Google map debunk: You must draw an "S" if you want to go to Taiwan from Shangai

İntikam · « **on:** April 28, 2016, 01:37:56 PM »

As we see that the distances on the Europe are completely true. The distances on the Europe is correct so if you want to go From Istanbul to Madrid, you can make a mistake on calculating the distance maximum 2 kms. But in the Asia the situations are different.

if you want to go to Taiwan from Shangai, You must draw an "S" and must go about 200 kms more.

Look at to pictures under links.

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CAL503/history/20160428/0850Z/RCTP/ZSPD
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CES5008/history/20160428/0700Z/RCTP/ZSPD
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CCA196/history/20160428/0640Z/RCTP/ZSPD
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/EVA722/history/20160428/0830Z/RCTP/ZSPD

4 different flying company and completely same route drawing "S". Is this be a chance?

Are the pilots playing game or is there anything dangerous?

Oh cmon google. Accept that you drawed a nonsence instead of map.

Rounder · « **Reply #1 on:** April 28, 2016, 04:06:24 PM »

What exactly do you think you have demonstrated here? An error with Google Maps? An error with FlightAware? A mistake by the airlines?

There are any number of reasons for an airplane to be routed in something other than the most perfect straight line, even over the open water where "there is nothing dangerous". (And.....How do YOU know that, by the way? It's not we mark ocean maps "here be dragons" anymore, LOL!) For example, there may be well established air-traffic control corridors, where they have good radar monitoring and search/rescue capability staged, and poor conditions along the straight-line route. Or maybe they want to spend as little of their flight time crossing above the heavy ocean shipping lanes as possible, making it worth a 200km detour to cut sharply across the East China Sea a little further north. Or maybe the Chinese government has their own reasons to route and civilian air traffic away from the coast until they reach a certain distance north.

İntikam · « **Reply #2 on:** April 28, 2016, 06:30:36 PM »

Quote from: Rounder on April 28, 2016, 04:06:24 PM

What exactly do you think you have demonstrated here? An error with Google Maps? An error with FlightAware? A mistake by the airlines?

There are any number of reasons for an airplane to be routed in something other than the most perfect straight line, even over the open water where "there is nothing dangerous". (And.....How do YOU know that, by the way? It's not we mark ocean maps "here be dragons" anymore, LOL!) For example, there may be well established air-traffic control corridors, where they have good radar monitoring and search/rescue capability staged, and poor conditions along the straight-line route. Or maybe they want to spend as little of their flight time crossing above the heavy ocean shipping lanes as possible, making it worth a 200km detour to cut sharply across the East China Sea a little further north. Or maybe the Chinese government has their own reasons to route and civilian air traffic away from the coast until they reach a certain distance north.

map does not match the reality .

Europe map match but Asia map not. Because the globe earth is a nonsence. I can draw the map better than it. Sure i do.

TotesNotReptilian · « **Reply #3 on:** April 28, 2016, 07:53:14 PM »

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on April 28, 2016, 07:50:05 PM

All these threads about indirect flight paths are completely irrelevant. There are many reasons not to take a direct flight path. Some reasons include:

1. Available emergency landing sites
2. Weather, turbulence, jet streams
3. Military no-fly zones
4. Airspace agreements between countries
5. Air traffic routing
6. Radar coverage

İntikam · « **Reply #4 on:** April 28, 2016, 08:42:15 PM »

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on April 28, 2016, 07:53:14 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on April 28, 2016, 07:50:05 PM
All these threads about indirect flight paths are completely irrelevant. There are many reasons not to take a direct flight path. Some reasons include:

1. Available emergency landing sites
2. Weather, turbulence, jet streams
3. Military no-fly zones
4. Airspace agreements between countries
5. Air traffic routing
6. Radar coverage

TotesNotReptilian · « **Reply #5 on:** April 28, 2016, 09:18:02 PM »

Quote from: İntikam on April 28, 2016, 08:42:15 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on April 28, 2016, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on April 28, 2016, 07:50:05 PM
All these threads about indirect flight paths are completely irrelevant. There are many reasons not to take a direct flight path. Some reasons include:

1. Available emergency landing sites
2. Weather, turbulence, jet streams
3. Military no-fly zones
4. Airspace agreements between countries
5. Air traffic routing
6. Radar coverage

You are writing a fable. No one of these reason available on this issue.

