Restricted but satisfied: Google Maps and agency in the mundane life

Production

As centrepiece of surveillance capitalism (Gentzel et al., 2021) Google Maps features some typical characteristics of current platforms, for example, it is free of charge, accessible on many different devices, deeply interwoven with the commercial Internet, product of an Big-Tech company (Alphabet) and thus has reached almost a hegemonic status in a specific sociotechnical ecosystem (exact figures are not available, but estimates range from one to two billion requests per day (McQuire, 2019: 53; Ström, 2020: 6). Plantin (2018) characterizes Google Maps as ‘cartographic infrastructure’ and Mc Quire (2019: 155) notes that through the ‘participatory strategy’ it gained ‘structural dominance in the maps sector’. Due to its extensive global diffusion and integration into people’s everyday lives and routines Google/Alphabet receive a constant, georeferenced stream of behavioural data that individuals produce consciously (editing, rating) and unconsciously (using links, creating routes, comparing ways of transport) by installing and using the app. That data is used to categorize place and space and to update the basic services of Google Maps and the accuracy and reliability of ‘Ground Truth’, the base map of Google Maps which provides data sets to users via proprietary APIs. Zuboff (2019) emphasizes that this agency can be understood in terms of maintenance and classification work by the users, that is fed into a second exploitation loop through app use in data submission (user) or collection. In this, the behavioural data are not used to improve the product or the application but to create the most accurate profiles of users possible to predict and manipulate behaviour. In the context of Google Maps that means, for example, the display of restaurants or shops alongside daytime, location and interests, which is curated by utilizing the integrated lists, ratings and links. In that respect the app regulates what knowledge about concrete public spaces is provided, how individuals can perceive and explored these places, that is, whether a restaurant is visited, a monument is seen, a shop is found, and which streets will be used by the autonomously driving Google car in the future. So, for places and spaces, actors, companies, services and communities it is not just about being ‘on the map’ (Luque-Ayala and Neves, 2019), but also about staging and being staged accordingly, that is, making data available, managing ratings, keeping information up to date and staging it aesthetically. Revealing in this context is a study by Luque-Ayala and Neves who accompanied Google initiatives in Brazilian favelas. Based on observations and interviews they conclude that Google`s mapping projects are ‘never meant to be the calculability of communities as a whole, nor of their deficiencies, complexities and aspirations, but of their economic flows and businesses’. (Luque-Ayala and Neves, 2019: 460, 467).

On the one hand, this production logic of Google Maps illustrates that agency is related to it extends beyond individual and situational aspects of concrete observable practices. On the other hand, it points to overarching processes of change in terms of cartography or production of space (Lefebvre, 1991). That kind of map production causes one-sided distortions of spatial representations on the digital map, favouring a few but powerful actors. First, because the production logic of the Google Map is based on the availability of digital data and its surveillance capitalist filtration. This privileges highly datafied areas, countries, cities and neighbourhoods qua production logic. Second, because the option of altering maps (mashups) and the entanglement with the commercial Internet allows actors to map content and knowledge, to balance it through ratings, and thus to cultivate understandings of space that serve completely vague and opaque interests (Farman, 2010: 880; McQuire, 2019: 153).

Representation

The described features of production cause specific patterns of map content that influence knowledge of as well as perception and navigation in space, that in turn mould the production of spaces. In that sense, the map content, literally the widespread worldview, is basically editorialized by the operations of the cartographic platform Google Maps. Mc Quire characterizes Google Maps in this context as ‘one map to rule them all’ (2019). However, cartographers point also to evolving fragmentations of space that are based on filtering mechanisms geared towards probable individualized consumer behaviour (Shapiro, 2018). Some aspects of the Google map as representation or text are critical from a ‘traditional’ cartographic perspective:

• Some national borders are not consensual and are mapped in a way that favours one party, as in the case of Taiwan and Tibet (Farman, 2010: 878).

Representation and text of Google Maps differ, however, not only in terms of the displayed content that accentuates specific places, shops and actors. Crucial is furthermore the continuously adaption of the map text to individual usage patterns of internet-based applications and programs. In this respect, Google Maps depicts all places on earth, but what it shows is potentially different for each user and ultimately serves to sell products and services. Due to the dependency on location, individual zoom, processed digital usage data, availability and topicality of local data, there is no uniform map text of global and local space anymore. For Zook and Graham, Google Maps represents therefore not just a mapping app, but a producer of a subjectively designed interactive space that influences the agency of the users in terms of the way people interact with their local environment (Zook and Graham, 2007: 480).

