Who now decides what places on the map are called?

Open Google Maps in Toronto — and you'll see one name.

Open the map in New York — and you might see another.

Increasingly, the name on the map on your smartphone depends on exactly where you are. This is what is happening with Lake Ontario — the smallest of the Great Lakes, located on the US-Canada border.

When US President Trump ordered it renamed "Lake America" after failed trade negotiations between the two countries this summer, the lake began appearing under different names on different maps. But a change of name in a government database does not necessarily change what the rest of the world calls that place.

From digital maps to tourist organizations and local communities — the dispute over Lake Ontario shows how difficult it is to rename a geographical feature and who ultimately decides which name will stick.

Who decides what goes on the map?

It's no surprise that Canada did not support any changes.

In the USA, the renaming process began with the federal Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) — a database used to standardize geographical names at the federal level. Trump's order mandated adding the name "Lake America" to the system and removing the previous name.

Google reflected the changes in accordance with its long-standing policy of using official government sources for names. Now, users in the USA see "Lake America," while in Canada it continues to be called "Lake Ontario."

Apple Maps also introduced the new name after pressure from Trump.

But private mapping companies are not legally obligated to follow federal names. MapQuest, known as one of the first digital mapping services, refused to use the new name. After this, MapQuest became the top-ranked app in Apple's US App Store. The company stated that after the order was issued, it was installed over 1.5 million times in the US and Canada.

"MapQuest decided to keep the name that people are familiar with," said company general manager Doug Berger. "When people need directions, they look for familiar names. So the decision was simple."

What the name means

Different approaches show how a federal renaming decision can quickly lead to multiple names for the same geographical feature.

Oswego County in New York State, which borders the lake, decided to retain the name "Lake Ontario" in official documents and business materials, citing the historical significance of the name, as well as the costs to taxpayers and business owners associated with rebranding.

Павялічыць

The Seneca Native American tribe also issued a statement opposing the decision, emphasizing the indigenous origin of the lake's name and its historical role in indigenous diplomacy.

"In our traditional Seneca language, it is called sga:nyodai:yoh, which means 'beautiful lake'," said authorized representative of the people, Jay Conrad Seneca. "For us, Lake Ontario is not a political pawn. It does not divide the United States and Canada. This is the land of indigenous peoples, which they have inhabited since time immemorial."

When two names coexist

But outside the USA and Canada, the consequences of the renaming may be limited.

"Names of bodies of water usually fall under the jurisdiction of individual states," explains Tawfiq Rahim, a senior research fellow at the independent think tank New America and author of the book Trump 2.5: A Primer. "There are international organizations, such as the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), but they do not have the authority to resolve such disputes. Usually, when a dispute arises, two or even several names may be used."

A long-standing example is the dispute over the names "Persian Gulf" and "Arabian Gulf." "Persian Gulf" remains the standard name used by the UN, IHO, and most world atlases. At the same time, Arab states bordering this body of water, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman, predominantly use the name "Arabian Gulf" and have been urging allies to do the same since the 1960s.

Another, more recent example is Trump's decision in January 2025 to rename the Gulf of Mexico to "American Gulf." The new name was introduced on US federal maps and some digital mapping services, while in Mexico and for international users, the name "Gulf of Mexico" or both names continued to be used.

In Mobile, Alabama, the National Maritime Museum of the Gulf of Mexico had shortly before spent nearly $100,000 on rebranding. After the federal renaming, the museum found itself with a new name associated with a geographical feature whose name is now a matter of dispute. At the time, the museum's director told BBC Travel that another renaming would require "completely redoing the entire museum," and stated that she would be guided by the decision of the city authorities. Now, on its website, the museum is simply called the National Maritime Museum of the Gulf.

Павялічыць

A similar situation is now unfolding on the American side of Lake Ontario. The Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary, a federal protected area of 1,722 square miles (4,460 sq km) that encompasses the lake's waters and seabed along the eastern coast of New York State, retains its name.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which co-manages the sanctuary with New York State, states that the order pertains to federal references to the lake itself but does not change the separately approved name of the sanctuary. The agency is updating its materials, calling the lake "Lake America," while the sanctuary continues to be called the Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary.

Diplomatic wedge

The organizational and financial burden of renaming will most likely fall on the USA and its taxpayers.

"This adds another unnecessary expenditure for the US, which could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually," says Usha Haley, honorary professor of international business at Wichita State University. "People have to spend time, another important resource, managing these changes for different audiences."

While renaming will have practical consequences, the most lasting ones are likely to be symbolic.

"Geographical names become a kind of symbol of sovereignty and power. This is a geopolitical signal about who controls the national and bilateral agenda," says Haley.

According to her, the symbolic and diplomatic consequences of such renaming could be much more far-reaching than the immediate commercial costs. Haley states that this decision is likely to continue undermining diplomatic trust between Canada and the US, complicating the already complex trade relations between the two countries.

Canada has long been one of the main destinations for American exports and the third largest source of imports into the US after Mexico and China. Usha Haley notes that similar symbolic disputes can be manifestations of larger conflicts.

• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0