Check out Bricoleurbanism

Considering that Bricoleurbanism is a blog which:

  1. Painstakingly details the changing cityscapes of China and Southeast Asia and elsewhere;
  2. Often uses detailed before-and-after shots from Google Earth;

I really do not know why I have not come across it sooner. It’s got some fabulous posts, for example on the razing of old Tianjin, or the disappearance of Shanghai’s Wujiang Lu food street (whose last days I also saw), or on the Mina tent city in Mecca.

I only found out about Bricoleurbanism because its (anonymous) author wrote up my earlier post about Kashgar. I’m glad to see somebody else is keeping tabs on the fast-changing nature of Asia’s cities. I strongly recommend a visit.

About Costa Rica, Nicaragua, their mutual border, and Google

The eastern third of the border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica is determined by the course of the Río San Juan as it wends its way eastward towards the Caribbean Sea. In the final 20-odd kilometers, the river splits into two, with the border following the smaller, northernmost strand. (The southern strand is considered to be a different river, the Río Colorado.) These two rivers delineate the delta island Isla Calero, Costa Rica’s largest.

The mutual border was determined by the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of Limits in 1858, after a series of military escapades between the two countries motivated in part by the Rio San Juan being a candidate for a trans-isthmus canal. According to the terms of the treaty, the south bank of the river is Costa Rican territory but the river itself is Nicaraguan. Costa Rica has the right to use the river for commerce.

Differing interpretations of the treaty led US president Grover Cleveland to arbitrate the continuing dispute, ruling in 1888 (in the “Laudo Cleveland” or Cleveland Award (PDF)) that Costa Rica did not have the right to patrol the river with military ships. This same document also resolved that Punta de Castilla, “at the mouth of the San Juan River”, is where the border runs into the sea. In 1897, a more technical arbitration (PDF) by E.P. Alexander (at the behest of Cleveland) delineated the border with greater precision near the coast:

The dispute flared up again this century, with Costa Rica in 2005 complaining to the International Court of Justice that Nicaragua was unfairly restricting access to the river. The Court’s ruling, delivered in 2009, was Solomonic: It ruled that Costa Rica cannot resupply its armed police border posts by river, but also that Nicaragua cannot demand visas from Costa Rican tourists traveling along the river.

You’d think this ruling would end any possibility of further border disputes. In any case, the official maps of both Nicaragua and Costa Rica do not dispute the border:

Section of Nicaraguan national map

Section of Costa Rica’s national map

The maps delivered by both countries to the ICJ as recently as 2006-2007 are not in dispute either:

Map provided by Costa Rica to the ICJ

Map provided by Nicaragua to the ICJ

Nevertheless, during the second half of October 2010, Nicaraguan troops set up camp on Isla Calero, on the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan river just a few kilometers from where it reaches the Caribbean, raised the Nicaraguan flag, and then began tree clearing and dredging operations which are still ongoing. Their aim, so it seems, is to clear a channel that reflects what Nicaragua believes might have been the course of the river back in the 1850s.

How to justify such an apparently blatant incursion? The clearest explanation I’ve found of the Nicaraguan position comes directly from Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega himself, as reported in the Tico Times:

Ortega said the Costa Rica border has been steadily encroaching northward for hundreds of years, as the San Juan River delta slowly dries out. However, he said, even though the historic river mouth has dried, it is still Nicaraguan territory.

“In the 1600s and 1700s, the river covered an enormous amount of territory at its delta,” Ortega said. “And as the zone has dried, the river has moved and (Costa Rica) has continued to advance and take possession of terrain that doesn’t belong to it. The way things are going, if the San Juan River continues to move north and join with the Río Grande of Matagalpa (in the northern zone), that’s how far (Costa Rica) would claim its territory extended.”

Ortega stressed that according to the July 2009 resolution from the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Nicaragua has the right to recuperate the historic delta of the San Juan River that existed more than 150 years ago.