Communication and media studies pay attention to data filtering mechanisms if rights violations occur (e.g. the case of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica), or normative principles of democratic public spheres, and thus opinion-forming processes are called into question (e.g. Donald Trump and Twitter). Nevertheless, we should not overlook that public space is also an institution for negotiating social and individual self-understanding, cultural identity and political opinion. Due to the everyday mass use of Google Maps, it has become an essential part of communication culture and of existential importance for a multitude of actors and places, As part of a constantly calculating ‘digital skin’, it represents space ‘[…] visually in the form of maps and images; and informationally in the form of lists, recommendations, tags and categories of what exists […]’ (Rabari and Storper, 2015: 31).

In terms of agency representation and text constitute a symbolic dimension. As described, actions and decisions are bound to available information; practices and rituals are always contextualized socially, spatially, temporally and symbolically. How space is represented, which information is shown as relevant and which is excluded, which functions are offered and which are not, therefore, is crucial for perceiving spaces and acting in them. This symbolic dimension of agency is often bypassed, especially in adopting concepts from the field of Science and Technology Studies (Wajcman and Jones, 2012). However, it is hard to underestimate the meaning of sedimented symbolic worlds, the text of the globe, countries and cities, for questions of reproduction and change of everyday practices, in other words, the practical entanglement in the long run. How ‘deep’ and widespread Google Maps is embedded in our everyday life can only be observed if medial contents, functions and symbolic forms, for example, as expectations, norms or emotions, are taken into account.

Practices and everyday culture

Some researchers have already dealt with the question of mapping apps and agency, mostly by applying a media centric perspective and without connecting their empirical findings to the structural dimension. For example, Hofmann and Mosemghvdlishvili (2014: 265) investigated in their study, how apps with augmented reality elements for navigation affect users’ perception of their surroundings and found that app users are less aware of their surroundings than non-users. Roesler-Keilholz (2014) postulates that maps are not only pure representations of the environment, but also shape the recipient’s view of the world. She highlights that Google Maps offers the freedom for immersion and interaction with virtual maps and that the community aspect is an essential part of the use of such maps (Roesler-Keilholz, 2014: 169, 180). The work of Abend and Harvey points in a similar direction, declaring a digital transformation of map use and observe a development of maps to ‘geomedial action spaces’ (2017).

Supporting our argument, Reichert (2008) claims that the user practices of mapping apps unfold within specific social and cultural contexts and thus should not be defined from the merely uniform perspective of the producers. He considers a gradual dissolution of the binary hierarchy of production and reception as crucial for further investigations of the agency with digital maps. (Reichert, 2008: 155). Mapping apps are not only used for spatial orientation, they also activate a constant reproduction of space through practices of mapping use, interpretation participation etc. (Roesler-Keilholz, 2014: 177).

Agency, reproduction and modification

The particular focus of our study is the hybrid agency that unfolds by using Google Maps. With the help of the circuits of culture, we were able to show how closely connected the use and production of Google Maps are and shed light to what extent the representation of spaces and places is related to the lived everyday culture. Concerning agency, this raises questions that have not been reasonably considered in previous concepts. Exemplary for this are analyses across concrete situations and individual sequences of agency, the consideration of the symbolic dimension that comes with media technologies and artefacts into play. The latter, for example, the appropriation or cultivation of specific symbolic world texts and practices how to interact with them, is linked to questions of reproduction and change in everyday practices.

Thus, we shed light on the appropriation side of Google Maps, analyzing the mediatization of spatial knowledge by exploring the micro-level of individual usage practices, everyday contexts and sedimented expectations. From the viewpoint of agency, the decisive factor is the ‘room for manoeuvre’, which can be smaller (if users’ practices are essentially determined by Google Maps’ structures or affordances) or larger (if Google Maps can be actively and initiatively shaped by its user practices). Also, platform and infrastructure studies point to the entanglement of data-based technological systems and the everyday life of individuals.

