contemporary map-use to illustrate how a map can influence a user’s experience of the represented space.

1.1.Map example: Fietsknooppuntennetwerk My personal favorite map is the Fietsknooppuntennetwerk (bicycle junction network). The map displays a selection of roads that are especially suitable for cyclists in The Netherlands and parts of Belgium and France. Altogether these roads make up a network of cycling routes which are all interconnected with junctions. When added up, the length of all the routes make 33.500 kilometers. In a country like The Netherlands, this means that the network covers a significant part of the land, see image 1.

Image 1: Screenshot of the bicycle network map in The Netherlands and Belgium. The blue lines indicate the mapped cycling roads.1

This map is accessible online and it is present at every junction in the physical space it represents (image 2). At the map, users can find their current position, the nearby junctions (indicated with a number) and the distances (indicated in kilometers) between them (image 3). Cyclists can plan their route by consulting the physical or digital map and memorize or note the numbers of the junctions they want to follow. While cycling, the route towards the next junction is designated with a small sign next to the road at eye height (image 4).

1 Image CC BY-SA 2.0 OpenStreetMap contributors. Retrieved from openfietskaart.nl/ at 10-06-2020

Image 2: The map at one of the junctions.2

Image 3: Detail of the map. The green lines indicate the cycling routes, the green numbers indicate junctions and the purple numbers indicate the amount of kilometers between them.3

2 Picture: own work, 08-06-2020. 3 Picture: own work, 08-06-2020.

Image 4: The green signs indicate the directions towards the next junctions.4

I use this map by starting to cycle in a random direction from home, without taking my phone with GPS or other navigation device, knowing that at one moment I will start to see a green direction sign alongside of the road. Then, I follow the sign towards a junction, where I will plan my route at the present map. I memorize the numbers of the junctions I want to follow and when I get tired I consult the map again to plan my way back home. For me, it is a great map because I can cycle as far and as long as I feel like, without having to plan a route in advance, without having to bring along a navigational device and without having to worry about whether the roads are suitable for cyclists. I know that the map displays the routes with the nicest scenery and I never get lost. This map has brought me many memorable days. And because I know that this map is always there, always accessible, this map offers me a sense of freedom. Obviously, not everyone uses this map in the same way. Others might find it quite annoying having to get off the bicycle all the time and rather plan their trip beforehand or consult the map on their phone. Similarly, the map might be used for other reasons than that for which it is intentionally designed. The organization responsible for the route network in my area (the province of Brabant) is a marketing company that aims to attract tourism. By providing the route network and by indicating local restaurants and cafés on the way, their goal is to increase the economic impact of the creation of cycling routes in Brabant. In other

4 Picture: own work, 08-06-2020.

7 words, they aim to increase the amount of visitors that are willing to spend their money at the local cultural and gastronomic industry.5 Since I do not spend any money during my trips, I do not use the map the way it is intended by the map makers. However, the way I can use this map is limited by the options presented on the map. Since I often pass through areas where I have never been before, I am inclined to keep following the displayed routes. I cannot know whether non-represented roads might have been a better option (in terms of nicer scenery) because I do not want to risk getting lost. Also, I trust the map to provide me with the best options because it served me so well in the past. The map mediates my experience of the represented space: it influences how I experience it and act in it; in terms of navigation, but also in terms of raising expectations about the routes.

1.2 What is a map? Drawing from this example, a map can be defined as a symbolic depiction of relationships between particular elements and a certain space. To understand why a map looks the way it does, it is important to know why a map is made (tourism, warfare, education or other), what kind of space is represented (for instance, a physical place, mental space, or imagined world), and which elements are mapped in relation to it (cycling routes, distances, country names, traffic signs, animals, populations, restaurants, borders, stories, pictures, memories and many other things). Invariably, the motive for map making coincides with the information that is displayed on the map. Then, a map can be used for many different purposes, like navigating, teaching, learning, exploring, playing, convincing or planning. For a user a map can “work” in a variety of ways. A map worked when it helped someone to reach a personal goal. This goal can be moving from A to B, or finding the name of a place, street, hotel or river. But also when during the planning of a trip a map serves as an inspirational tool to explore the world, it worked. The map’s representation of a space influences how a map user experiences this represented space, how a user moves around in that space and the decisions that the user takes while acting in that space. A map both enables and constrains the map user. The mapped spaces and elements offer the user options and possibilities, while the unmapped areas and aspects remain absent and unknown. Since the motive of the mapmaker coincides with the information displayed on the map, the users’ options are limited to those that fit the map- making aim of the maker.

5 See the “Vision and implementation strategy 2016-2020”of Visit Brabant. Retrieved from visitbrabant.com at 03-06-2020.

1.3. Google Maps In this thesis I will demonstrate how the world is represented in the most-used map of the world: Google Maps. With more than five billion app downloads6, Google Maps is the most used map for daily life navigational purposes worldwide. Also, Google Maps hosts a participatory community of over 120 million users who actively contribute pictures, reviews and other information to the map. And, Google Maps is the most widely used mapping service for third parties; thousands of companies, like for example Uber, Booking.com and Takeaway.com, make use of Google’s map to provide their location-based services. The role of maps in the everyday life has been subject to rapid transformation in the past three decades due to the rise of geographic information systems (GIS) and web-based mapping. Google Maps has taken the leading role in this “new era of mapping.” (McQuire 150) Before I will start my analysis of Google Maps, I will first clarify the theoretical framework of critical cartography.

2. Critical cartography Before the new era of mapping, the actors in the map making practice were mainly institutions like nation states and universities. Maps were designed and used for purposes such as navigation, warfare, colonial expansion or education. For a long time the aim of the academic practice of cartography had been to display the earth in the most objective way possible. Consequently, maps gained the general appearance of a neutral tool used to visualize scientifically obtained information. However, when from the 1980s onwards scholars started to critically analyze cartography practices, they argued that these “objective” terms are contingent on the social, historical and political contexts in which maps are produced. As a result of these analyses, the neutral and scientific image of maps started to become topic of debate. The main scholars who played an important role in this first era of ‘critical cartography’ like Harley (1989) and Monmonier (1996, 2005) have criticized the privileged and formalized power structures wherein map making takes place. While maps are products of power they also produce power since they project the interests of their initiators, and biases and judgements of their developers might influence the outcome of the map. Further, Pickles (2004) argued that when states started to produce maps for popular consumption, a “double crisis of representation” emerged. Although this development democratized the access to information, the maps merely represented the interests of the state, military and private

6 The Google Maps app is downloaded more than 5 billion times. Because in 2020 approximately 4.5 billion people have internet access (and the world population is 7.8 billion), these 5 billion downloads are not executed by 5 billion individual users.

9 properties. Pickles argued that therefore “maps no longer are seen to simply represent territory, but are understood as producing it” for maps inscribe boundaries and construct objects that in turn become our “realities.” (13) In other words, by representing the specific interests of the map maker, the map depicts a very particular understanding of a space, which in turn serves as a kind of new reality for the map user. A map thus creates a new world which precedes the territory it “represents”. (5) Harley argued that the particular representation of a map is so powerful because maps embody “specific forms of power and authority” while a map’s “rhetoric of neutrality” is persuading the map user of its impartiality.7 However, later critical cartography scholars have criticized this argument for it is not the map itself that embodies “rhetoric of neutrality”, but it is rather the context in which maps are produced and used that defines it. As a result, scholars have extended the critique on the power structures surrounding maps to an examination of the ontological foundation of maps in general. The ontology that forms the foundation of cartography is the belief that the world can be objectively mapped by using scientific tools to capture and display spatial information. Crampton (2003) argues that this belief should shift to a contingent and relational view of mapping “wherein mapping - and truth - is seen as contingent on the social, cultural and technical relations at particular times and places.” (qtd. in Kitchin and Dodge 2009: 12) This shift is based on aiming to understand “‘the being of maps’” and “how maps are conceptually framed in order to make sense of the world.” (12) In other words, instead of regarding maps as ontologically secure scientific tools, rather the social, cultural and technical contexts that determine how and why maps are produced and used should be investigated.

