Open-source border datasets such as GADM, Natural Earth, and OpenStreetMap provide broad coverage but have limitations for fine-scale mapping, especially in contested regions. Boundary mismatches at high zoom often result not only from geometric simplification, but also from differences in how boundaries are defined across datasets. Coverage may also be uneven in conflict-affected areas, and representations of disputed boundaries can vary depending on available sources and mapping practices. As a result, these datasets can complicate detailed visualizations used in journalism and research.

This presentation examines the Bhutan–China border and Arunachal Pradesh, where Chinese “cross-border villages” can be precisely located using satellite imagery (Barnett, 2024; New York Times, 2024) , but do not always align with available boundary data. Such mismatches reflect both geometric limitations and the existence of multiple boundary interpretations. In areas with overlapping claims, no single authoritative boundary may exist. Representing these regions with a single line can therefore be misleading; instead, overlaying multiple boundary representations can help communicate uncertainty and differing interpretations, although such alternative boundary data are often incomplete or unavailable.

Barnett, R., 2024. Forceful Diplomacy: China’s Cross‑Border Villages in Bhutan. Turquoise Roof, 15 October 2024. Available at: https://turquoiseroof.org/forceful-diplomacy-china-cross-border-villages-in-bhutan/ (Accessed 23 March 2026).
Xiao, M. and Chang, A., 2024. China’s Great Wall of Villages. The New York Times, 10 August 2024. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/10/world/asia/china-border-villages.html (Accessed 23 March 2026).