This research interest obviously requires a non-media-centric empirical analysis (Morley, 2009). Starting points are everyday practices, rituals, expectations, norms and emotions associated with a situational agency or relying on the constant availability of Google Maps. We investigate empirically following specific research questions from the perspective of grounded theory (Krotz, 2019): (1) What are people doing when using Google Maps? Which practices and rituals have evolved? (2) Which expectations, norms and functions become obligatory after 15 years of mobile Mapping Apps? (3) In how far do people use other mapping apps than Google Maps, and if so, what conditions must be met to use alternatives to Google Maps? (4) What kind of agency do people reflect from a lifeworld perspective?

Practices and rituals of using Google Maps

As expected, Google Maps is the default navigation app of all users. Nevertheless, highly specific practices occur using it such as checking ratings as well as route planning, which are most mentioned by all users regardless of lifestyle and socio-demographics. Google Maps manages to integrate the medium map into a whole media world, even to dominate it, because it works in combination with other interactive applications (e.g. rating, localization). Of course, subjective purposes of use differ heavily among the interviewees, as does the affinity for this app. While casual users mainly exert the navigation function, heavy users, for example, seem to deal with several functions such as the ratings of restaurants, bars and shops. Route planning, that is, the way from A to B, represents the most frequently used feature. Road traffic reports and the possibility of ‘exploring’ the surroundings are also at the top of the list. The change between map and satellite view as well as the option to choose intermediate stops are also mentioned more frequently. The following interview excerpt stands exemplary for the preferences of our interviewees regarding the functions of Google Maps and its central position in everyday media life.

‘What I find very good is [...] that I can see on Google Maps how I can get there by public transport, as well as the distance on foot or the approximate taxi costs, or I can also see how far it is by car etc. [...] I really have a comparison of how I can get there best and fastest. And what I also like is that I also perceive the surroundings, i.e. I can orientate myself a bit and say, okay, there’s the restaurant or the petrol station is shown to me as an orientation point and then when I'm on foot or with public transport, for example, there are often several exits, especially with the underground, and if you’ve accidentally chosen the wrong exit, then it’s simply helpful if you can orientate yourself, where am I at the moment, in which direction do I have to walk now?’ (Alice)

In general, the interviewees show a very strong trust in Google Maps. ‘I actually rely on the app, especially when I need to get there quickly, because I think it will pick out the fastest route’. (Anke) The routes suggested by Google Maps are predominantly perceived as very appropriate and are normally used, as from the users’ point of view they provide a safe and reliable way of planning that also takes little time. It is very much appreciated that not only simple routes are given, but also a lot of information to make planning easier in advance or during travel. For example, changes such as road closures or traffic jams can be displayed, but also alternative means of transport and costs for these are included.

The interviewees particularly highlight that time calculation for routes are given in advance:

‘It’s quick. Which is of course a time saver. It’s practical and easy. You just indicate where you want to go, then the destination addresses, and it immediately suggests how to drive or walk and just suggests different routes. It’s just convenient’. (Maria)

Additionally information about places (e.g. opening hours, review, pictures) is mainly valued:

‘You simply have another personal experience, and you can also find out how other people think about a place and rate it. For example, an opinion about a bar. Then I can draw on other experiences and learn more than just the name of the bar. And it’s not a fake, it’s from normal users, real guests, real visitors. You can rely on that a little bit’. (Lena)

These practices provide a sense of security and control for users that is not questioned further. Through this process Google maps generates and maintains its status of (un)conscious infrastructure, which is central in users’ everyday lives. Because its operating principles are opaque, users are not aware of doing infrastructural work for a worldwide platform. In general, we have only found three critical comments in all interviews, such as this exemplary one:

‘Yes. I find it a bit problematic in general, that they [the destinations] are already dependent on how much the respective company pays Google, that they appear first now, for example, or appear from a zoom level that is further out, and so on. So maybe that would be the only thing that goes more in the direction of marketing. Instead of me really benefiting from it. But on another level, it’s not necessarily for me as a user, but it’s a bit problematic that you, as the owner of a business, are so dependent on being placed on Google Maps, because so many people use it to find the nearest hairdresser’s or fishmonger’s or whatever. So maybe that’s a point of criticism, that Google doesn’t have enough competition or that it’s the most important map tool, with the economic effects’. (Markus)