2.1 Example: The Mercator projection I will explain this idea with an example of the famous Mercator projection (image 5). This map is designed in 1569 by the Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator for nautical navigation and it is still one of the most commonly displayed and used maps in the western world. Like any world map, it shows distortions in the projection of land areas for it is difficult to represent the spherical reality of the world in relative proportions in a 2D format. In this map, the sizes of areas far from the equator are exaggerated in comparison to areas close to it. For example, Greenland appears the same size as Africa, while in reality the continent of Africa is fourteen times bigger. Many scholars – and others – have criticized this projection for it does not simply “facilitate nautical navigation, but instead serves to reiterate colonial domination by demonstrating the centrality and global importance of Europe.”

7 Harley is referring to Robin Kinross. (1985) "The Rhetoric of Neutrality," Design Issues, Vol. (2)2 pp. 15-30.

(Harpold qtd. by Farman 2010: 871) Although as a result of this critique nowadays other world projections are displayed in atlases, this projection can still be found in many older atlases and in classrooms. Furthermore, it is the base map for many online mapping platforms such as Google Maps.

Image 5: Example of a Mercator projection based map.8

The Mercator projection was initially designed for navigational purposes for which it still serves as a useful tool. However, it is not appropriate as a representational projection of the world due to the depicted area distortions. Though, when atlas- and mapping platform designers decide to apply this projection as their base map, for many people (at least the billions of Google Maps users) this flawed projection serves as the “real” representation of the world. Thus, not the distorted areas are the source of the problem – since those do not interfere with the intention of the map; navigation – but rather the problem is the context in which this map is displayed and used.

8 CC BY-SA 3.0 2011 Strebe. Original image retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection at 03-06-2020.

2.2 Questioning a map’s ontological foundation Kitchin and Dodge (2007) have extended this examination of the ontological foundation of maps and argue that maps have no ontological security whatsoever. Maps are rather ontogenetic in nature; “Maps are of-the moment, brought into being through practices (embodied, social, technical), always remade every time they are engaged with.” (335, original emphasis) A map is thus not simply a stable conveyer of information; it is merely colored ink on a page until it takes the form of a map at the moment when people use or produce it to solve their own relational problems. Both the producer and user of a map perform ‘mappings’ to pursue their own goals; a scientist may make a map to gain knowledge about a certain area, while a user might use a map to learn about topography. During the ‘mappings’ when they are produced or used, maps obtain the appearance of a neutral objective information-carrying tool, or an ‘immutable mobile’ (stable and transferable forms of knowledge that allow them to be easily transferable across space and time: Latour 1987 qtd. in Kitchin et al. 2010). By this, the authors mean that “the being of maps” is dependent on how maps are displayed and used, or, in the words of Crampton, how they are “conceptually framed.” (Kitchin and Dodge 2009: 12) The “being of maps” in the world is thus dependent on users’ previously learned and affirmed mapping skills generated during earlier map interactions.

2.3 Example: choropleth and navigation maps To illustrate how this process works, consider the example of a choropleth map. A choropleth map depicts areas which are each shaded in proportion to a statistical variable that represents an aggregate summary of a characteristic within that area (see image 6 for an example). This kind of map is often used in news articles to demonstrate statistical information. By presenting this type of map in such a way, the map is framed as a conveyer of scientifically obtained knowledge. Consequently, when reading such an article, for a reader, the general image of a map is consolidated as such. Yet, despite the fact that the information presented choropleth maps is based on scientific information, it does not necessarily mean that a choropleth map always “tells the truth”. To exemplify how prevalent a map’s image as a neutral scientific tool can be, examine these two images from Monmonier’s article “Lying with Maps”. (2005) Monmonier argues that tools used to visualize scientifically obtained information “are also rhetorical instruments fully capable of ‘lying’ in the hands of malevolent, naïve or sloppy authors.” (221) In fact, the tools can be “played” with until the outcomes of their calculations satisfy a particular set of

12 criteria, depending on which story the author wants to tell. Consequently, two maps can look completely different while they are based on the same dataset (image 6 and 7).

Image 6: This choropleth map depicts the crude birth rates per state in the US in 2000. The color shading and categorization suggests dangerously high rates overall. 9

Image 7: This choropleth also map depicts the crude birth rates per state in the US in 2000. Here, the color shading and categorization suggests dangerously low rates overall. 10

These two choropleth maps are based on the same dataset but the chosen categorization and color shading varies. As a result, the two maps show a different story: the birth rates in the US are presented as either dangerously high or dangerously low. When a reader is presented with one of those maps as verification to a particular story, the reader is not likely to doubt the map’s integrity. In fact, the map’s conceptual framing generated a context in which it acquired the semblance of an ‘immutable mobile’. A similar situation occurs when travelers unconditionally trust their digital navigation

9 Image extracted from Monmonier, M. (2005) “Lying with maps.” Statistical Science, Vol. 20(3) pp. 215-222. 10 Image extracted from Monmonier, M. (2005) “Lying with maps.” Statistical Science, Vol. 20(3) pp. 215-222.

13 system to direct them in the right direction. This is not surprising, of course, since most of the time maps and navigation systems do work correctly and help users to reach their goal. However, there are countless examples of car drivers who followed the directions of their navigation device and ended up in a place that is inaccessible for cars. These examples of “GPS fails” (images 8 and 9) show how maps have obtained the image of an effective navigational tool based on users’ previously learned and reaffirmed mapping skills.

Image 8: The driver of this truck followed the directions of the GPS down a narrowing road until he got stuck at the end.11

Image 9: A sign placed to warn drives that their satellite navigation is not working properly in this area: they should not follow its directions.12

Questioning a map’s ontological foundation is a valuable approach to comprehend why situations like “GPS fails” and “lying” maps occur; the particular framing of those maps made them seem ontologically secure. How a user decides to use a map is thus dependent on how a map is framed.

2.4 How a map influences a user’s experience of the represented space Now that I have discussed the topics of map production and framing, in this section I will focus on the moment when a map is used and how a map might influence a user’s perception of the represented space. As I have argued before, a map can be used in different ways by different users. Following Brown and Laurier (2015: 4), map users are never simply categorizable as “map users” since they all act for their own purposes as tourists, commuters, rescue teams or taxi-drivers. Map users try to “fillet from over-boney and over-fleshy maps just the bits that they need for planning or for ‘right now’ as their journey progresses.” (4) Similarly, Del Casino and Hanna (2000, 2006) argue that maps are never completely inscribed with meaning at the moment of map production, because a map can always be used in different ways by different users. (2006: 50) They explain maps as ‘map spaces’ which denote the intertextual processes in which meaning is constantly being reproduced by the performances of the people who use a map. (2000: 43) By applying identity theory of Butler (1993) they suggest that the reiterative process of using a map may temporarily “naturalize” a map as fixed in its meaning. (2006: 41) In other words, a particular representation of a space displayed by a map influences how a user understands and performs in this space. And by doing so, the particular representation becomes solidified. This happens, for example, when maps raise or lower expectations about a certain landscape to be visited; “walking through an area demarcated as ‘wilderness’ on a map might elicit a more (or, indeed, a less) satisfying ‘nature’ experience as a result of expectations set by the map.” (Harris and Hazen 2009: 61) Harris and Hazen argue furthermore that the demarcation of “wilderness” of a certain space consolidates the particular understanding and use of such a space. This might influence patterns of mobility: “A tourist looking at [a ‘protected area’] map may consider seeking out such spaces to have a ‘wilderness experience,’ or indeed may avoid such areas assuming that there will be nothing of interest for them.”(61) A map is thus both mediating a user’s experience of a represented space, and the user’s influenced behavior consolidates that particular displayed representation. A similar example can be found in Del Casino and Hanna’s research on tourism in Fredericksburg:

A woman held the tourism map and tried to tell her two male companions where they were and where they wanted to go. As she crossed a street and trudged up a hill, she looked only at the map. She seemed unaware of the historic buildings and shops lining the street. The two men were not focused on their present landscape either. The younger of the two questioned the woman's ability to read the map while the older one struggled to keep up. All in all, their performance of and in this map space suggests they were between sites of interest. (Del Casino and Hanna 2005: 49)

The map this woman is holding displays mainly historical highlights in a touristic city. By roaming around the city while not paying attention to the surroundings, clearly being “between sites of interest”, this is a clear example of how a map influences a user’s movements which in turn reaffirm the represented understanding of this space the map displays. In sum, in order to understand the being in the world of a map, the following aspects have to be uncovered: who made the map and why, what is mapped, how is the map framed and how is the map used. In the following sections, I will explain how these four elements of mapping have been subject to change due to technical developments in the practice of cartography.

3. The new era of mapping Since the emergence of digital GIS technologies in the 1950s and web-based mapping in the 1990s, the nature of cartography – who is mapping what, how and why – has drastically changed. In fact, as McQuire argued, it started the “new era of mapping” since many elements of cartography became subject to change; “from the data maps display to where they are accessed, how mapping works as an industry to its role in everyday life.” (McQuire 2014: 150) 3.1 Technical developments: participatory mapping and counter-mapping In the first place, the rise of GIS technologies started the “democratization of maps” since people were enabled to compare different kinds of maps as many non-state actors started to engage in cartographic practices as well. (Farman 2010: 871) Furthermore, the newly developed Web 2.0 mapping platforms, such as Google Earth, OpenStreetMap and MapQuest, changed how users were able to use a map: maps became interactive. This was a significant difference in comparison to the practice of cartography in earlier times. In the new era of mapping, users are able to create their own maps, adjust existing maps, and to debate the accuracy of the displayed information. This development caused scholars in the field of critical cartography to both celebrate and downplay the possible

16 democratic effect of participatory GIS and volunteered geographical data on cartography in general. Pavlovskaya (2018), for example, argues that “maps possess ontological power; being part of the social process, they produce the worlds instead of simply reflecting them.” (13) Therefore, by strategically using the ontological power of maps, mapping practices can be turned in to tools for social transformation and shift the balance of power. This practice, which goes under many different names such as ‘counter-mapping’ or ‘resistance GIS’ can work to limit conservative geographies while consolidating the newly created world by its mere appearance on a map. (15) See for example the Mapping Prejudice project of the University of Minnesota. This project maps real estate contracts which contain covenants that reserved land for the exclusive use of white people to show how racial restrictions are embedded in the physical landscape.13 However, this is only one side of the story. Farman (2010) addresses the long debate across many disciplines concerning the notions of ‘interactivity’ and ‘agency’ in digital culture. Since these terms have been defined and utilized in a variety of ways it “makes their usage slippery territory.” (882) Indeed, this issue has been subject of debate in the field of critical cartography as well. While optimistic scholars like Pavlovskaya find ways to map with counter-hegemonic aims, critique on such initiatives include the argument that counter- mapping requires significant computer literacy, skills and internet access, which are geographically and socially unevenly divided. Therefore, it could be argued following Gartner (2009) that participatory “Web 2.0 applications merely replicate digital divides, instead of subverting or offering radical change.” (76) The positive effects of counter-mapping are thus limited to only affect the users who already have the privilege and knowledge to access, edit and produce maps. But even for those privileged users the presumed efficacy of counter-mapping remains disputed. Though Web 2.0 developments emphasize user participation, many of those platforms are largely driven by commercial concerns. So when Google Maps allows mashups of their data (allowing users to use Google Maps as a base map for producing their own content, for example for counter-mapping purposes) their reason to do so is not to promote participatory empowerment, but mainly to upgrade their own database with more volunteered geographical data. (Gartner 2009: 76) Still, some scholars find a way to believe in the opportunities of counter-mapping. For instance, Farman argues that the debate over ‘agency’ in digital culture might lead to the argument of “utilizing the tools provided by Google to subvert the master representations

13 See www.mappingprejudice.org

17 presented in Google Earth is simply reiterating the control the company has over participation and agency.” (882) However, he believes that “any level of interactivity that leads to social reform comes from a recontextualization of the existing master narratives.” (883) In other words, regardless of the boundaries that exist according to authorial structures, individuals still have the ability to “freely” navigate space. He exemplifies this argument with the urban landscape; despite the roads and stoplights that have been placed by an authority in a city, citizens rarely feel like they have lost the agency to shape their journey. (883) Therefore, the opinions about the empowering opportunities of counter-mapping remain divided. I will return to this debate in a later section.

3.2 Technical developments: the mapping of geospatial data While what is mapped – the earth – had stayed the same for a long time into the new era of mapping, also this aspect of cartography is slowly changing in sync with the interests of the main players of contemporary cartography. Nowadays, cartographic efforts are increasingly based on geospatial data gathered from map users’ digital devices. Following Hind (2020), this geospatial data is generated in the form of ‘event-based knowledges’. The concept of ‘event-based knowledges’ is borrowed from Hannah (2009) and denotes “records of individuals being at particular places doing specific things at specific times (e.g. buying something with a credit card or running a red light).” (qtd. by Hind 3) In other words, more and more non-state actors advance in cartographic efforts, and these efforts are increasingly based on the actions and locations of individuals. An example of this development is the practice of ‘crisis mapping’. This practice denotes the real-time gathering, displaying and analyzing of data during a crisis situation like a natural disaster or social-political conflict. During such a crisis, volunteering crisis mappers deploy mapping platforms and software to effectively map events and circumstances to provide information for humanitarian organizations. Crisis mappers use a variety of techniques, such as scraping social media sites like Twitter for crisis-specific keywords, geo- locating news reports or searching through satellite imagery to enhance the map data of that particular area. The first crisis mapping took place in 2010 after an earthquake hit Haiti. While the OpenStreetMap14 community started scouring through satellite imagery to enhance the

14 OpenStreetMap is a collaborative mapping project based on open-source software and volunteered geographical data. I will explain more about this map in a later section.

18 existing map data of Haiti, other volunteering mappers started adding relevant reports15 for humanitarian organizations on the map platform Ushahidi (Meier 2012). By employing a hybrid mix of tweeting, text messaging, translating and geo-locating, a number of 2,000 individual reports were added to the map (image 10).

Image 10: Close up of the Haiti crisis map. Each number represents the individual number of reports within the area.16

In this example, location- based knowledges were generated by geo-coding messages and satellite imagery. Numerous crisis mapping initiatives have been taking place since the first one in 2010. But crisis mapping is only one example of how the gathering of geospatial data is used to add new knowledge to maps. Before I will give another example of such an application, I will first dive deeper into the process of generating location-based knowledges.

3.3 Location-based knowledges: capture and addition Location-based knowledges are not just simply added to a map. Hind (2020) argues that cartographic efforts based on event-based knowledges are always adding and capturing knowledge at the same time. Before certain events and actions can be captured and added as new information on a map, they first have to be modified into a ‘capture-able’ form and afterwards presented in a way that fits the used software. Hind uses the concept of ‘capture’ of Arge (1994) to explain to how “‘grammars of action’ are imposed upon human activities allowing them to be captured and rendered formally, or computationally.” (1) In other words,

15 Relevant reports indicate for example the GPS locations of people trapped under rubble, communicated through Twitter. See ww.ushahidi.com/blog/2012/01/12/haiti-and-the-power-of- crowdsourcing 16 Image ©Ushahidi Haiti Project. Retrieved from blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/07/02/how-crisis- mapping-saved-lives-in-haiti/at 02-06-2020.