“Nicaragua has the right to dredge the San Juan River to recover the flow of waters that existed in 1858, even if that affects the flow of water of other current recipients, such as the Colorado River,” Ortega said, reading from last year’s resolution for The Hague.

The section of the ICJ ruling Ortega refers to is worth quoting at length. It doesn’t concern the main question of the ruling, but regards an additional declaration that Nicaragua wanted the ICJ to adopt in its ruling:

153. Nicaragua adds a further submission. It requests the Court “to make a formal declaration on the issues raised by Nicaragua in Section II of Chapter VII of her Counter-Memorial, [and] in Section I, Chapter VI of her Rejoinder”.

The declaration requested is the following:

“[(i) … (iv) redacted]

(v) Nicaragua has the right to dredge the San Juan in order to return the flow of water to that obtaining in 1858 even if this affects the flow of water to other present day recipients of this flow such as the Colorado River.”

[…]

155. As for the fifth point to be addressed in the requested “declaration”, on the assumption that it is in the nature of a counter-claim, Costa Rica has cast doubt on its admissibility, arguing that it is not “directly connected” with the subject-matter of Costa Rica’s claim, within the meaning of Article 80 of the Rules of Court. The same issue could arise in respect of the third point.

In any event it suffices for the Court to observe that the two questions thus raised were settled in the decision made in the Cleveland Award. It was determined in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the third clause of the Award that Costa Rica is not bound to share in the expenses necessary to improve navigation on the San Juan river and that Nicaragua may execute such works of improvement as it deems suitable, provided that such works do not seriously impair navigation on tributaries of the San Juan belonging to Costa Rica.

As Nicaragua has offered no explanation why the Award does not suffice to make clear the Parties’ rights and obligations in respect of these matters, its claim in this regard must be rejected.

Clearly, the Court rejected Nicaragua’s request to add its proposed text to the ruling. But it is also now clear that Nicaragua has chosen to interpret the Court’s reaffirmation of the Cleveland Award as a legal go-ahead to clear and dredge those channels it claims were commercial waterways in 1858, even if these subsequently silted up as the course of the San Juan river shifted over the past 150 years.

Costa Rica has complained to the Organization of American States, but Nicaragua argues that the only body fit to rule on the issues is the ICJ. Since another ruling from that court would take approximately 3 years from start to finish, presumably this gives Nicaragua enough time to finish whatever waterworks it deems necessary. Considering that Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948, it is not really in a position to prevent Nicaragua from acting. Meanwhile, Nicaraguan parliamentarians have vowed to travel to Isla Calero on November 10, to “reaffirm the defense of national territory.”

Where does Google Maps figure in all this? Opportunistically, it turns out. As long ago as October 22, 2010, Edén Pastora, the nationally famous Sandinista ex-revolutionary and now Nicaragua’s director of dredging on the Río San Juan, was arguing patriotically (translation) that the region is a no man’s land because the San Juan has changed course since the 19th century, when the Cleveland Award determined the border. By November 2, 2010, he had discovered that Google Maps’s border gives Nicaragua the top part of Isla Calero, and subsequently used this to justify the troop encampment on the island (translation). This prompted Costa Rica’s foreign ministry to contact Google, which in turn scrambled to check with the source of its data (the US State Department). Google has now said that the current Google Maps border for the area is wrong and that it will be updated as soon as possible.

Google’s current incorrect border

Given all this information, we can conclude that the narrative currently dominating the internet is wrong: Nicaragua did not mistakenly enter Costa Rican territory because it relied on Google Maps. Ortega’s justification for Nicaragua’s actions appeal to documents from the 19th century; Pastora’s mention of Google Maps is just a taunt.

A couple of loose threads remain. First, Bing Maps doesn’t come off nearly as well as Search Engine Land’s post would have you believe. A cursory glance shows that Bing’s border does not accurately follow the course of Río San Juan. For a good 10km stretch, Bing actually gives Nicaragua both banks of the river, but at the same time grants several coastal islands to Costa Rica. This is because the dataset is not detailed enough to withstand a close-up.