Obligatory expectations, norms and functions

Goal-oriented navigation is on the rise, strolling through a city is becoming less, even though a desire for (exclusive) ‘surprises’ and ‘insider tips’ is expressed by most respondents. Google Maps manages to economize and rationalize the spatial and urban experience without the business model behind is really being perceived, understood and valued by its users – at least not in terms of infrastructural, maintenance work. By doing so it turns out, that Google Maps clearly monopolized the domains of urban placemaking and mobility from the perspective of practices and doings as well as of (cartographic) knowledge or ‘discourse’. Additionally, the process of subjectivation of positive and negative experiences with Google Maps seems to be very ambivalent among the interviewees, and often focused only on usability issues. A frequently mentioned point of criticism is the unclear directional information that is often displayed when starting a route on foot. The app is not able to recognize the perspective or the angle of view of the user in his or her position. Accordingly, the user cannot intuitively decide, for example, in which compass direction he or she should stark walking or whether he or she should follow the road to the left or to the right. Therefore, the user has no choice but to walk a few steps until the app recognizes the direction and suggests a correction of the path, if necessary, which is often experienced as a difficulty:

‘Sometimes it’s not so much because of the app itself, but also because of the location of my mobile phone, my mobile phone sometimes doesn’t know which direction I’m facing, then it’s difficult. My mobile phone says I'm facing the other way and, well, I don’t know, if I’m standing there and there are four streets leading off and my mobile says I must go that way, then I think to myself that's not right. Then I must look at all the streets first to get an orientation in which direction I have to go now’. (Heike)

One of the frequently mentioned merits of Google Maps is the navigation function. However, it may cause uncertainty and confusion, as the information is not always correct. The reason for this could be, among other things, self-generated content of users, which is not necessarily truthful and is not always sufficiently scrutinized by Google itself. The control of content could therefore play an important role here. Another reason could be obsolete information about locations which should be updated. It can therefore happen that a roundabout suddenly appears in the route instead of a traffic light. The following interview excerpts draw attention to the occasional but crucial situations in which users are confronted with this problem.

‘It’s a funny story if I can elaborate a bit. We were in Thailand in 2018 on one of the islands and then took a rental scooter, it’s a very sparsely populated island, and then we were on a mountain and saw on maps that there was a green symbol and it said something about a temple. Then we thought, cool, that must be the highest point, let’s go there. Then we walked for an hour through the jungle, it was wild, and in the end [...] we arrived there and in the middle of the jungle there was a, that, in Germany that would be a bird house. These are little house temples that people have in front of their houses. And after an hour it was standing in the middle of the forest, nothing else. I was rather disappointed’. (Roland)

Traffic reports, which are perceived as an important feature, are based on data collections of other Google Maps users, which is not validated from the perspective of data handling. These reports sometimes turn out to be incorrect, as the following interview excerpt exemplarily shows – nevertheless this is not detrimental to the centrality of Google Maps:

‘To be honest I think Google Maps sometimes lags a bit behind. Because I just had that yesterday. It showed me red at the main road, but in the end, there was nothing. There was traffic, but it was the wrong color, so to speak. And that's why I don’t really trust it, to be honest. I can see when it’s orange or red that there's a lot of traffic, and that's usually true, but the thing with the traffic jam [...] But I’ve also experienced that once in Sweden, when they showed us a traffic jam and told us to drive around it, because otherwise we’d need 20 minutes longer, and in the end, there was nothing. And that’s just [...] I don’t always know whether I should trust that there’s a lot of traffic. It’s great that road works are indicated because they don't usually disappear from one moment to the next. It’s always up to date, but I honestly trust radio reports more when it comes to traffic jams’. (Lorena)

Besides this process of everyday cultivation of a highly rationalized and efficient route management, users nevertheless virtually desire an individual and exclusive treatment. They have the aspiration to gain an added value, or the possibility to discover new places that they would not have found without the app. ‘Especially on a nice summer evening, walking through the city to see a little bit of something. So NOT [!] according to the motto “the journey is the reward,” clearly’. (Roland) The interviewees particularly emphasized the explore tab, which is not only seen as a positive way to get to know foreign places better, but also to find new things in their own city:

‘I often notice when I’m out with friends and want to have a coffee. Then we often say, “hm, where are we going” and there are a thousand cafés in Regensburg [German City]. But still, I’m always overwhelmed by where to go, and I always go to the same ones. That’s why I think it wouldn’t be so bad to get a bit of inspiration or something, just to be motivated. Just try something new, especially if they upload pictures or audios or something. If you can listen in, oh what kind of music is playing or what are the people like? I think that would be cool. So, I can already imagine that, yes’. (Nadine)

Interestingly, when confronted with our self-developed mapping app the interviewees stressed the aspect of expectations in a much more nuanced way. They voiced that they don’t expect just a map which shows places or routes from one place to another; they want to be actively involved and to be able to contribute to the design of the map itself. Through the interactivity of a mapping app and the ‘collective knowledge’ they expect to receive not just the ‘obvious’, but also ‘insider tips’ and additional information (Roland).