19 in the process of gathering location-based knowledges, the captured human actions are affected and governed by the computational rules of the technical tools that are used to do so. ` What consequently occurs in the practice of cartography is a shift from extracting information from the physical world to “apprehending and organizing the physical world as data.” (McQuire 2014: 156, original emphasis) Following McQuire,“it is the stuff of human life itself – from genetics to bodily appearances, mobility, gestures, speech and behavior – that is being progressively rendered as productive resource that can not only be harvested continuously but also subject to modulation over time.” (156) This is a significant change in comparison to the data on which “old-school” cartographic practices were based. In fact, it serves as an interesting new angle to review the debate concerning the ontological security of maps within the field of critical cartography. While the theories of Kitchin, Dodge and Crampton were based on the question whether something “out there” could be objectively mapped or not, this issue seems to shift its focus when the elements to be mapped are based on location and time based performances of individual people. This shift clarifies how potent this new focus on locative data is for the practice of cartography in general. Also, it exposes the mundane performativity of the practice of mapping, both during the moment of “production”; data gathering, preparing and presenting, and at the moment of “consumption” when using a map for individual purposes to solve relational problems at specific times and places. 3.4 Example: optimized route suggestions The concepts of capture and addition are useful to understand how online mapping platforms capture and add information from and to the world. Similar to the earlier explained example of crisis mapping, these processes occur on Google Maps as well. To explain one – the affordance of optimized route suggestions – an example will follow. The navigation app Waze (which was acquired by Google in 2013) allows users to report real-time information concerning traffic situations by choosing between predefined options such as “car crash” “traffic” or “police” (see image 11). This information combined with users’ location data – if there is a highway full of non-moving cars there is a big chance of a traffic jam taking place –offers Google Maps’ algorithms information to calculate new optimized route suggestions with the aim of navigating the user faster to the point of destination. These re-calculated routes are a form of added knowledge to the world after event-based knowledges have been captured by the app running on users’ digital devices.

Image 11: Screen capture of the Waze report interface.17

Useful as this form of cartographic calculation may seem, it also causes inconveniencies. The residents of the small village of Leonia in New Jersey suffered from ten thousands of cars a day that were redirected straight through their village whenever the main bypass was blocked by a traffic jam. Since this caused safety risks for the local inhabitants, the municipality decided to fine all passing drivers who were not local citizens. This “low tech solution for a high tech problem” (Van de Weijer 2020) did not solve the issue; the fined drivers sued the municipality for infringing their right to free access of public roads and the drivers won the case. When cities suffering from similar issues tried to contact Waze to request certain limits to their route suggestions, the company did not respond. (Van de Weijer 2020) These and other examples have initiated research on so-called Protective Optimization Technologies (POTs) to counter road congestion caused by “traffic-beating applications.” (Gürses et al. 2018) Gürses et al. propose with POTs a tool that intervenes from outside the system to correct, shift or expose harms that algorithmic systems impose on the world. Their research aims to expand the framework of ‘algorithmic fairness’ which has a too narrow focus on averting bias and discrimination and assumes that companies like Waze can be trusted to deploy counter measures to the societal problems they have caused. Apparently, as the example of optimized route suggestion shows, the societal consequences of route optimization are too versatile to be solved by the companies themselves, because doing so would interfere

17 Image © Waze. Retrieved from tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waze at 03-06-2020.

21 with their business interests. Since, according to Gürses, the underlying problem is the fact that navigation apps aim to calculate the fastest route from A to B to serve the needs of every individual user, regardless of any disadvantages on a bigger scale. The POTs technique resolves this issue by providing feedback to the system to change the output of the algorithm. (Van de Weijer 2020) An example of a do-it-yourself POT at work is shown by the artist Simon Weckert (2020) who walked around Berlin while carrying a handcart filled with 99 smartphones. The captured location data of those devices caused Google Maps’ algorithms to display the (empty) roads where he was walking to appear red, as if there was a traffic jam. This influenced the route-calculating algorithms which provide optimized route suggestions for other map users: they were most probably not directed towards this bridge. The earlier presented sign indicating “satnav is wrong” works in a similar way. It affects the direction in which users drive, and by doing so, feedback is provided to the algorithm which in turn will influence the optimized route calculation.

Image 12: Image from the art performance and installation Google Maps Hacks of Simon Weckert.18

The creation of POTs emphasizes the governing effect that cartographic calculation might have on human actions. Following Hind (2020: 4), this kind of active resistance against the influence of such technologies works to highlight “the extractive nature of the capture process as it affects and governs the actions, movements, thoughts or form of those subjected to it.” While cartographic calculation adds knowledge to the world, it inevitably affects the events

22 and actions in the capture process: users adjust their actions to comply with the logics of the technology (by reporting traffic situations in the Waze app), or they refuse to do so (by creating POTs). Both these responses show that maps influence how a user experiences and acts in the represented space.

4. Analysis of Google Maps In this section, I will explain how these processes take place within Google Maps. I will provide an analysis of the map maker, the map-making motives, the framing and the possible use of the map. My account will focus on how user-generated data has a prevalent position in the database of Google Maps. Finally, I will demonstrate the social consequences of the particular representation of the world depicted by Google Maps.

4.1 Google Maps’ commercial orientation By looking at the map, it becomes clear that the representation of the world displayed in Google Maps is focused on commercial interactions. Consider these two representations of the city of Eindhoven by Google Maps (image 12) and OpenStreetMap (image 13).

Image 12: The city Eindhoven, The Netherlands, displayed in Google Maps.19

Image 13: The city of Eindhoven, The Netherlands, displayed in OpenStreetMap. 20

These two maps depict the same area but look noticeably different. On both maps, colors and names are used to indicate different kinds of infrastructure and areas. The distinction between the two becomes clear by noting the most eye-catching aspects on Google Maps: the symbols and names indicating companies (hotels, supermarkets, coffee shops and museums). Furthermore, Google Maps depicts highlighted yellow areas which represent a high concentration of commercial activity. These designations are automatically generated by algorithms. Both these features are absent on OpenStreetMap, and by comparing the two, the focus of Google Maps’ representation on commercial activity becomes visible. This commercial orientation is also prevalent in the options offered on Google Maps. When opening the app, a user is offered to “explore around” by visiting near restaurants, coffee bars, shops, hotels and museums. Of those places the prices, ratings and reviews are displayed, together with the booking websites to make a reservation. This representation corresponds with Google’s business model which is based on gathering and selling user data and providing advertisement opportunities for other companies. The map is designed to fit this business strategy. Additionally, Google Maps operates in the competitive environment of mapping platforms (which I will explain in the next section) and aims to remain the biggest player.

20 Screenshot © OpenStreetMap contributors. Retrieved 20-05-2020.

(Plantin 2018: 499) To do so, and to conform to the high demand of information accuracy from its many users, Google Maps relies on multiple forms of user-generated data. Following Plantin (2018), Google Maps implements a hybrid configuration in which cartographic knowledge has become simultaneously more participatory and more enclosed. This is done through a “process of decentralization (by opening its base map to public participation) and recentralization (around its market interests).” (491) The input coming from user participation, such as the information reported in the Waze app, is recentralized around Google’s corporate interests: it is used both to enhance the accuracy of the map and to gather profitable user data. In other words, user participation is channeled to work as a form of database maintenance. (Plantin 2018) Nonetheless, Google Maps presents its platform as if it were a highly empowering tool for individuals, using a discourse that perfectly fits that of the counter-mapping idealists: Google Maps’ method of database maintenance is framed as a form of empowering user participation. To explain this argument further and to understand Google Maps within the bigger picture of other Web 2.0 mapping platforms, I will give an overview of the possibilities of user-participation in Google Maps and compare it to another mapping platform; the collaborative project OpenStreetMap.

