We Need to Reimagine Digital Maps as Public Infrastructure. Here’s Why.

When you search for directions on Google Maps, you're using technology built on decades of publicly funded research. Yet, this essential infrastructure is controlled entirely by a private corporation, answerable only to its shareholders.

This contradiction of our digital age is that we depend on technology for basic civic functions but they are designed to serve corporate profit rather than the public good. Google Maps serves over one billion users monthly, making it one of the most influential pieces of infrastructure in modern life. With over 60% of users relying on Google Maps for navigation, it is essential to critically question the role this technology plays in our lives and recognize that such essential services should be treated as public infrastructure, not private commodities.

What makes technology in the "public interest"?

Public interest technology refers to the design and deployment of technology to advance collective well-being, democratic participation, and equitable access to information and services.

Google Maps arguably serves as both cartographic and knowledge infrastructure—meaning it provides the foundational mapping systems that other services depend on while also functioning as a vast repository of location-based information. Rather than calling itself a public interest technology, Google has created a model of mapmaking that relies on user participation: people contribute through crowdsourcing and user-data harvesting. While this approach appears to democratize cartography by opening it to widespread participation, Jean-Christophe Plantin argues that Google leverages this decentralization only to re-centralize information around its own market interests.

How government built the infrastructure Google privatized

The story of Google Maps begins not with Silicon Valley innovation, but with government research projects that stretch back decades. Understanding this history reveals how contemporary digital mapping represents a massive privatization of public investment.

The GPS satellites that make Google Maps possible emerged from decades of government research, beginning with ARPA's establishment in 1958. DARPA's contributions extended beyond GPS to include the internet infrastructure that Google depends on today. When we look back at the origins of Google Maps, when it was still Keyhole Inc., we learn that In-Q-Tel—a non-profit investment arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)—invested in the mapping technology on behalf of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), later renamed the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).

Today, Google Maps uses five primary data sources: satellite imagery, street view imagery, real-time data from users, third-party data providers, and public data sources. Most of these can be classified as public data because they utilize public entities or user input.

While Google is not the only private company to rely on public information and data collection, it exemplifies this relationship by leveraging public information and using the highest number of trackers for private information, surpassing Amazon, Facebook, or Apple.

The intent of mapping

Deepika Bahri, a postcolonial and world literature expert from Emory University, has been documenting the use and influence of mapping in the post-colonial world. In Maps in Colonialism, Bahri writes that colonizers used mapping as a guide to document the geographies and stories of the Indian Subcontinent and Africa. Just as colonial maps served imperial interests rather than local populations, Google Maps serves corporate interests rather than genuine public benefit. But unlike historical maps that were clearly produced by specific powers with obvious agendas, Google Maps presents itself as neutral—a supposedly objective representation of geographic reality.

Creating multiple realities: the disputed territory problem

In the aftermath of the Pathankot Attack on India's Air Force base in 2016, India proposed the Geospatial Information Regulation Bill (GIRB) in its Parliament, citing concerns over the role Google Maps played in the planning. This bill aims to regulate the geospatial information available on platforms like Google Maps to restrict mapping by private companies. While the bill still hasn't passed, it also captures India's long-standing disagreement with mapping services and their portrayal of India's conflicted regions, as GIRB proposes to criminalize inaccurate depictions of India’s boundaries.

Google first laid the groundwork for its neutrality policy for disputed territories in 2008, when the company wrote that its Google Earth service “should not choose sides in international geopolitical disputes.” While Google now communicates its naming policies in more general terms, that neutrality principle remains the foundation of its current approach to territorial disputes—effectively creating multiple realities of the world.

Google doesn't hide the fact that it creates multiple versions of the world map. After the Trump administration pushed to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, Google published a post early this year, explaining: “We have a longstanding practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in official government sources.” Essentially, the company's policy creates different views based on user location: US users see 'Gulf of America,' while Mexican users see 'Gulf of Mexico.' Google has previously applied this same strategy to disputed territories worldwide, showing Kashmir differently to Indian versus Pakistani users, and depicting Crimea as part of Russia to Russian users while marking it as disputed to others.

These location-based depictions can contribute to misinformation by reinforcing users' existing beliefs. Elisabeth Sedano, Ph.D., an assistant professor of spatial sciences at the University of Southern California, argues that showing different versions of the same disputed territory creates echo chambers where users believe their view is the only correct one. As Sedano told the Washington Post, users remain unaware that “people on the other side of this disputed border … are seeing the version that they believe to be true. So their worldview is further supported.” While Google should not be the arbitrator of territorial disputes, its approach of creating multiple views of the same political border arguably deepens division between users rather than fostering transparency.

The real-world consequences are significant. The Guardian reported that Iran threatened to take legal action against Google over its decision to drop the name Persian Gulf from Google Maps and leave the waterway between Iran and the Arabian peninsula nameless. Similarly, in the latest dispute between the United States and Mexico over the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico jas suggested suing Google over its decision—which Mexico views as a violation of their sovereignty.

In making no decisions, Google Maps as a private corporation makes political decisions for us, rather than relying on the democratic process on which we could and should depend on for these conflicted regions.

Reconsidering navigation apps as public interest technology

In June 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) filed a lawsuit asking the courts to declare Google a public utility, arguing that Ohioans are harmed by Google’s discriminatory and anti-competitive search results. While this proposal addresses market fairness, it doesn't tackle the fundamental question of whether essential navigation infrastructure should prioritize public benefit over corporate profit.

While public interest technologies contribute significantly to public benefits such as improved mobility, digital equity, and environmental sustainability, even while achieving some of these goals, private navigation systems don’t prioritize the public interest.

In order to move forward, here are some considerations that might push Google Maps towards a more equitable and public interest-centered approach:

• In disputed regions, entities such as Google Maps must engage with local residents to make an informed decision. This can be done through participatory mapping practices and civic engagement, led in partnership with community leaders in native languages. Currently, Google implements restrictions and blurring of sensitive governmental sites, but there’s seemingly no policy indicating non-mapping of conflicted and disputed regions. Similarly, high-tension regions, with wars and dire conflict, should remain unmapped similar to many government buildings and infrastructure for their sensitive nature. This protects both the communities involved and respects the complexity of ongoing conflicts.
• The company should establish an advisory committee of historians, community leaders, and young adults to capture unmapped historical information, document significant stories through a lens of theory and lived experience, and prioritize the future needs of neighborhoods and communities through diverse representation.
• Google Maps should expand its community mapping grants to include neighborhood and community leaders, enabling them to represent the authentic character of their areas. While Google currently offers grants, these focus exclusively on non-profits, startups, crisis response, media, and educational organizations. This approach would help ensure that mapping reflects community priorities—highlighting local businesses, cultural landmarks, and neighborhood assets that matter most to residents—rather than perpetuating outside assumptions about these places.