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CAL503/history/20160417/0850Z/RCTP/ZSPD
...

There is no direct route. All routes are perfect "S".

All flyings between these two city Taipei and Shangai are following this route without exception. So you can't explain this issue except this route is the shortest route.

A simple google search would have given you your answer. From the article, it's a combination of reasons 4 and 5 from my above post. Taiwan and China are constantly involved in petty disputes.

Edit: Related article that isn't behind a paywall.

Rounder · « **Reply #6 on:** April 28, 2016, 10:17:25 PM »

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on April 28, 2016, 09:18:02 PM

A simple google search would have given you your answer. From the article, it's a combination of reasons 4 and 5 from my above post. Taiwan and China are constantly involved in petty disputes.

Nicely done! I love it when a reasonable explanation can be easily found.

rabinoz · « **Reply #7 on:** April 29, 2016, 02:38:53 AM »

Quote from: İntikam on April 28, 2016, 01:37:56 PM

As we see that the distances on the Europe are completely true. The distances on the Europe is correct so if you want to go From Istanbul to Madrid, you can make a mistake on calculating the distance maximum 2 kms. But in the Asia the situations are different.

if you want to go to Taiwan from Shangai, You must draw an "S" and must go about 200 kms more.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 different flying company and completely same route drawing "S". Is this be a chance?

Are the pilots playing game or is there anything dangerous?

Oh cmon google. Accept that you drawed a nonsence instead of map.

Look İntikam, I am very sorry to have to write like this, but I honestly believe someone has to say it.

Just get the message! The maps match reality. All the problem with you posts is simply your own misunderstanding on all these matters!

AND Just what has Google got to do with the FlightAware maps! As far as I can find out FlightAware uses "OpenStreetMaps". Not very hard to check!
Just look on the maps itself:

© 2016 FlightAware
© OpenStreetMap contributors
Weather: 28/04/2016 10:25

Look on your own maps. The same annotation is there!

If the airlines are required to fly that route, it has nothing to do with Google, OpenStreetMap, NASA or the Tooth Fairy!

It has everything to do with the delicate politics between the "Republic of China on Taiwan (ROC)" and the "People's Republic of China (PRC)".

YOU claim there is "NOTHING DANGEROUS".

That is rubbish. With the tension between the ROC and the PRC, any aircraft that deviate fro the prescribed course are at grave risk.

And that has nothing at all to do with any of the entities you are accusing!

In other post you have claimed that "Google Maps" and the Globe are wrong because you simply cannot understand the difference between "great circle route" and "distance actually flown". It has been explained carefully to you, but you take no notice of anybody else! But, on all these matters you are simply WRONG!

You take any little thing that YOU cannot understand and blame NASA, Google, the Globe and anything or anyone else you don't like, when the entire problem is you own ignorance.

Frankly you are nothing more that a hypocritical TROLL.

You claim that ISIS has a map of the globe on its money and NASA supports the globe, therefore NASA supports ISIS. THAT is a stupid defamatory lie.
I might as well claim that YOU have "We wrote on it that an eye for an eye" in you signature, ISIS has a motto "an eye for an eye - ", E4E, therefore YOU support ISIS.

Can't you see how silly and hypocritical you claims are!

Then you plead "English is not my main language, so don't ask complex questions". That is fair enough, we would be glad to give you leeway for that but not when you make so many outlandish, untrue and outright derogatory statements.

If YOU want some consideration, just give us some consideration instead of being such an ignorant bigot.

Please understand this one thing if nothing else:

We DO NOT SUPPORT ISIS, NASA DOES NOT SUPPORT ISIS and you are a blatant liar if you claim otherwise!

You can argue and debate all you like on you ideas of Flat Earth or the Globe, but please stop accusing everyone you don't agree with being evil.
If you can't make you case without these accusations, the YOU do not have a case.

TotesNotReptilian · « **Reply #8 on:** April 29, 2016, 03:45:06 AM »

Quote from: Rounder on April 28, 2016, 10:17:25 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on April 28, 2016, 09:18:02 PM
A simple google search would have given you your answer. From the article, it's a combination of reasons 4 and 5 from my above post. Taiwan and China are constantly involved in petty disputes.

Nicely done! I love it when a reasonable explanation can be easily found.

Thanks! Very satisfying indeed.