The US State Department’s admittedly faulty border, as depicted in Google Maps, is more of a puzzle. I first thought it might indeed have been an old dataset from the 1850s or 1880s, showing the course of the Río San Juan back then (as Pastora would have us believe), but I now think the dataset has to be modern but corrupted. That’s because Google’s border shows the distinct S bend in the river’s final few kilometers — an S bend which did not exist when E.P. Alexander drew his survey maps in 1897.

Finally, a Costa Rican TV program on the issue (part 1, part 2) shows Nicaragua’s new claim line, but this line matches neither Google Maps’s border nor the border as surveyed by Alexander.

Screen grab from TV show showing where Nicaragua purports Alexander mapped the course of the Río San Juan. The screencap also shows the position of the dredger (bottom). Below, how Alexander actually drew the course of the river (via Google Lat-Long Blog).

Update 17:28 UTC: Below is a better version of the new Nicaraguan claim line: an infographic from Nicaragua’s La Prensa. Note the clear appeal to E.P. Alexander’s survey map, but this appears to be contradicted by Alexander’s actual maps, reproduced above. h/t @EscalaNatural

Current incorrect border in Google Earth, showing the S-shaped river course.

What Nicaragua has yet to produce is an antique map showing the course of the Río San Juan in the 1800s along the route it now claims as the new border. Even if it does, convincing the ICJ of this claim line’s legitimacy will be a tall order, considering how both countries have for well over a century mapped their mutual border according to the shifting banks of the Río San Juan. Nicaragua’s plan to artificially change the course of the river — and thus the border — by dredging and clearing gets points for originality. I just don’t think it will fly with anyone who is not already a Nicaraguan nationalist.

China’s Map World uses DigitalGlobe imagery

A quick update on China’s newly launched Map World: Chinese neogeographer William Long has posted a review of Map World on his blog (English translation), wherein he notes that at least some of the imagery in Map World is gleaned from American satellite imaging company DigitalGlobe: William compared Map World’s imagery of Tiananmen to Google Earth’s historical imagery archive and found identical imagery from DigitalGlobe dated Feb 9, 2007. (He posts comparison screenshots.) Google Earth, meanwhile, carries imagery from as recently as Nov 8, 2009.

But he makes the most surprising discovery when he manages to get the 3D viewer to work: Map World’s 3D navigation tool bears more than a passing resemblance to Google Earth’s own, in terms of style:

genav.jpg mapworldnav.jpg

Can you tell which is which?

(Screenshot. Seriously now, not even an attempt to camouflage the ripoff? Still, what is Google going to do, sue the Chinese government?)

His other point worth mentioning: the 3D view doesn’t actually do 3D. It doesn’t render elevation. It is merely the 2D imagery projected onto a sphere. The one advantage over 2D: The 3D imagery doesn’t suffer the 2D imagery’s north-south compression due to Map World’s funky projection.

[Update 15:54 UTC: China’s State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping has now clarified its earlier statements, to the effect that while the software powering Map World is wholly Chinese, the imagery is indeed purchased from DigitalGlobe. I didn’t think this was an issue, but apparently many Chinese users were under the impression that the service was completely home-grown.]

Google Maps: Still doomed in China

The tech news channel of the Chinese portal Sina.com.cn today carries a news update on the legal status in China of ditu.google.cn, the version of Google Maps intended for mainland Chinese users. The original is here; I used the occasionally hilarious Google translation.

In short, things are still not looking up for Google. Sina’s article references government sources who state that Google will definitely not get its license by the end of the year, when China’s laws on internet mapping will begin being enforced in earnest. The implication is that the site will thenceforth be blocked in China.

The proffered reasons are two-fold:

1. The mapping server must be located in China, and the server’s IP address must be shared with the government. The article implies this is not currently the case.

