How Apple Maps became "life threatening"

Faulty maps potentially fatal.

The awfulness of Apple Maps (misplaced parks/flighty buildings/squelched bridges) just got worse, after it lead a number of Australian drivers to the middle of the desert, potentially putting their lives in danger. According to police, the drivers were stranded there for a day without food and water.

It turns out that the maps had been misdirecting people trying to get to the Victorian city of Mildura to somewhere in Murray Sunset National Park.

"Police are extremely concerned as there is no water supply within the Park and temperatures can reach as high as 46 degrees, making this a potentially life threatening issue," Victoria Police said in a press release. "Some of the motorists located by police have been stranded for up to 24 hours without food or water and have walked long distances through dangerous terrain to get phone reception."

Australian police have warned motorists to be extremely careful when using the maps. Here's the Guardian:

Getting lost in the park around Mildura is potentially deadly: "There's no water, and you can get bogged down in the sand," explained Toby Prime, a reporter on the local Sunraysia Daily. "Temperatures go up to 46 degrees and there's no water." People might also have to walk some distance in the heat to get phone reception. Summer is beginning in Australia, and temperatures are soaring.

One man following the map on his phone had driven into the park at 6pm, three hours before it got dark, and then realised that he was nowhere near Mildura – but that to continue driving could get him stuck because of the quantity of sand on and around the road. "The phone says Mildura is in the middle of the national park," Prime explained. The man was only rescued after he had been in the park for 24 hours.

Apple Maps send Australians into the desert. Photograph: Getty Images
GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.