Also, sorry about the paywall site. If you google "taiwan china flight path dispute" you can see the entire article behind the paywall. I'll add this related article that isn't behind a paywall to the original post. (Not that anybody actually wants to read the entire article... it's super boring)

Rounder · « **Reply #9 on:** April 29, 2016, 05:42:05 AM »

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on April 29, 2016, 03:45:06 AM

(Not that anybody actually wants to read the entire article... it's super boring)

Well, count me as a super boring person then, because I read the whole thing!

İntikam · « **Reply #10 on:** April 29, 2016, 05:56:52 AM »

Quote from: rabinoz on April 29, 2016, 02:38:53 AM

Quote from: İntikam on April 28, 2016, 01:37:56 PM
As we see that the distances on the Europe are completely true. The distances on the Europe is correct so if you want to go From Istanbul to Madrid, you can make a mistake on calculating the distance maximum 2 kms. But in the Asia the situations are different.

if you want to go to Taiwan from Shangai, You must draw an "S" and must go about 200 kms more.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 different flying company and completely same route drawing "S". Is this be a chance?

Are the pilots playing game or is there anything dangerous?

Oh cmon google. Accept that you drawed a nonsence instead of map.

Look İntikam, I am very sorry to have to write like this, but I honestly believe someone has to say it.

Just get the message! The maps match reality. All the problem with you posts is simply your own misunderstanding on all these matters!

AND Just what has Google got to do with the FlightAware maps! As far as I can find out FlightAware uses "OpenStreetMaps". Not very hard to check!
Just look on the maps itself:
© 2016 FlightAware
© OpenStreetMap contributors
Weather: 28/04/2016 10:25
Look on your own maps. The same annotation is there!

If the airlines are required to fly that route, it has nothing to do with Google, OpenStreetMap, NASA or the Tooth Fairy!

It has everything to do with the delicate politics between the "Republic of China on Taiwan (ROC)" and the "People's Republic of China (PRC)".
YOU claim there is "NOTHING DANGEROUS".
That is rubbish. With the tension between the ROC and the PRC, any aircraft that deviate fro the prescribed course are at grave risk.

And that has nothing at all to do with any of the entities you are accusing!

In other post you have claimed that "Google Maps" and the Globe are wrong because you simply cannot understand the difference between "great circle route" and "distance actually flown". It has been explained carefully to you, but you take no notice of anybody else! But, on all these matters you are simply WRONG!

You take any little thing that YOU cannot understand and blame NASA, Google, the Globe and anything or anyone else you don't like, when the entire problem is you own ignorance.

Frankly you are nothing more that a hypocritical TROLL.

You claim that ISIS has a map of the globe on its money and NASA supports the globe, therefore NASA supports ISIS. THAT is a stupid defamatory lie.
I might as well claim that YOU have "We wrote on it that an eye for an eye" in you signature, ISIS has a motto "an eye for an eye - ", E4E, therefore YOU support ISIS.

Can't you see how silly and hypocritical you claims are!

Then you plead "English is not my main language, so don't ask complex questions". That is fair enough, we would be glad to give you leeway for that but not when you make so many outlandish, untrue and outright derogatory statements.

If YOU want some consideration, just give us some consideration instead of being such an ignorant bigot.

Please understand this one thing if nothing else:
We DO NOT SUPPORT ISIS, NASA DOES NOT SUPPORT ISIS and you are a blatant liar if you claim otherwise!

You can argue and debate all you like on you ideas of Flat Earth or the Globe, but please stop accusing everyone you don't agree with being evil.
If you can't make you case without these accusations, the YOU do not have a case.

Sorry.

As you know well that i'm not reply the posts which posted by light trolls.

İntikam · « **Reply #11 on:** April 29, 2016, 06:07:46 AM »

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on April 28, 2016, 09:18:02 PM

Quote from: İntikam on April 28, 2016, 08:42:15 PM
Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on April 28, 2016, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on April 28, 2016, 07:50:05 PM
All these threads about indirect flight paths are completely irrelevant. There are many reasons not to take a direct flight path. Some reasons include:

1. Available emergency landing sites
2. Weather, turbulence, jet streams
3. Military no-fly zones
4. Airspace agreements between countries
5. Air traffic routing
6. Radar coverage

You are writing a fable. No one of these reason available on this issue.

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CAL503/history/20160417/0850Z/RCTP/ZSPD
...

