Today, while uploading photos of the Secret Garden (Huwon) at Changdeokgung Palace in Seoul, I encountered numerous data errors that forced me to stop my contribution. It is deeply discouraging to find more than five critical errors in a single area within just a few hours.
Based on the attached map, I will outline the specific issues that require immediate attention:
1. Inaccurate Location and Naming
-
POI A (Juniper Tree of Changdeokgung): This POI is currently misplaced. It must be moved to Location AA. All existing reviews and photos for this POI correctly depict the “AA” spot, so a simple relocation is feasible without data conflict.
-
POI B (Changgyeonggung Park): This is a factual naming error. The correct name is ‘Changgyeonggung Palace,’ not ‘Park.’ Furthermore, a general POI for the entire palace already exists, making this redundant and misleading.
2. Redundant POIs and Data Contamination
-
POI e (Changdeokgung Jondeokjeong) & POI E (Jondeokjeong): These represent the same historical site. They should be merged into POI E.
-
Note: In the case of POI e, several unrelated photos have been incorrectly uploaded. During the merger, Google must carefully filter and move only the relevant data to ensure accuracy.
3. Structural Failure: Lack of POI Hierarchy (POI C: Secret Garden)
The most significant issue lies with POI C (Secret Garden of Changdeokgung). As I have mentioned in previous posts, this POI acts as an umbrella for dozens of sub-locations.
-
The Problem: Currently, the sub-POIs are displayed on the same flat hierarchy level as the main ‘Secret Garden’ POI.
-
The Result: Naturally, thousands of reviews and photos belonging to various specific sub-sites are being dumped into this single main POI. This creates a chaotic information “mess” that provides zero value to users.
Conclusion: A Call for Transparency and Responsibility
The current state of Google Maps in these historical sites indicates a breakdown in the quality control system. When high-level contributors are reduced to passive consumers due to systematic errors, the trust between Google and its users is compromised.
How can this disorganized data be beneficial to anyone? I demand a formal response and a clear roadmap for improvement from the Google Maps team. I urge Google to restore its image as a “user-friendly company” by actively listening to contributors and making the improvement process transparent. My goal is not personal status, but to ensure that Google Maps functions as a reliable, high-quality information cycle.
4 Likes
Hi @geoKoreaSong did you try to make (some of) those corrections yourself? Moving a pin location or indicating duplicates is definitely something local guides can do. Or are there restrictions in place in South-Korea, preventing local guides from making such edits? (I am aware that restrictions like that are present in several countries, but I have no idea what the situation is in your country.)
By the way, are you familiar with the Local Guides Clean The Map (#LGCTM) project? The idea there is that local guides help improve the overall data quality. Please have a look at the main post and also the related posts at the bottom, as those contain a lot of tips on finding & correcting errors.
UPDATE: It seems that making edits in South-Korea is not prohibited to local guides in general. I just made an edit to a business name (it was in ALL CAPS - one of the #LGCTM tips) and that edit was approved within seconds.
This does not mean, however, that no restrictions at all could be in place. We’ve seen multiple cases where specific types of edits or edits to specific categories of POIs are blocked.
Hi @JanVanHaver,
To answer your question directly: Yes, I have made countless attempts myself. I have actively tried moving pins, removing inappropriate photos, suggesting new POIs, and reporting “ghost” (non-existent) POIs. Some were accepted, but many remain “pending” or were rejected without explanation.
However, the core of my proposal is not about these individual edits. The sheer volume of errors and outdated information is so vast that it cannot be fixed by individuals making one-off corrections. 1. From Individual Effort to Systemic Solution While I continue to make edits, I’ve realized that addressing these issues one by one is like trying to empty the ocean with a bucket. We need a systemic solution. My proposal focuses on a fundamental fix to prevent these errors from occurring in the first place and to ensure a high-speed, transparent feedback loop.
2. The Crisis of Trust and Cynicism When dedicated users face a slow, opaque system, it leads to deep cynicism. It is a serious situation where even high-level Local Guides—who should be “system innovators”—lose faith in the effectiveness of their contributions and remain “passive consumers.” This is a clear sign that the trust relationship between Google and its contributors has been damaged.
3. Beyond ‘LGCTM’: The Need for a User-Friendly Partner I am familiar with the #LGCTM project and respect its intent. But voluntary campaigns alone cannot solve a structural crisis of trust. Google must move beyond being a “data collector” and become a “user-friendly company” that transparently shares its improvement processes.
My goal is not personal status or mere “subcontracting.” It is about persuasion and win-win cooperation. I want to help build a virtuous cycle where Google Maps is truly admired by its users. I am turning my sense of responsibility into action to ensure the platform we care about becomes more reliable for everyone.
I do understand your arguments and concerns @geoKoreaSong , but the reality is also that making changes to such a big software system is extremely complex (I work for a software company of about 500 people and even there it is quite tough, and usually a multi-year process, to implement changes), so we should not expect fundamental changes soon. I refer to that as realism and not cynisme because over the years, I have seen changes being made - some of them based on user feedback.
In the meantime making edits to Maps on an POI by POI base is a fun activity for me, so I keep doing it, even if it is a drop in the ocean. If you can share the links of the POIs you labeled on the screenshot, others can also have a look at the situation and perhaps suggest edits to improve (part of) the data.
1 Like
Hi @JanVanHaver, thank you for your realistic perspective. I fully understand that changing a massive system takes time. However, what I am pointing out is not just a technical issue, but the fundamental relationship and trust between Google and its contributors.
When even experienced users settle for being passive consumers rather than system innovators, it signals a deeper need for transparent communication. My goal is to see Google Maps transition into a truly “user-friendly” platform that actively embraces our voices.
As you suggested, I will share specific examples and the links to the POIs in a couple of days to discuss this further. Looking forward to it!
1 Like
구글이 아무 일도 안 하고 이용자들의 의사를 무시하고만 있다고 생각하시나요?
Do you think Google is just doing nothing and ignoring the opinions of its users?
아래 사례를 한번 보시죠.
Actually, it appears that the relocation of the ‘Juniper Tree of Changdeokgung’ POI (A → AA) is currently in progress. I noticed that the POI at the incorrect location (A) has been removed. While it hasn’t appeared at the correct location (AA) yet, I am describing this status as ‘in progress’ based on these observations.