4.2 Mapping platforms Many online companies and websites work with some kind of geo-location or map-based component to provide location-based services. To facilitate this, companies integrate mapping platforms in their website, app or behind the scenes. Some of the most used mapping platforms by third parties are Google Maps, OpenStreetMap, Here, Apple maps and Bing maps. Many of these platforms rely on data provided by TomTom, Navteq or other proprietary cartographic data providers. OpenStreetMap works under the Open Database License, which means that their data can be used, shared and edited for free. Google Maps is the most used mapping service for third parties; thousands of companies, such as Uber and Takeaway.com, have implemented the Google Maps API. OpenStreetMap is used for a variety of other services such as Apple Maps, Facebook and Strava. Though, the two maps are shaped in a considerably different way. Google Maps’ data is proprietary, which means that Google can decide the terms on which other parties can make use of their data; for example, companies are required to pay fees in order to use it. The creation and maintenance of OpenStreetMap, on the other hand, is motivated by these kinds of availability restrictions of cartographic data. Based on the

25 architecture of participation of the Web 2.0, the user-generated data and open-source software of OpenStreetMap is made freely available for everyone to use.

4.3 OpenStreetMap The database of OpenStreetMap consists of geographical information donated by organizations, including governments and commercial companies, and volunteered geographical information by individual users. Anyone can use the displayed information and become a contributor by editing the map. This project works, similar to Wikipedia, with a self-cleaning mechanism. When an editor makes an incorrect edit to the map, this mistake will ultimately be recognized by other editors and consequently corrected. Of course, editors do not always find a way to settle disagreements about how to best represent a certain place. These “edit wars” occur for example in discussions concerning disputed country names or the location of borders. These kinds of issues can be solved by following the “Map what’s on the ground rule”21, i.e. use whatever name or designation is used by the people who live on the “ground” of that location, or to make another version of the map based on a particular point of view. Finally, the map is not a forum for politics, rather is a means for understanding the world. Therefore, one of the ground beliefs of the OpenStreetMap community is that they value “community cohesion over data perfection.”22 As of 2020, OpenStreetMap has approximately 6 million users.

4.4 User Participation in Google Maps On Google Maps, user participation started with the platform Google Earth. This was an interactive platform which allowed users to debate the displayed information and to add overlays with replacements or augmentations of the existing map. (Farman 2010: 872) Later, in 2011, the function of Map Maker was launched which allowed any user to make edits to the map. These edits were moderated by Google employees or more experienced users. However, in 2015, the function was suspended due to vandalism incidents.23 Although several other attempts to build up a new and vandalism-proof platform for user-generated content were initiated, the function officially closed down in 2017. Now, Google Maps offers limited editing features. Users can suggest an edit concerning missing places, roads or company information. All edits are reviewed by Google moderators before they make it to the map.

21 See wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes 22 See wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map 23 Users added an image depicting an Andriod robot urinating on the Apple logo and another saying “Google review policy is crap”. See https://www.engadget.com/2015-05-11-map-maker- suspended.html

4.4.1 The Local Guides community The fact that the amount of options for user-generated content on Google Maps has decreased does not mean that user participation is not encouraged. On the contrary, user participation is highly promoted; only the nature of the information to be added has changed. Now, users are invited to contribute their local knowledge to Google Maps by joining the Local Guides community. Local knowledge, that is, mainly information about companies and touristic areas. The edits that a user can make as a Local Guide include writing reviews, uploading pictures or videos, answering questions and fact check- information added by other by users, all in the context of updating “points of interest” i.e. business or touristic information. Users receive benefits like special Local Guides-badges which indicate their “level” on their personal page, extra (temporary) Google Drive storage, invitations to events and contests, early access to new Google products and, if lucky, a special pair of socks for Christmas. The gamified rewarding system is quantity based: the more someone contributes the more merits one receives. The Local Guides meet on the Local Guides Connect forum, a social networking platform moderated by Google employees. On the platform they share their thoughts, pictures, ideals, suggestions, organize meet-ups and become friends. Further, Google hosts the annual Connect Live event. For this event, around 150 Local Guides are selected from thousands of applications to join an all-inclusive week in a hotel in the United States. As of 2020, more than 120 million Local Guides participate in the program.

4.4.2 Trusted Photographers Additionally, users can contribute to the map as a Trusted Photographer. These contributors ought to invest in a specific GPS connected camera and use it to shoot 360° imagery for Street View or the interior of companies (the latter goes under the name of Virtual Tours, see image 13). In 2017, Google announced that a selection of newly launched cameras meets the Street View standards:

Whether you’re sharing your experience at a local market or on your recent vacation, publishing high-quality, interactive imagery no longer requires significant time and effort—all you have to do is get one of the cameras, download the Street View app and start creating. (Armstrong 2020)

For approximately 3,500 dollars a Street View certified camera can be purchased. As a reward for these contributions, the photographers are granted the rights to profile themselves as a Google Trusted Photographer. As a result, Trusted Photographers offer their services to companies that want to improve their visibility on Google Maps. In Eindhoven, for example, a

27 company24 asks for a fee ranging from 250 to more than 525 euros for an interior shoot of 360° pictures.

Image 13: Screenshot of a Virtual Tour of 360° pictures: the interior of Monk Bouldergym, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.25

Although some Trusted Photographers have found a way to exploit this process of user participation, it is not difficult to recognize the value that is in it for Google Maps itself. For the provided imagery is not only presented on Street View, but also used in a variety of other ways. 4.4.3 User participation channeled as database maintenance First, the uploaded Street View imagery is used to verify existing map data. Since the imagery is geo-located, it can be used to track the roads which the providers followed to check whether these roads correlate with the roads displayed in the map. (Madrigal 2012) Secondly, the images are analyzed by optical character recognition (OCR) software to recognize words and symbols such as names of roads and companies, street signs and house numbers. This extracted information is in turn used to enhance the displayed information of the main map. For example, OCR is used to read road signs to improve route suggestions. (Madrigal 2012) Further, to verify the outcomes of the OCR analysis, the verification software of reCAPTCHA is put to use. (McQuire 2019: 155) When stumbling upon this verification, users have to select the images which depict a certain subject, such as a store front, from a

28 collection of street view imagery (image 14). These selections are used to improve the process of OCR analysis of Street View data.

Image 14: Screenshot of reCAPTCHA verification.26

By using these kinds of methods, user participation is channeled not so much to create content, but rather as a way to maintain the database. (Plantin 2018: 499) This conflicts with the kind of promotional language that is used to attract participants for these programs: this discourse is strikingly in line with the counter-mapping ideals expressed by the earlier mentioned scholars. By using this kind of discourse, Google frames its map as an empowering tool that can be used by individuals to change the world.