There is no direct route. All routes are perfect "S".

All flyings between these two city Taipei and Shangai are following this route without exception. So you can't explain this issue except this route is the shortest route.

A simple google search would have given you your answer. From the article, it's a combination of reasons 4 and 5 from my above post. Taiwan and China are constantly involved in petty disputes.

Edit: Related article that isn't behind a paywall.

You this explain is wrong too.

Surely Taiwan and China has some problems but the route already going from China to Taiwan. Is there any problem between these countries, it causes to cancelling the fliying, don't changes the routes.

İntikam · « **Reply #12 on:** April 29, 2016, 06:15:30 AM »

Google map is a great nonsence!

Would you look at the picture please.

İntikam · « **Reply #13 on:** April 29, 2016, 07:30:30 AM »

We see that Taiwan is incorrect placed. So we can find out where is it?

Just we needed correct the lines before they broken.

This is China To Taiwan corrected route:

This is from Vietnam to Taiwan route:

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CAL782/history/20160418/0350Z/VVTS/RCTP

It's matched with the place that we found from route of China-Taiwan . How interesting.

This is our 3rd trying another route to Taiwan. Istanbul to Taiwan. Go Turkish Airlines.

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/THY24/history/20160416/2320Z/LTBA/RCTP

Bingo. It's matched with others.

Try another one, Emirates from Dubai.

It's matched too. Thanks Arab brothers.

This route from Hong Kong to Taiwan. This is one of the shortest airport to Taipei.

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/EVA802/history/20160417/0520Z/VMMC/RCTP

Again it's matches with our result. Taiwan is in the same place!

Yes we got it!

As we see that Taiwan is actually on the place about 100-200 kms or above on the East and a few turned. This is the true life. Accept or not. The map is wrong. But planes flying true.

TotesNotReptilian · « **Reply #14 on:** April 29, 2016, 08:04:12 AM »

Wow, you've convinced me. Surely you will revolutionize the world of cartography. I normally save this video for special occasions, but you have earned it. Impressive.

İntikam · « **Reply #15 on:** April 29, 2016, 01:43:47 PM »

I think the pilots do follow this site because today a lot of pilot changed their route.

The distance on the map of "Taipei to Shangai" about 677 kms.

Yesterday they were usually using that route and flow about 900-1000 kms. so about 250 kms above.

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/EVA712/history/20160429/0210Z/RCTP/ZSPD
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CAL501/history/20160429/0105Z/RCTP/ZSPD

Today i saw that all of the pilots changed their route to the other side.

https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CES5005/history/20160429/0750Z/ZSPD/RCTP China east airlines
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CSN3095/history/20160429/0610Z/ZSPD/RCTP China south airlines
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/EVA711/history/20160429/0510Z/ZSPD/RCTP Eva airlines
All of the airlines changed the route to conjectural route. But nothing were changed.

The new distances are abot 900-1000 kms too.

As you see that the distance didn't changed so much despite the route changed. It is still different about 200 kms from direct route.

Because the land is actually about 900 kms far away! Not 677 !

İntikam · « **Reply #16 on:** April 29, 2016, 01:47:21 PM »

So why pilots lost their route and the distance didn't shorted?

Because the globe earth map is completely wrong.

Unsure101 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 30, 2016, 12:07:41 AM »

Intimal, what on earth are you dribbling about? So a couple of short flight paths are not straight lines. How does this possibly translate to the earth bring flat and everyone bring in on a conspiracy to keep it that way?

If you really think that the flight paths prove the shape of the earth, I suggest you look into those between Sydney and south America.

rabinoz · « **Reply #18 on:** April 30, 2016, 03:51:39 AM »

Quote from: İntikam on April 29, 2016, 01:47:21 PM

So why pilots lost their route and the distance didn't shorted?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Because the globe earth map is completely wrong.

THE PILOTS are NOT LOST, and YOU KNOW WHY they do NOT take the SHORTEST ROUTE>

Yes, I am shouting (a little), because you will not listen to the correct and true explanations.

We have said numerous times aircraft rarely are able to take the shortest route. The reasons have been carefully explained and it has absolutely nothing to with the maps or the shape of the earth! You do not take any notice of anything we say to you.
Look at these maps:

Map 1885 Formosa and Adjoining Coast

Spc

Times Atlas - Macau to Taiwan

Spc

You might note that neither are "Google Maps"! The left is dated 1855 and the right one is from a "Times Atlas", this one printed in 1990, but the first edition was published in 1972. These maps bear no relation to Google whatsoever, but Taiwan (Formosa on the old one) is in exactly the same place as on the current maps.

