Sandy Island
Get Deals & Reviews for Hotels near Sandy Island
www.tripadvisor.com/AttractionHotels
South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'
21–30 of 49 posts
Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. http://goo.gl/maps/NUWhA
I assume it's blacked out because their geospatial data shows that it's land but they don't have satellite data to cover it.
That's an awfully specific area to not have satellite data for...
Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'
#23I'm waiting to hear that an airliner disappeared over the 'island' and the crew and passengers are now Lost. In seriousness, I'm wondering why the trip took 25 days. Flying over the area would likely be more (of) a reasonable option.
Flying over the area would likely be more a reasonable option Unless you actually wanted to sail around the south pacific for a month and be able to call it "work"
"I see", said the blind man to his deaf wife. Especially true if you've seen BBC's South Pacific (...several times over).
Intro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3gtTicceg0 BBC Two http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jq11g
______
Edit: The initial "nonsense verse" I used made me curious so I looked it up and that's where I found the ending of one version of the phrase.
"I see", said the blind man to his deaf wife as their dog with no legs got up and ran away. He pissed in the wind and said "It all comes back to me now."
Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'
#24I'm waiting to hear that an airliner disappeared over the 'island' and the crew and passengers are now Lost. In seriousness, I'm wondering why the trip took 25 days. Flying over the area would likely be more (of) a reasonable option.
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?
Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. http://goo.gl/maps/NUWhA
I assume it's blacked out because their geospatial data shows that it's land but they don't have satellite data to cover it.
Its seems to exist as an incorrect shoreline in the freely available NOAA GSHHS Shorelines data[1] which digitalglobe[2] uses to crop low-resolution satellite images to be replaced with high-resolution land area imagery, with nothing available for the location this results in the black spot.
Landsat[3] never showed anything there, especially at this size. Earliest depiction[4] I found in the short time via oldmapsonline.org dates back to 1881 While this otherwise well explored map[5] of 1862 does show nothing in place.
GeoGarage[6] pretty much says the same.
This only shows how slowly low priority public datasets are updated/maintained since the french maritime authorities SHOM don't have anything in their official charts of the area.
[1]http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/shorelines/data/gshhs/version2....
[2]https://browse.digitalglobe.com/imagefinder/navigator.do?nav...
[3]http://landsatlook.usgs.gov/ sorry no direct link possible, just got to the location zoom in and search for available imagery.
[4]http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=List_N...
[5]http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=List_N...
[6]http://blog.geogarage.com/2012/11/south-pacific-sandy-island...
Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'
#26Insert Apple maps joke here
Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'
#27I'm waiting to hear that an airliner disappeared over the 'island' and the crew and passengers are now Lost. In seriousness, I'm wondering why the trip took 25 days. Flying over the area would likely be more (of) a reasonable option.
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?
Sea levels haven't risen all that much - 8 inches in the last 150 years says one reference. There are other options which are more probable. If it was a volcanic island then the top could be easily eroded. Consider the island of Ferdinandea, off the coast of Italy. "At its maximum (in July and August 1831), it was 4,800 m (15,700 ft) in circumference and 63 m (207 ft) in height." while by January 1832 it had eroded to below sea level. Surtsey is another example, this off the coast of Iceland, and Kavachi is a third, this in the Solomon Islands.
If this were the case then depth soundings would easily identify a submerged volcano, even if it were 100m below the surface. A simple visual fly-by wouldn't.
Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'
#28Isn't this a standard method for a 'poor-mans copywrite' in cartography?
> copywrite
'Copyright', as it governs the right to copy.
Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'
#29"...some map makers intentionally include phantom streets to prevent copyright infringements..."
Wait, what?
Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'
#30"...some map makers intentionally include phantom streets to prevent copyright infringements..." Wait, what?
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