Mapping has become an important tool in disaster research. How physical and social conditions are described by geographical methods decides the way risks, vulnerability, and resilience are evaluated and influences the efforts that are made for disaster control—as well as their fair distribution. However, the predominant methods of mapping have certain constraints concerning cultural and social factors and particularities. Addressing a comprehensive ethical consideration, these limitations and blind spots have to be taken into account. Certain aspects cannot be mapped to the full extent, such as specific forms of knowledge, risk perception, and preparedness measures. If the unmapped preconditions of mapping remain unconsidered, this can lead to problematic effects with respect to an appropriate understanding of maps on the one hand and a fair and context-related distribution of official measures to control risk and to care for resilience processes on the other hand. Map makers and map users should be aware of the problems connected to maps in order to avoid pitfalls and misinterpretations.