Feature or bug?

September 28, 2006 10:44 AM

Any idea how this giant bug ended up on google maps?

It was linked from boing-boing with no additional information. Is this a hack, an error, or a google prank? Anybody know more about it? In case it changes, here's a screenshot.

posted by team lowkey to computers & internet (22 comments total)

a bug on the lens of the camera mounted to the plane which took the aerial photos?
posted by Venadium at 10:47 AM on September 28, 2006

Weird. It doesn't show up on the Map view :)

An obvious answer would be that the bug was sitting on the photo when they digitized it.
posted by quin at 10:47 AM on September 28, 2006

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

Sorry.

Yeah, I second the vote for a bug on the photo. If it were on the camera, the bug would be upside-down.
posted by Schlimmbesserung at 10:53 AM on September 28, 2006 [2 favorites]

That's just the thing. If these are satellite pictures, then when would the already-digital images ever be in contact with anything physical? It not like they have a bunch of prints they are busily running through a scanner. And if they do take pictures from planes, wouldn't the bug be even bigger?
posted by team lowkey at 10:57 AM on September 28, 2006

And out of focus.
posted by quin at 10:58 AM on September 28, 2006

I, for one, wel... oh.

Unless the bug was upside down.
posted by goo at 10:59 AM on September 28, 2006

Tons of traditional aerial photos are taken with conventional camera-and-film methods. What you're seeing is a bug on the negative image. Furthermore not all of the so-called "satellite" data is actually from satellites, as in some cases it's more cost-effective to draw from airplane-based photos. This is probably one of them. I have a surveying and cartography background, so I speak from some authority.
posted by rolypolyman at 11:09 AM on September 28, 2006

Furthermore not all of the so-called "satellite" data is actually from satellites, as in some cases it's more cost-effective to draw from airplane-based photos.

A year or so ago I wondered why the Google maps of Missouri and Indiana had very high resolution images for almost the entire state. They seemed like odd choices to single out for special treatment. After some research I learned that Google found a source of aerial photos that covered the states, bought them, and included them in the maps. I don't have the link, but that's the jist of it.
posted by Science! at 11:27 AM on September 28, 2006

I can't help wondering if it's a Kafka in-joke at Google.


posted by fandango_matt at 11:30 AM on September 28, 2006 [29 favorites]

If the bug was on the negative, even with a large format negative, wouldn't the bug be a lot bigger? And, you know... negative colored? The most logical answer I can see is that they actually did digitize this from a print of an aerial photo. And that just surprises the hell out of me.
posted by team lowkey at 11:35 AM on September 28, 2006

A moderator at the Keyhole forums informs us that it's a thrips, and not as big as it seems, but only about 1mm in size. Sadly, it passed away when it was squished between the film and a glass plate.

via Google Sightseeing
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:59 AM on September 28, 2006

Ahhh. A very tiny bug on the negative. Thanks, gnfti!
posted by team lowkey at 12:18 PM on September 28, 2006

If the bug were on the negative, wouldn't it's colors be reversed? I have a hard time imagining it was originally a bright blue bug.
posted by delmoi at 12:39 PM on September 28, 2006

Looks like thrips CAN be a bit blue
posted by edgeways at 12:46 PM on September 28, 2006

These could have been taken using positive film, not negative film.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:08 PM on September 28, 2006

My former college roommate works at a mapping firm. The vast, vast majority of orthographic aerial photography - we're talking > 95% - is still done on film.
posted by dmd at 1:31 PM on September 28, 2006

Colour diapositive film is the universal choice for large scale and medium scale imagery. It is utilised for restitution, photo maps and interpretation. - Hansa Luftbild German Air Surveys.

Huh. I had never even heard of positive film, but that seems to tidy up that little nit.
posted by team lowkey at 1:55 PM on September 28, 2006

"Positive Film" is also known as slide film. I can't remember the technical details, but slide films tend to be slightly sharper than equivalent negative films.
posted by printdevil at 4:36 PM on September 28, 2006

printdevil, I think positive/slide film is better suited for light transmission, i.e. projection, whereas negative film is better for light reflection, i.e. prints.

I shot a few rolls of positive when I still used my 35mm regularly, and the sharpness and colour were amazing when projected, but didn't really seem all that different from negative when printed.
posted by ijoshua at 6:44 PM on September 28, 2006

BTW, if this was shot on negative, and the bug was in the negative image, the colour of the bug would have been inverted in the process, just like the rest of the shot.
posted by ijoshua at 6:48 PM on September 28, 2006

I work with plastic on rolls, and having sen a lot of flat bugs from around the world, the blob at the end of the abdomen looks like the splat I see on most bugs who have got themselves wound into bulk rolls.
posted by tomble at 8:05 PM on September 28, 2006

it's a thrips, and not as big as it seems, but only about 1mm in size.

No way. It's at least 150ft long, according to the map.
posted by essexjan at 10:18 PM on September 28, 2006