Worth noting for #GoogleMaps users... It has been clear to me for some time that #Google is using machine learning algorithms (sometimes called "AI") to adjust boundaries of geographic features. I assume they run an #ML model over satellite photos to do this. Here's a example of it failing, badly. The first picture attached is a Google Map of an urban creek in my town, with a street just north of it. Note how Google shows the creek not going anywhere near the street. The second picture is a topographic map of the same area. Notice how the creek ACTUALLY goes much farther north than Google depicts. For creeks and bodies of water I've noticed this most often happens where there is an adjacent #FloodPlain that the creek spills into on occasion. Clearly Google's algorithm is noticing water during flood conditions, or breaks in the tree line, and "learning" that the creek has moved. (In their defense, it is quite unusual that this urban creek passes directly under an office building parking deck, which probably also played a part. But why use ML to do this stuff when #topographic data exists?) #AIFails #AIFailures



![[map portion] showing sheet : MYGGENÆS (M 23) 1974. From the Danmark, Faeröerne 1:20,000 scale series. Publisher: Geodaetisk Institut](https://files.mastodon.social/cache/media_attachments/files/116/030/915/775/875/954/small/5205c90accc7c156.jpeg)
![[map portion] showing sheet : MYGGENÆS (M 23) 1974. From the Danmark, Faeröerne 1:20,000 scale series. Publisher: Geodaetisk Institut](https://files.mastodon.social/cache/media_attachments/files/116/030/915/917/046/472/small/5565b7801c96252a.jpeg)
![[map portion] showing sheet : MYGGENÆS (M 23) 1974. From the Danmark, Faeröerne 1:20,000 scale series. Publisher: Geodaetisk Institut](https://files.mastodon.social/cache/media_attachments/files/116/030/916/028/074/410/small/2c3e87f5780db834.jpeg)
![[map portion] showing sheet : MYGGENÆS (M 23) 1974. From the Danmark, Faeröerne 1:20,000 scale series. Publisher: Geodaetisk Institut showing Slumbufles Island.](https://files.mastodon.social/cache/media_attachments/files/116/030/916/142/639/951/small/8535ab9e91e15e90.jpeg)













![map - Forest cover classification agreement among the 18 sets of input variables. Pixels in red color were classified by all sets of input variables as coniferous, in green color as broadleaf forest, and in blue color as mixed forest. Black color indicates that no forest was predicted by any set of input variables. Two subsets A and B which are marked in white frames were zoomed in for a detailed map comparison in [another figure]](https://files.mastodon.social/cache/media_attachments/files/113/587/533/215/723/867/small/3d9c91a8d441df54.jpg)


















