Here is a detailed explanation of the practice of inserting map traps and phantom settlements into cartography as a method of copyright protection.
Introduction: The Cartographer’s Dilemma
Mapmaking, or cartography, is an incredibly labor-intensive and expensive process. It requires surveying land, analyzing satellite imagery, verifying road names with local municipalities, and meticulously designing a visual representation of reality.
Because facts (such as the existence of a mountain or the name of a street) cannot be copyrighted, cartographers face a unique legal problem. If a competitor simply copies their map, it is difficult to prove the theft in court because the competitor can argue they merely went to the same location and gathered the same factual data.
To solve this, mapmakers historically devised a clever, deceptive solution: Map Traps.
What are Map Traps?
A "map trap" (also known as a copyright trap or mountweazel) is a deliberate error or fictitious feature inserted into a map. These errors are generally minor enough not to mislead a genuine navigator but specific enough to serve as a unique fingerprint.
If a competitor’s map contains the exact same fake street, non-existent town, or misspelled river as the original map, it serves as irrefutable proof of plagiarism. The copier cannot claim they did their own surveying, because no amount of independent surveying would discover a town that doesn't exist.
Types of Map Traps
Map traps come in various forms, ranging from subtle alterations to entirely invented communities.
1. Phantom Settlements (Paper Towns)
The most famous type of map trap is the "phantom settlement"—a town that exists only on paper. These are usually placed in remote areas where they are unlikely to cause navigational issues. They are given plausible names, often derived from the names of the mapmakers or anagrams.
Famous Case Study: Agloe, New York In the 1930s, the General Drafting Co. (makers of Esso maps) inserted a fake town called "Agloe" at a dirt-road intersection in the Catskill Mountains. The name was an anagram of the directors' initials (Otto G. Lindberg and Ernest Alpers). Years later, the rival mapmaker Rand McNally released a map featuring Agloe. General Drafting sued for copyright infringement.
- The Twist: Rand McNally won the case. They proved they hadn't copied the map. A general store had been built at that intersection, and the owners, seeing "Agloe" on an Esso map, named their business the "Agloe General Store." When Rand McNally's surveyors visited, they saw the store and legitimately added the town to their map. The fake town had become real.
Famous Case Study: Argleton, England In 2008, internet users discovered a town called "Argleton" on Google Maps in Lancashire, UK. In reality, the location was an empty field. Google eventually removed it, but it is widely believed to have been a copyright trap derived from the data provided by Tele Atlas.
2. Trap Streets
In urban mapping, inserting a fake town is impossible. Instead, cartographers insert "trap streets." This might involve: * Adding a tiny cul-de-sac that doesn't exist. * Drawing a small alleyway where there is actually a solid wall. * Misrepresenting a slight bend in a road as a sharp turn.
A prominent example occurred in the 2001 legal battle Automobile Association vs. Ordnance Survey in the UK. The Ordnance Survey settled out of court for £20 million after catching the AA copying their maps. They proved the theft by identifying specific "fingerprints"—tiny stylistic quirks and deliberate minor errors (like the width of a specific road) that the AA had replicated.
3. Cartographic Vandalism
Sometimes, the traps are hidden in the topography itself. A mapmaker might draw the contour lines of a remote mountain range in a specific, stylized way. In one famous instance, a cartographer for the Swiss Federal Office of Topography drew a spider into the contours of the Eiger mountain simply because he felt the rock face resembled one. While this was more of an "Easter egg" than a trap, it served the same function of identifying the work's origin.
The Legal Basis: The "Sweat of the Brow" vs. Feist
The effectiveness of map traps relies on copyright laws, which vary by country.
- In the UK (Sweat of the Brow): Courts have historically protected the "sweat of the brow"—meaning the sheer effort and money put into compiling data is protected. If you steal that data (evidenced by the trap), you are liable.
- In the US (Feist v. Rural): The legal ground is shakier. In the 1991 Supreme Court case Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., the court ruled that copyright protects originality, not effort. Facts (like phone numbers or road locations) cannot be copyrighted. Therefore, copying a map's facts is technically legal. However, copying the creative expression (colors, fonts, selection of details) is not.
- Ironically, while map traps prove copying occurred, US courts have occasionally ruled that copying a fake fact isn't copyright infringement because a fake fact is still treated as a "fact" in the context of the compilation, or that the inclusion of false information invalidates the copyright claim on that specific element.
The Modern Era and Digital Data
In the age of Google Maps, OpenStreetMap, and GPS, map traps have evolved but persist.
- Digital Watermarking: Rather than fake streets, digital map data often contains minor alterations in the underlying code or coordinates (shifting a location by a few useless centimeters) to prove ownership.
- Open Source Vigilance: OpenStreetMap (the "Wikipedia of maps") explicitly forbids users from copying data from Google Maps or other copyrighted sources. The community actively hunts for map traps in their own data to ensure they haven't accidentally "polluted" their free map with copyrighted "poison" data.
Summary
Map traps and phantom settlements represent a fascinating intersection of law, art, and geography. They are the invisible signatures of cartographers, proving that a map is not just a reflection of the world, but a creative work owned by its maker. While modern technology has changed how these traps function, the core principle remains: to catch a thief, you must lie to them.