Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'

#31

Post by rmc »

aes256 wrote: post #24
personlurking wrote: post #15

I'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?

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.

Or, y'know go out there to map the place to get better and more accurate maps.

If it has an island that isn't there, it's not a good sign that your maps of the area are accurate.

Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'

#32

Post by rmc »

discountgenius wrote: post #29

"...some map makers intentionally include phantom streets to prevent copyright infringements..." Wait, what?

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.

Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'

#33

Post by esrauch »

rmc wrote: post #32
discountgenius wrote: post #29

"...some map makers intentionally include phantom streets to prevent copyright infringements..." Wait, what?

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 the…

Its actually more devious than that. Facts are not copyrightable since they are not creative works; locations of streets and phone number listings are both not copyrightable. On the other hand, fictional streets or phone numbers are copyrightable so if someone copies a trap street they are infringing when they otherwise wouldn't be if the map was accurate.

Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'

#34

Post by rmc »

esrauch wrote: post #33
rmc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Its actually more devious than that. Facts are not copyrightable since they are not creative works; locations of streets and phone number listings are both not copyrightable. On the other hand, fictional streets or phone numbers are copyrightable so if someone copies a trap street they are infringing when they otherwise wouldn't be if the map was accurate.

Copyright for maps is complicated. That's why OpenStreetMap moved copyright licence.

Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'

#39

Post by grecy »

discountgenius wrote: post #29

"...some map makers intentionally include phantom streets to prevent copyright infringements..." Wait, what?

Yup.

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/

Re: South Pacific Sandy Island 'proven not to exist'

#40

Post by quink »

grecy wrote: post #39
discountgenius wrote: post #29

"...some map makers intentionally include phantom streets to prevent copyright infringements..." Wait, what?

Yup. 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 i…

It's entirely likely that it's just outdated data. However, it's not so much a part of a trend of disappearing phone booths, TUSMA is providing government money to Telstra for keeping about 20,000 phone booths active such that all Australians have reasonable access to one.
Post reply on HN