[Talk-us] When is a copyrighted map Easter egg not an Easter egg?

[Greg Morgan]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Kerry Irons <irons54vortex at gmail.com>wrote:

> Not sure about present practice but the State of Michigan certainly did
> this exact same thing in the past, and it was explained to me in the same
> context - the state would know if someone was copying their maps if these
> fictitious locations showed up on another map.
>
>
>
I heard about something like this with San Francisco paper maps many years
ago.  So, I've been know to torment my Google stalkers with these Easter
Eggs.  Sometimes as a volunteer I don't have time to finish an edit
properly and create unwitting Easter Eggs.   I get a new area or feature in
the best I can as time permits the during first edit session.  Next edit
session, I cleanup the data.  Case in point
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/33.78735/-112.13182.  I needed another
weekend to get back to the area for another GPS track of a new ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.787628,-112.1308614,18z  the Google mapper
didn't know what to do with the roundabout.  However, they left Long Shadow
connection to the existing ramp like I did in the first edit.  In addition,
I didn't have the name of the street during the first edit either.  I must
be a professional mapper just like in San Francisco.  ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140319/ad173b5f/attachment.html>