4.5 Framing: Counter-mapping discourse in the Local Guides community. When scouring the Local Guides Connect platform, it becomes clear that the motivation for most of the Local Guides to participate in this program derives from the idea that they are helping others. This idea is generated and maintained by Google in various ways. For example, during the Connect Live event in 2019 a Google spokesperson mentioned that all of the reviews and pictures uploaded by Local Guides had generated a total of 3.5 billion

29 views.27 In other words, the Local Guides had helped others 3.5 billion times. Because “helping” involves providing others with reviews and pictures so they can make “the best decisions about the things worth doing.”28 Further, Local Guides are helping local businesses by improving the visibility of those businesses on Google Maps. Take for example (my summary of) a post on the Connect platform in which a user explains “the best thing” he has done as a Local Guide:

The owner of a local business told the Local Guide that she recently renovated the company’s gate to make it look “friendly and branding of the business”. However, the renovated gate is not shown on Google Maps: still the “old, dull” gate is depicted. She does not know how to solve this. To help her out, the Local changed the picture of the gate on Google Maps (image 15). (FXBudiW 2020)

Image 15: Photograph of the new gate uploaded by user FXBudiW.29

Another example is a Local Guides recruiting video posted by Google Maps on YouTube. In this video, an Indian Local Guide shows her dedication to adding reviews of local businesses run by women to make them better well-know. The following is the woman’s motivation:

It is very important for women to be independent in India, because being financially independent makes them free from the opinions of others. … My ultimate goal is to inspire women to follow their dreams. … I hope that by adding businesses on Google maps it will change the mindset to “Yes, women can run businesses successfully, women are strong,

27 See the video “Connect Live 2019 Recap” (2020) posted by Local Guides Connect on YouTube 28 See the video “Who are Local Guides on Google Maps?” (2020) posted by Google Local Guides on YouTube. 29 Image © 2020 Google. Posted by user FXBudiW.

inspiring.” Do whatever small thing you can do and together we can move mountains. (Google Local Guides, 2020)

Image 16: Two screenshots from the video “Meet the Local Guide Putting Women-Owned Businesses on the Map.”30

Image 16 shows two screenshots from this video. These give a clear picture of how Local Guides are told to be helping others: both the businesses they reviewed and the other map users who are now enabled to base their decisions on the provided information.

4.5.1 The problem of online invisibility In the Local Guides community, Google Maps is framed as an empowering tool which can be used in creative ways, for example to pursue feminist aims. This kind of counter-hegemonic mapping discourse corresponds with the ideals expressed by the counter-mapping enthusiasts: the map can supposedly be used for social transformation. However, as explained before, the user-generated data is primarily used to maintain Google’s database, and not so much to support charitable goals. Although online visibility might increase the revenue for small businesses, and the efforts of Local Guides possibly really help those shop owners, the fact that online invisibility is problematic for small businesses is a problem created by Google Maps and other reviewing platforms like TripAdvisor and Yelp in the first place. The Local Guide who uploaded the picture of the new gate helped to improve this company’s visibility on Google Maps. But this online visibility is only problematic because of Google’s commercially oriented focus. The visibility of places is determined by the amount of information, pictures and positive ratings and reviews that have been uploaded by users or Local Guides to Google Maps. The information presented at these review-based platforms influence a user’s choice. Therefore, Firth (2017) has argued, online invisibility can have very real effects on where people go. Because the visibility of companies on such review-based platforms is determined by the amount of positive reviews, uneven access to those websites due to limited internet access and digital illiteracy might cause an unequal representation of places. This renders the underrepresented parts of the city invisible online. Consequently, “the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.” (Firth 2017: 547) For (small) companies, online invisibility is a real problem, though this problem is created by the review-based platforms, such as Google Maps.

4.5.2 Online invisibility discursively constructed By presenting the Local Guides program as a means to overcome this problem of online invisibility, Google demonstrates a strategy of tech solutionism. This strategy is also exposed by Luque-Ayala and Neves Maia (2019) in their research concerning a Google Maps mapping project in the favela’s of Rio de Janeiro. The aim of the project Tá No Mapa (‘It’s on the Map’) was to enhance the socioeconomic inclusion of informal settlements by putting them on the digital map. By discursively constructing the favela as “invisible” and “disconnected” from the rest of the city, where the absence of publicly available data is presented as a source of “huge social and economic loss”, Google Maps presented their mapping project as a way of providing visibility whilst helping to overcome systematic exclusions. (Google/AfroReggae qtd. by Luque-Ayala and Neves Maia 455) The authors argue that instead of addressing the

32 needs of the local inhabitants, Google prioritized economic over social forms of inclusion. (450) Local favela inhabitants were asked to map “points of interests”, though under the condition that these points are of interest for possible tourists. (456) The research of Luque- Ayala and Neves Maia concludes that this project was presented to increase social inclusion of local favela inhabitants, but turned out to be a neocolonialist mapping effort focused on economic incorporation. The Local Guides program works in a similar way. By discursively constructing local (women-owned) businesses as invisible, and Local Guides as empowered, Google’s economic-oriented mapping effort is framed as a means for socioeconomic inclusion. However, the problem of online invisibility is created by Google Maps itself, and local businesses have to abide by the rules of this platform in order to not miss out on income.

4.6. Consequences of the commercially oriented representation of Google Maps The consequence of this commercially-oriented representation of the world is that the people living in the physical world the map represents increasingly change their habits to comply with the logics of the map: the capture process of user-generated data affects and governs the human actions that are being captured. (Hind 2020) As a result, Google’s commercially orientated representation of the world becomes naturalized, which renders online invisibility as a real problem. Consider, for example, the array of businesses that provide services to help other companies with improving their visibility on Google Maps. Or, by noting the amount of Local Guides who have internalized the habits of taking pictures before eating31, who teach each other systems of reviewing places in a factual way32, or who get cyberstalked and harassed by business owners after writing a bad review33. Even during the COVID-19 crisis the Local Guides were encouraged by Google moderators to continue supporting local businesses.34 Many did so35- and there was one local guide who continued uploading photos of restaurants by scouring old photobooks.36 When during the COVID-19 crisis map users are encouraged to support local businesses, and the participatory community responds by actively doing so, it shows that they

31 Listen to the Go Loco podcast produces by Local Guides during the Connect Live 2019 event, and the application video for the Connect Live event 2019 posted by Local Guide Penny Christie. 32 The FAACTS (Food, Accesibility, Ambiance, Cost, Tips, Services) system of writing factual reviews is explained by Local Guide Adrian Lunsong on the Connect platform. 33 See the post of Dynamike_12 on the Local Guides subReddit. 34 See the post of Googler KatieMcBroom on the Connect platform. 35 See the post of bardhmphille on the Connect Platform. 36 See the post of TerryPGeary on the Connect platform.

33 have internalized the neoliberal capitalist ideals of the map. And when exit-COVID-19 lockdown strategies are suggested based on the crowdedness meters of Google Maps37, it shows that the platform is becoming increasingly important in the daily life: not only for individual users, but also as a tool for policy makers. Of course, the question of “how is the map used” leaves open space for resistance: a Google Maps user does not have to go to the restaurant with the best reviews or the first place that pops up. But the “recontextualization of the existing master narratives” described by Farman (2010: 883) is hardly possible. The opportunities for user participation are too limited for they are centralized around Google’s business interests: the problems Local Guides can solve are only the ones that are created by Google itself. Yet, Google promotes its map as a powerful counter-mapping tool. The contributors believe they are making a difference by helping others, while actually they only help to improve Google’s database. And by doing so, they consolidate Google Maps’ commercially oriented representation of the world in which online invisibility is indeed a problem.

