this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2026
522 points (99.4% liked)
Map Enthusiasts
5605 readers
868 users here now
For the map enthused!
Rules:
-
post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
-
be nice
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Those are really bad examples for comparison. lmao
Also wow, rude.
PR is a great example. Why is it shaded green on this map?
While we’re on the subject of literal readings of this map; Argentina is in WHO, and is shaded a color not on the legend. Do you have a problem with this part?
Why is Greenland shaded green?
I’d accept Demark being in WHO.
Puerto Rico?
Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples.
This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my "lol") and you got offended. There's much more nuance here, as everyone knows.
PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent.
If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.”
Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions.
Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t.