That is super hard to understand. I think that maybe the author is saying the artificially created island is devoid of the type of meanings a true place has, so that a map is not really needed. Everything on the island, everything is listed on the map, with no single point going unexplained, no mysteries to explore, and nothing existing in-between places that you are going.
A real map helps you explore places, both get lost and find where you are going, but a map to an artificial place likes a world's fair expo on a man made island, is useless, because you can't help but be found at all times. Descriptions of places that are well known and famous (e.g. Yosemite Falls) are redundant, everyone knows what the place is. A description of "Museum of Science" does no more good than the name itself does.
But that is just a guess, the author uses a lot of phrases and never explains the meaning behind them. Which I guess is the exact opposite of the Treasure Island map. :)
This is an oddly incoherent article. It fails to mention Borges' "On Exactitude in Science" or Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation" despite re-hashing their ideas.