2. Organizations providing web-based maps in China must be joint ventures. Google’s operations in China are not.

The first reason is a bit puzzling: The IP address for ditu.google.cn is listed as being 203.208.39.99, which is in Beijing. Still, it’s possible this is the Chinese node of a relay connecting a server physically located in the US. Perhaps the IP address of the originating “server” is opaque for technical reasons — for example, it might be a service distributed across Google’s many server farms — in which case providing a single public IP address to the Chinese government isn’t possible. But I’m speculating.

Note that the above objections do not mention map borders that are not in accordance with Chinese law or the presence on the maps of unvetted user-generated content. That’s because ditu.google.cn’s map borders have long complied with Chinese law, while the site eschews any and all user-generated features, in order to avoid having to censor them.

It’s also possible that this article is a negotiating ploy — making sure the government’s demands are stated publicly so it is clear they are not negotiable. In that case, the intention is still to get Google to form a joint venture and host its Chinese map server on Chinese soil. If plans are not already afoot to make this happen, it is unlikely to be ready by January 2011.

I’ve previously argued that the continued existence of ditu.google.cn is inconsistent with Google’s decision to stop censoring its search services in China, and that the service should be killed off. One way to do so would be for Google not to comply with these new regulatory demands. And that seems indeed to be Google’s current path.

Sina’s article mentions that Microsoft is also not on the list of approved web mapping licensees, for its Chinese version of Bing Maps (at cn.bing.com/ditu). That mapping service does not have the ubiquity of Google Maps, however — for example as the default service for the iPad and iPhone, which are proving wildly popular in China. iPhones sold in China have their default map app locked to ditu.google.cn. What happens if that site is no longer available in China?

It’s not a stretch to infer that the hardening of web mapping regulations in China is coordinated with the timely launch of Map World, a robust government-run web mapping service. Can’t get Google Maps anymore in China in 2011? There will be Map World — just don’t hold out any hope for an API so that you can add user-generated content on your own website. In China, neogeography is not an approved pursuit.

(It will be interesting to see what happens to Google Earth’s accessibility in China in 2011.)

China’s “Google Earth killer” launches

China’s State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping today released their long-anticipated web-based mapping tool, Map World (§©Âú∞Âõæ), Reuters reports. it’s located at www.tianditu.cn/ and you can give it a go right now; it’s in Chinese only but the controls are intuitive enough.

mapworld.jpg

Just some very brief observations, as I have a flight to catch:

  • The 2D mapping tool, which lets you toggle between maps and satellite imagery, is available both for Mac and Windows browsers, and requires no additional plugins. Mapping tiles loaded quite responsively for me.
  • Imagery of Shanghai Expo 2010 and Beijing’s Tiananmen Square is more recent than Google’s imagery. Imagery of Kashgar is older than Google’s imagery. [Update 2010-10-26: As William Long has pointed out, imagery of Tiananmen Square is older than Google’s — identical to the DigitalGlobe image from Feb 9, 2007 in Google Earth’s historical archive.]
  • Unlike in Google Maps, Map World’s projection squashes imagery and maps in the north-south direction. The Forbidden City is distinctly more square, and round buildings in Shanghai Expo are portrayed as oval.
  • The 3D viewing tool requires you to download and run “GeoGloberuntime.exe” as a web plug-in, so obviously it is a Windows only tool. Once installed, it promptly crashed my copy of Internet Explorer 9 upon use, so I can’t report back more right now. I couldn’t find any mention of a GeoGlobe runtime online, so I’m not sure if this is from a third-party vendor or home-grown. (In any case, beware installing software from a Chinese government agency website).
  • The maximum resolution for imagery in China (the only place I went looking) is lower than in Google Earth. I briefly went searching for censored content: Near the “secret” underground submarine base in Shandong province, tiles above a certain resolution simply don’t load for me. I can’t yet tell if this is the standard way of censoring Map World.
  • The 2D web mapping tool comes with area and distance calculators, as well as a feature editor. These are accessible via the links along the tool bar running above the map.

Overall, Map World feels quite robust, far more so than the France’s GeoPortail and India’s Bhuvan at launch. If you do get the 3D plugin to work over the weekend, please let me know.