4.7 Possible solutions Of course, maps always represent a certain point of view: this has already been demonstrated by the first critical cartographers. The motive of the mapmaker coincides with the information displayed on the map, and the map users’ options are limited to those that fit the map-making aim of the maker. On Google Maps, these options are influenced by commercial motives: it is in Google’s business interest to make companies’ online visibility dependent on a gamified system like the Local Guides program. But the framing, scale of use and application in third party services obscure Google Maps’ commercially oriented subjectivity and give the map the appearance of an ontological secure tool that can be used for counter-mapping purposes. The consequences of Google’s obscured commercial subjectivity can be counteracted, first of all, by raising awareness for the partial perspective of maps in general. (Propen 2009: 115) In paragraph 4.1, I compared Google Maps with OpenStreetMap to reveal Google Maps’ commercial oriented representation of the world. In a similar way, counter-mapping initiatives can work to emphasize the partial perspectives of popular maps by representing the world from a different point of view. Alternative, non-commercial or activist mapping platforms can work to destabilize the ontological security of maps and emphasize that any map’s creation is motivated by ideological, political or commercial interests. Second, the collaborative project of OpenStreetMap shows that a non-commercial map that is completely based on open sourced and volunteered geographical data is possible. In

37 This strategy was suggested in an article in the Volkskrant. Van Bemmel (2020).

Google Maps, user participation is limited to the Local Guides, Trusted Photographers and Waze programs, because more user participation would conflict with Google’s business interests. For OpenStreetMap, there are no business interests; the only goal is to provide free unbiased information for as many people as possible. The visibility of places is not dependent on commercially motivated conditions like the amount of positive reviews. Such mapping platforms can serve as favorable alternatives to Google Maps.

4. Conclusion In this thesis, I have linked the theoretical background of critical cartography with the technical developments in the practice of cartography, followed by a critical analysis of Google Maps. The first critical cartographers argued that maps are not just neutral conveyers of scientifically obtained knowledge: they are created with a specific motive and represent a particular point of view. (Harley 1989 and Monmonier 1995, 2004) Then, scholars argued that the ontological security of maps is unstable: rather the context in which maps are displayed and how they are conceptually framed is relevant for understanding how maps transfer ideological worldviews. (Crampton 2003) Further, maps are ontogenetic in nature: they are used by people to solve their own relational problems at specific times and places. (Kitchin and Dodge 2007) When users use a map, their experience of and performance in the represented space is influenced by the map’s representation. As a result, they naturalize the map’s understanding of the represented space. (Del Casino and Hanna 2000, 2006) Technical developments have changed the nature of cartography: in the “new era of mapping” (McQuire (2019), maps can be interactive, and consist not only of geographic information but also of event-based knowledges. (Hanna 2009) As a consequence, the human actions that are captured to be added as event-based knowledge to the map are affected and governed by the technologies that are used to do so. (Hind 2020) This becomes visible in the Local Guides community: the Local Guides change their habits to comply with the logics of the map. And, companies improve their visibility on Google Maps in order not to miss out on income. This shows that maps influence the users’ experience of the represented space, and that users either abide by the rules of the platform (by improving a companies’ visibility on Google Maps) or refuse to do so (by creating POTs, for example). Google Maps displays a commercially driven representation of the world, as required by Google’s business model. User-generated data is channeled to maintain Google’s database by Local Guides, Trusted Photographers, Waze and reCAPTCHA applications. (Plantin 2018) However, the map is framed as counter-mapping tool that can be used for social transformation. The participating users supposedly “help” others, but they only do so by

35 solving the problems that Google created; it is Google’s commercially oriented representation of the world that made online invisibility problematic in the first place. It is the map’s framing, scale of use, and implementation in third party platforms that obscure its commercially driven subjectivity.

5.1 Final notes I started this thesis with an example of how maps can create new experiences. I just planned an eight-day cycling trip through the Netherlands and Belgium for the coming summer holiday – a new experience is coming up. Although for short trips I like to cycle without a plan, for longer trips a bit of preparation is necessary. I used OpenStreetMap to plan the route because it includes a very detailed layer of cycling routes: the Fietsknooppunten network but also (inter)national cycling routes and bicycle highways. Many of those regional, national and international cycling routes are organized and managed by touristic companies (like Visit Brabant) or municipalities, but they are also maintained by volunteers who take care of the signs and maps next to the road. Also, cyclists can submit missing or wrongly placed signs on an online map. This brings me to another experience-creating aspect of maps: contributing to a map can be just as much fun. The OpenStreetMap contributors and the Local Guides will probably agree with me. During the writing of this thesis one question kept me going: why do Local Guides contribute to Google Maps? I realized that they (or at least most of them) do so because they genuinely believe that they are helping others. Their intentions are good. And, they become friends while doing so: both online and offline, the Local Guides constantly organize meet- ups. The Local Guides are an unmissable link in the system Google has created: it indeed seems like they are helping others. But finally, all these reviews, pictures and ratings mostly work in favor of the platform: Google. The visibility of places on a universally used map should not be dependent on the effort that companies make to be mapped and the amount of positive reviews and ratings that they have received. What else is possible? Could there be a map which just shows “what is out there”, independent of commercial interests? A map which is unbiased? And still accurate and convenient? A map where the Local Guides can continue mapping and really help others, and not mostly Google? (OpenStreetMap is from an ethical viewpoint a good alternative, though in terms of accuracy, user-friendliness and affordances it falls short to Google Maps: for many users it will not suffice.) The question is whether this map will ever exist, and, whether such a map is even necessary. Jorge Luis Borges described in his famous short story of 1946 the empire where

36 the science of cartography becomes so exact that the cartographers produced a map on the same scale as the empire itself – the map was completely useless. Fortunately, there are numerous maps: only for the planning of my next cycling trip I already used five different ones. And this brings me to my last account. Until this imaginary, universal, accurate, unbiased, non-commercial map exists; awareness should be raised for the partial perspective of any map. Before making a decision based on a map, from using the Google Maps API on your website; using location data provided by Google to manage an epidemic; to choosing a map for daily navigational purposes; it should be common knowledge that maps display a specific point of view. People should be aware about which maps are out there, what they show and why, how they are framed, and for what purposes they can be used, and then choose the one which works best to reach their personal goal. Therefore, more research on the societal impact of such and other digital platforms is essential to create a solid ground for implementing digital literacy in school curricula to teach present and future media users how the platforms that they use on a daily basis work – and what kind of world they are supporting by using them.

References

Adrian Lunsong. (2019) “Easy tips for rating venues and writing structured reviews!” Local Guides Connect. Accessed 05-06-2020. www.localguidesconnect.com/t5/General- Discussion/Easy-tips-for-rating-venues-and-writing-structured-reviews/td-p/1933656

Agre, P. E. (1994a) “Surveillance and capture: Two models of privacy.” The Information Society, Vol. 10(2) pp. 101–127.

Armstrong, Charles. (2017) “Create your own Street View imagery with new 360 cameras.” The Keyword Google Blog. Accessed 25-05-2020. blog.google/products/maps/create- your-own-street-view-imagery-new-360-cameras/

Berends, Bas. (n.d.) Go360. Accessed 25-05-2020. go360.nl/#top

Borges, Jorge Luis. (1946) “On the exactitude of Science.” A Universal History of Infamy. Original title: “Del rigor en la scienca” Translated by Norman Thomas. Penguin Books, London.

Brown, B. and Laurier, E. (2005) “Maps & car journeys: an ethno-methodological approach.” Cartographica, 40 pp. 17–33.

Butler, J. (1993) Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex". New York and London: Routledge.

Christie, Penny. “*SELECTED* Google Local Guides Connect Live 2019 Application by Penny Christie.” YouTube. Uploaded by Penny Christie. Accessed 02-06-2020. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofsxIqn4__U

Crampton, J. (2003) The political mapping of cyberspace. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Del Casino, V.J. and Hanna, S.P. (2000) ‘Representations and identities in tourism map spaces.’ Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 24(1) pp. 23–46.

Del Casino, V.J. and Hanna, S.P. (2005) ‘Beyond the “binaries”: A methodological intervention for interrogating maps as representational practices.’ ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, Vol. 4(1) pp. 34–56.

