I suddenly looked at Dalian and Beijing in China, and I was surprised to see that they were much closer to the sea than I remembered. In the world map that I know, Dalian is more inland, and while the general location is the same, it is not right next to the sea. Beijing was also more inland, but it seems that the amount of sea has increased considerably.
North Korea, I think it used to be longer.
It seems to have become much smaller. I don't have any confirmation of this.
Similarly, the coastline of Siberia seems to have been eroded quite far inland.
Is this because, for example, it used to be permafrost and the sea was not exposed?
Or is this another case of the Mandela effect?
When I was young, I used to play pretend games exploring the coast of Siberia, pretending to be explorers from the late Edo period or the Muromachi period. I remember pretending to travel around Hokkaido by boat, and then, when I was pretending to explore the coast of Siberia, I thought, "This part is quite straight, so it's easy to explore."
The area around Sakhalin also seems to have a lot of land that has been eroded.
Google Maps used to be a Mercator projection, but now it seems to be adjusted to show the actual scale, so the appearance may be different from before. However, I don't think the coastline has changed that much.
Also, I don't think the Kamchatka Peninsula was this big. I think it was about half or a third of this size. This may not be the Mandela effect, but it could be a problem with the scale due to the map projection. However, the Mercator projection should make things look bigger, and I saw a news article that said that Google Maps used to be a Mercator projection, but now Google is adjusting the scale to be more accurate. If that's the case, then if Google Maps looks smaller compared to the Mercator projection I saw when I was a child, that would make sense. However, in reality, it looks bigger, which is also a source of discomfort.