"It's on Google Earth and other maps so we went to check and there was no island."
(Scientists)
"The world is a constantly changing place, and keeping on top of these changes is a never-ending endeavour."
(Google spokesperson)
"...though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does make the reassuring claim that where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it was always reality that's got it wrong."
(Douglas Adams)
Guessing they were also systematically measuring the depth of the ocean around the area, as they make reference to it being "deep ocean".
In other words, they were seeking to establish that it's not an island that once existed and has been submerged due to rising sea levels, it flat-out never existed.
Not sure if it's possible (or at least, best practice) to do that from an airplane?
In Samuel Eliot Morison's _The European Discovery of America_, he has an early chapter on "Flyaway Islands and False Voyages". He remarks on how long some of these lasted on the charts, after regular shipping routes went past or "over" them. Of course, navigation was less precise in the days before Loran and then GPS.
I wonder if, at some time in the past, some cartographer examining a satellite image saw something that looked like a long sandy island and labelled it "sandy island" as a provisional description rather than a name, intending to get back to it. But they never did, and the description became a name.
It's a very common thing to put a made up one way street into the map. If your competitor has the same street then it's pretty easy to tell they are "using" your map data.
Cisco allegedly did something similar when it suspected Huwei was usign it's source code. They added some minor typos to error messages and then check the Huawei routers and sure enough they had the same mis-spellings.
Since no one programs against the textual strings of the error messages, they jumped to the conclusion it was source code theft and not a clean room implementation that Huawei was using
It doesn't prevent copyright infringement, so much as be able to detect copyright infringment after the fact. They are called 'trap streets'. They aren't just streets, but kinks in roads or rivers, churchs that aren't there.
This way, if someone copies your map, you can prove they copied you. If your map was totally accurate, then they (the copier) could claim that they went out into the world and surveyed it. If they include your trap street that only exists on your map, and not reality, then it must be a copy.
Melway is a company that makes excellent street directories for all the major cities in Australia.[1] It came out a while ago that on every single page, there are intentional errors that would help catch someone copying their maps. There was a phone box marked on my street that didn't exist, and a friend's house was next to a street that didn't exist.
It gained some attention a while back because it could turn into a safety issue - i.e. I rely on the map to tell me where I can find a phone box to call emergency services. They downplayed it.
"A spokesman from the service told Australian newspapers that while some map makers intentionally include phantom streets to prevent copyright infringements, that was was not usually the case with nautical charts because it would reduce confidence in them."
However putting a non-existent island on a Marine chart used for navigation is a few steps above that. It looks like it's the result of a mistake, a mistake that was copied far and wide.
That was my first thought, although i'm not sure why you refer to them as 'poor-mans copyright', seems like a pretty smart way of adding an additional layer of protection in cases of plagiarism dispute.
These are also referred to as mountweasel's or 'nihil articles' (http://www.omniglot.com/blog/?p=6187) and turn up in dictionaries, maps, charts and other reference works.
Interesting to note - while the adjoining areas are well covered by Apple Maps, they don't have a marker for "sandy island" in that spot of ocean - so clearly using a different source.
It's the same black blob. As usual, there's no higher-resolution data for small remote islands.
Though if it weren't labeled as "Sandy Island", I would think it's just an artifact of some kind. It certainly doesn't look like any real island at that distance.
[+] [-] nsns|13 years ago|reply
"The world is a constantly changing place, and keeping on top of these changes is a never-ending endeavour." (Google spokesperson)
"...though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does make the reassuring claim that where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it was always reality that's got it wrong." (Douglas Adams)
[+] [-] ricardobeat|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] personlurking|13 years ago|reply
In seriousness, I'm wondering why the trip took 25 days. Flying over the area would likely be more (of) a reasonable option.
[+] [-] dagw|13 years ago|reply
Unless you actually wanted to sail around the south pacific for a month and be able to call it "work"
[+] [-] aes256|13 years ago|reply
In other words, they were seeking to establish that it's not an island that once existed and has been submerged due to rising sea levels, it flat-out never existed.
Not sure if it's possible (or at least, best practice) to do that from an airplane?
[+] [-] andyjohnson0|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cafard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andyjohnson0|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SuperChihuahua|13 years ago|reply
2. Islands begin to disappear
Conclusions?
[+] [-] krapp|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elchief|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] discountgenius|13 years ago|reply
Wait, what?
[+] [-] chollida1|13 years ago|reply
Cisco allegedly did something similar when it suspected Huwei was usign it's source code. They added some minor typos to error messages and then check the Huawei routers and sure enough they had the same mis-spellings.
Since no one programs against the textual strings of the error messages, they jumped to the conclusion it was source code theft and not a clean room implementation that Huawei was using
[+] [-] rmc|13 years ago|reply
This way, if someone copies your map, you can prove they copied you. If your map was totally accurate, then they (the copier) could claim that they went out into the world and surveyed it. If they include your trap street that only exists on your map, and not reality, then it must be a copy.
[+] [-] grecy|13 years ago|reply
Melway is a company that makes excellent street directories for all the major cities in Australia.[1] It came out a while ago that on every single page, there are intentional errors that would help catch someone copying their maps. There was a phone box marked on my street that didn't exist, and a friend's house was next to a street that didn't exist.
It gained some attention a while back because it could turn into a safety issue - i.e. I rely on the map to tell me where I can find a phone box to call emergency services. They downplayed it.
[1]http://www.melway.com.au/
[+] [-] pilsetnieks|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbirchall|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mistercow|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ManAboutCouch|13 years ago|reply
However putting a non-existent island on a Marine chart used for navigation is a few steps above that. It looks like it's the result of a mistake, a mistake that was copied far and wide.
[+] [-] heyitsnick|13 years ago|reply
These are also referred to as mountweasel's or 'nihil articles' (http://www.omniglot.com/blog/?p=6187) and turn up in dictionaries, maps, charts and other reference works.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry for a long list, including fictitious german politician Jakob Maria Mierscheid in most official parliamentary listings.
[+] [-] derleth|13 years ago|reply
'Copyright', as it governs the right to copy.
[+] [-] ghshephard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greenyoda|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yuokool12|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TillE|13 years ago|reply
Though if it weren't labeled as "Sandy Island", I would think it's just an artifact of some kind. It certainly doesn't look like any real island at that distance.
http://goo.gl/maps/NUWhA
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gonzo|13 years ago|reply