‘There will always be people who know their way around a city better and know other corners. They know insider tips or places that have just opened. Or even if they are more hidden. That I wouldn’t find as a non-local. And that’s practical when others can draw your attention to them’. (Lena)

The relevance of other mapping apps

Additional mapping apps are often only discovered and integrated in the media repertoire, for example, if they better fit to specific pastime practices and their characteristics. An interesting example seems to be motorbiking. Bikers may also reach their destination with Google Maps, but for this group the route is decisive not the destination. Here, winding routes and great panoramic views are particularly in demand.

‘My boyfriend and I ride motorbikes and my boyfriend is a hopeless case when it comes to orientation and he has had the app for a while. I used to just drive around, but now when I’m trying to get somewhere, because Google has a problem, it only shows me the quickest way, often federal roads, and with a motorbike it’s a bit pointless. Calimoto shows you the way, but a curvy route and it avoids everything that's bigger than a main road, so you just have a nice route. It takes a lot longer, but it's a lot more fun’. (Heike)

Another individual means of transport that is not considered by Google Maps is hiking. Maria elaborates on the feature of a specific navigation app for hikers called Bergfex.

‘When I go hiking, the app is a wonderful helper. For example, they make a sound if I leave the path, i.e., if I take a wrong turn, then an alarm sounds and I can quickly look at my mobile phone and see: Hm, I should have turned differently, so that they are a help to me in these specific situations after all and I can just rely on them’. (Maria)

Additionally, the influence of other mapping apps is more likely to be present when the surroundings are not well-known but are essential to everyday activities, for example, being on holidays. Roland, for example, uses the internationally well-known travel app called TripAdvisor, where users can book seats, tours or tickets directly via the app.

The role of participation and agency

Although the interviewees are consistently positive about the fact that Google Maps automatically takes over most of the tasks, it is still a subjective requirement for them to be able to actively participate or at least to have the feeling of being able to do so – but only if asked for. For example, respondents state that they would like to be able to choose their own favourites from the routes presented and additionally adapt them to their own needs, such as the choice of means of transport: The app is rated negatively, if it is not perceived as sufficiently adapted to the user’s individual situation. For example, the location cannot be localised correctly (Anke) or no further settings can be made, such as an adjustment to the vehicle:

‘[…] [S]pecifically for our motorhome […] we would wish if there were the possibility […] that it would then ultimately find the suitable route or road for me based on this. Just like you find it in classic navigation devices in motorhomes that are specially designed for that’. (Mareike)

In terms of agency, options like creating individual routes and saving favourite places are very much appreciated. This gives users the opportunity to have a say in which places could be found on the app and to actively participate in its design:

‘So even on Google I’ve written a lot of reviews, I also like to add pictures and do it in detail. And if I like the app and I’m on the road there myself, of course I’d like to do detailed reviews to maybe bring others closer. Clearly, or also to share my own experiences’. (Roland)

It should be noted here that the respondents consider uploading own content as desirable in principle, but mostly too complicated or time-consuming. But in general, ‘room’ for agency is considered important by the users only on request. Our results show that specific possibilities to actively participate (see in more detail Carpentier, 2011) in and through mapping apps are not known and not really accomplished in the everyday life usage of Google Maps. Although most respondents can be classified as ‘passive’ users that hardly edit the map, the possibility to create own content seems to be of relevance if asked for. This is most likely since almost all interviewees state that they rely on reviews and rating from other users for everyday decision-making situations such as choosing a restaurant or leisure activities. Even though Google Maps already offers some ways to engage and interact with others, it lacks a certain personal touch from the viewpoint of its users. Besides the possibility to give ratings and thus publicly express one’s opinion, a more individual and self-determined form of participation and therefore of agency is missing.