A weird (trap?) artefact in Google Maps


Cartographers occasionally sneak deliberate mistakes into their maps. Known as trap streets they are a simple "copyright trap". If someone copies their map without permission, the fake street shows evidence of the source of plagiarism.

Google do this sometimes. They once proclaimed that Argleton was a real place - despite its non-existence.

While I was looking for something to do in London recently, I came across this curious entry.

Screenshot of Google maps. in the middle of Mayfair is an entry for an Ancient Metal Vault. Why does Google think there is an "Ancient Metal Vault" in Mayfair?

There's nothing similar on OpenStreetMap. Similarly Bing and Ordnance Survey show nothing there.

I thought it might be a historic place - but there are no search results for it.

What does Google Maps say about the place?

Screenshot of a blank details page.

Nothing. Except a UK mobile phone number. When I called, I got an American "This number is not in service" message.

If it were a dozen years ago, I'd've thought this was the start of some augmented reality game. But, instead, I think it's most likely an artefact from some old mapping data they've imported.

Either that, or it is time to go digging up some London streets in the dead of night for an exciting caper!


Share this post on…

  • Mastodon
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • BlueSky
  • Threads
  • Reddit
  • HackerNews
  • Lobsters
  • WhatsApp
  • Telegram

5 thoughts on “A weird (trap?) artefact in Google Maps”

  1. Mike Nolan says:

    I'm pretty sure Argleton was introduced by Tele Atlas importing badly OCRd gazetteers - as well as Aughton ≈ Argleton there was Downholland ≈ Downhollnad and Mawdesley ≈ Mawdesky which both get reverted in late 2011:

    https://twitter.com/MikeNolan/status/145076409344339969

    I got a UK message saying not recognised - I assume it depends on the provider you're phoning from.

    Reply
  2. Richard says:

    There’s a story of a cartography company accusing another of copyright infringement because they had reproduced a deliberate mistake.

    The accused company was adamant they had done their own survey, however, and that this really was the name of the place.

    A site visit was organised to settle the matter. The first company was astonished to find a corner shop with their made up name on the exact spot in question. They went inside and asked the owner to explain.

    The owner produced a copy of the original firm’s map, pointed to his shop, and said they just named it for the place it was in…

    Reply

What are your reckons?

All comments are moderated and may not be published immediately. Your email address will not be published.

Allowed HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> <p> <pre> <br> <img src="" alt="" title="" srcset="">