Also the shortest distance from Macau International Airport to Taipei International Airport measures:
841 km on the "paper" Times atlas,
846 km on "Google Earth",
845 km on your FlightAware map - using OpenStreetMap and
845 km on the FlightRadar24 map - which does use Google Maps.

Also as I have stated numerous time you are not using "Google Maps", so how you be doing a "Google map debunk"? The maps FlightAware use are by "OpenStreetMap" and is is on the bottom of you own maps, so stop being so utterly biased.
Look at these plots fro FlightAware on the left and FlightRadar24 on the right:

Macau to Taipeh - FlightAware - Track of EVA Air 802

Spc

Macau to Taipeh - FlightRadar24 - Playback of EVA Air flight BR802-EVA802

Spc

The maps all agree (quite closely anyway) and they are correct, to withing reading accuracy from paper maps.

Trying to prove that maps are wrong by looking at the distance aircraft claim to have flown is quite ridiculous.

Surely if these maps were wrong sailors would have been getting lost for centuries!

Have YOU been to these places and found that Taiwan is in the wrong place.
Do YOU KNOW how to find a location without using GPS? If not just stop these silly postings, which simply show that you do not know what you are talking about!

İntikam · « **Reply #19 on:** May 02, 2016, 07:10:04 AM »

Quote from: rabinoz on April 30, 2016, 03:51:39 AM

Quote from: İntikam on April 29, 2016, 01:47:21 PM
So why pilots lost their route and the distance didn't shorted?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Because the globe earth map is completely wrong.
THE PILOTS are NOT LOST, and YOU KNOW WHY they do NOT take the SHORTEST ROUTE>

Yes, I am shouting (a little), because you will not listen to the correct and true explanations.

We have said numerous times aircraft rarely are able to take the shortest route. The reasons have been carefully explained and it has absolutely nothing to with the maps or the shape of the earth! You do not take any notice of anything we say to you.
Look at these maps:

Map 1885 Formosa and Adjoining Coast
Spc

Times Atlas - Macau to Taiwan
Spc
You might note that neither are "Google Maps"! The left is dated 1855 and the right one is from a "Times Atlas", this one printed in 1990, but the first edition was published in 1972. These maps bear no relation to Google whatsoever, but Taiwan (Formosa on the old one) is in exactly the same place as on the current maps.

Also the shortest distance from Macau International Airport to Taipei International Airport measures:
841 km on the "paper" Times atlas,
846 km on "Google Earth",
845 km on your FlightAware map - using OpenStreetMap and
845 km on the FlightRadar24 map - which does use Google Maps.

Also as I have stated numerous time you are not using "Google Maps", so how you be doing a "Google map debunk"? The maps FlightAware use are by "OpenStreetMap" and is is on the bottom of you own maps, so stop being so utterly biased.
Look at these plots fro FlightAware on the left and FlightRadar24 on the right:

Macau to Taipeh - FlightAware - Track of EVA Air 802
Spc

Macau to Taipeh - FlightRadar24 - Playback of EVA Air flight BR802-EVA802
Spc
The maps all agree (quite closely anyway) and they are correct, to withing reading accuracy from paper maps.

Trying to prove that maps are wrong by looking at the distance aircraft claim to have flown is quite ridiculous.

Surely if these maps were wrong sailors would have been getting lost for centuries!

Have YOU been to these places and found that Taiwan is in the wrong place.
Do YOU KNOW how to find a location without using GPS? If not just stop these silly postings, which simply show that you do not know what you are talking about!

((as in the last paragraph you wrote it's normal, but for some reason you started a game of perception at last paragraph. I see this as a disease.

I think you mean if i don't talk, this shows I am a knowledgeable person but if i talk, this shows i'm an ignorant. this is simple logic game aims to stop me with a very basic way. Then when i saying about you trolls then whay do you be angry? ))

The map have still about 150 kms wrong seems by different between flown and planned distances. And the route is not properly. Remember the pilots want to fly on a properly route. Nobody likes turn left right constantly. But when pilots want to go Taiwan, the way is usually zigzag.