Dodge, M. Kitchin, R. and Perkins, C. (2009) “Thinking about Maps.” Rethinking Maps: New Frontiers in Cartographic Theory. Edited by Rob Kitchin, Chris Perkins and Martin Dodge. pp. 1-25.

Dodge, M. Perkins, C. and Kitchin, R. (2009) “Mapping Modes, Methods and Moments: A Manifesto For Map Studies.” Rethinking Maps: New Frontiers in Cartographic Theory. Edited by Rob Kitchin, Chris Perkins and Martin Dodge. pp. 220 -230.

Dynamike_12. (2020) “cyberstalked and paid a visit after leaving a bad review.” Reddit.com/r/LocalGuides. Accessed 05-06-2020. www.reddit.com/r/LocalGuides/ comments/goqblt/cyberstalked_and_paid_a_visit_after_leaving_a_bad/

Farman, J. (2010) “Mapping the digital empire: Google Earth and the process of postmodern cartography.” New media & society. Vol. 12(6) pp. 869-888.

Frith, J. (2017) “Invisibility through the interface: the social consequences of spatial research.” Media, Culture & Society. Vol. 39(4) pp. 536-551.

FXBudiW. (2020) “Support Small Business : Show my beautiful gate on GoogleMaps, please.” Local Guides Connect. Accessed 25-05-2020. www.localguidesconnect.com/t5/General-Discussion/Support-Small-Business-Show- my-beautiful-gate-on-GoogleMaps/td-p/2458244

Gartner, G. (2009) “Web Mapping 2.0.” Rethinking Maps: New Frontiers in Cartographic Theory. Edited by Rob Kitchin, Chris Perkins and Martin Dodge. pp. 68-82.

Go Loco podcast. (2019) Go Loco. Accessed 02-06-2020. anchor.fm/go-loco/

Google Local Guides. (2020) “Who are Local Guides on Google Maps?” YouTube. 22 January 2020, Uploaded by Google Local Guides. Accessed 20-05-2020. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cW5vj5uBjk

Google Maps. (2020) “Meet the Local Guide Putting Women-Owned Businesses on the Map.” YouTube. Uploaded by Google Maps. Accessed 20-05-20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGNuipAR_ik

Google/Afro Reggae. (2013) “Tá no mapa.” Henrykage.com. Accessed 02-06-2020. www.henrykage.com.br/project/tanomapa

Gürses, S. Kulnynych, B. Overdorf, R. and Troncoso, C. (2020) “POTs: Protective Optimization Technologies.” Appears in Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (FAT* 2020). DOI:10.1145/3351095.3372853

Hannah, M. G. (2009) “Calculable territory and the West German census Boycott movements of the 1980s.” Political Geography, Vol. 28(1) 66–75.

Harley, J.B. (1989) “Deconstructing the map.” Cartographica Vol. 26 (2) pp. 1–20.

Harpold, T. (1999) “Dark Continents: A Critique of Internet Metageographies.” Postmodern Culture , Vol. 9(2)

Harris, L. and Hazen, H. (2009) “Rethinking Maps from a More-Than-Human Perspective: Nature– Society, Mapping And Conservation Territories.” Rethinking Maps: New Frontiers in Cartographic Theory. Edited by Rob Kitchin, Chris Perkins and Martin Dodge. pp. 50-67.

Hind, S. (2020) “Between capture and addition: The ontogenesis of cartographic calculation.” Political Geography 78, 102147. pp. 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102147

KatieMcBroom. (2020) “Which small businesses are you supporting right now?” Local Guides Connect. Accessed 05-06-2020. www.localguidesconnect.com/t5/ Announcements/Which-small-businesses-are-you-supporting-right-now/ba-p/2419434

Kitchin, D. Gleeson, J. and Dodge, M. (2012) “Unfolding mapping practices: a new epistemology for cartography.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 38 pp. 480-496.

Kitchin, R. and Dodge, M. (2007) “Rethinking Maps.” Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 31(3) pp. 331-344.

Latour, B. (1987) Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Local Guides Connect (2019) “Connect Live 2019 Recap.” YouTube. Uploaded by Local Guides Connect. Accessed 03-06-2020. ww.youtube.com/watch?time_continue= 1&v=U68r5iZUHyg&feature=emb_logo

Lohne, Westin. (2017) “I’m not a robot. Or Google’s human.” Medium. Accessed 02-06- 2020. medium.com/westin-online/captchas-capisce-259cd5d3821b

Luque-Ayala, A. and Neves Maia, F. (2019) “Digital territories: Google maps as a political technique in the re-making of urban informality.”Environment and Planning: Society and Space, Vol. 37(3) pp. 449–467. DOI: 10.1177/0263775818766069

Madrigal, A. C. (2012) “How Google Builds Its Maps—and What It Means for the Future of Everything.” The Atlantic. Accessed 25-05-2020.

www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how-google-builds -its-maps-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-everything/261913/

McQuire, S. (2019) “One map to rule them all? Google Maps as a digital technical object.” Communication and the Public, Vol. 4(2) pp. 150-165.

Meier, P. (2012) “How Crisis Mapping Saved Lives in Haiti.” National Geographic. Accessed 29-05-2020. blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/07/02/how-crisis-mapping- saved-lives-in-haiti/

Monmonier, M. (2005) “Lying with Maps.” Statistical Science, Vol. 20(3) pp. 215-222.

NickKaramoff. (2020) “Undercover Critic.” Reddit.com/r/LocalGuides. Accessed 02-06- 2020. www.reddit.com/r/LocalGuides/comments/fb44ui/undercover_critic/

Pavlovskaya, M. 2018 “Critical GIS as a tool for social transformation.” The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien, xx(xx) pp. 1–15. DOI: 10.1111/cag.12438

Pickles, J. (2004) A history of spaces: cartographic reason, mapping and the geo-coded world. London: Routledge.

Plantin, J. C. (2018) “Google Maps as Cartographic Infrastructure: From Participatory Mapmaking to Database Maintenance.” International Journal of Communication, Vol. 12 pp. 489–506.

Propen, A. D. (2009) “Cartographic Representation and the Construction of Lived Worlds: Understanding Cartographic Practice as Embodied Knowledge.” Rethinking Maps: New Frontiers in Cartographic Theory. Eds: Rob Kitchin, Chris Perkins and Martin Dodge. pp. 113- 148.

TerryPGeary. (2020) “One more tip to add to Google maps from home.” Local Guides Connect. Accessed 05-06-2020. www.localguidesconnect.com/t5/General- Discussion/One-more-tip-to-add-to-Google-maps-from-home/td-p/2493705

Ushahidi Staff. (2012) “Haiti and the Power of Crowdsourcing.” Ushahidi. Accessed 29-05-2020. www.ushahidi.com/blog/2012/01/12/haiti-and-the-power-of- crowdsourcing

Van Bemmel, Noël. (2020) “We laten ons telkens overvallen door drukte, kan dat nou niet slimmer?” de Volkskrant. Accessed 22-05-2020. www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws- achtergrond/we-laten-ons-telkens-overvallen-door-drukte-kan-dat-nou-niet- slimmer~b92608ce/

Van de Weijer, Bard. (2020) “Als Google het verkeer precies door uw woonwijk stuurt.” Volskrant. Accessed 21-05-2020. www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/als-google-het- verkeer-precies-door-uw-woonwijk-stuurt~b3d3b6de/

Visit Brabant. (2016) “Brabant: een grensverleggende routeprovincie.” Visie en uitvoeringsstrategie 2016-2020. Accessed 25-05-2020. partners.visitbrabant.com/uploads/media/5707ca35d4959/rb-visie-2016-2020.pdf

Weckert, S. (2020) “Google Maps Hacks.” Artwork: performance and installation. simonweckert.com/googlemapshacks.html