When I was teaching last fall, I adapted many of my sample data sets and examples to the local country. There was not the same quantity of high resolution map data (the US is just about unique in the quantity and quality of free mapping data, but that is rapidly changing for western Europe, which is many cases now has better lidar data).
When we talked about the national projection, my students told me the country had 4 zones, I, II, III, and IV. When I checked with the international repository of map projections, http://www.epsg-registry.org/. I could only find zones I and II. After some digging, III and IV had different names, but the same parameters. III and IV covered one of the cartography "in limbo" places like Gaza, the West Bank, or Kashmir, or the names of the seas between Korea and Japan or Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Or to come closer to home, the different status of US mapping data covering the "other" areas like the USVI, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, which have become much more normalized and treated like the states and DC since I started doing GIS. But the normalization may not be perfect; the Census Bureau apparently could not come up with a
citizenship question for the 2020 Census that covered all the categories of citizenship for residents of those places.
I was reminded of the power of names today, when I noticed on a science paper that the publisher did not consider any maps in the paper to have authoritative boundaries or place names, which has been a long time tradition with the US State Department and other US mapping agencies. You have to be careful what you put on the map, and necessarily accept the version from one side of the border. You can see the same thing in Google Earth or Google Maps, if you look at any of "in limbo" places.
 |
| Legal disclaimer from NGA for the gazetteer files. |
 |
| Legal disclaimer from large commercial publisher of scientific journals. |