31–40 of 164 posts
I quibble with the description of the shapes bounded by 10 degrees of longitude and latitude as "rectangles" - they're not even planar shapes, and their adjacent sides certainly aren't at right angles. Some of them don't even have four sides. This bears considering when looking at the map, because some of those regions are much, much smaller than others.
I quibble with the description of the shapes bounded by 10 degrees of longitude and latitude as "rectangles" - they're not even planar shapes, and their adjacent sides certainly aren't at right angles. Some of them don't even have four sides. This bears considering when looking at the map, because some of those regions are much, much smaller than others.
TIL Atlanta, GA has fewer people than Jacksonville, FL. The Atlanta metropolitan area has a lot more people.
I love how this says something about the biases that exist in making legible maps. Toronto isn’t even shown. Any time to read a map, remember that at different scales, there’s an editorial opinion, whether direct or algorithmic, on what you see.
I love how this says something about the biases that exist in making legible maps. Toronto isn’t even shown. Any time to read a map, remember that at different scales, there’s an editorial opinion, whether direct or algorithmic, on what you see.
Why are some empty ocean squares colored dark blue and some light blue? Does light blue mean there is some land mass there but it's uninhabited?
Yes. That’s the concept I believe. I’m not sure how big a landmass had to be to make the map though.
I quibble with the description of the shapes bounded by 10 degrees of longitude and latitude as "rectangles" - they're not even planar shapes, and their adjacent sides certainly aren't at right angles. Some of them don't even have four sides. This bears considering when looking at the map, because some of those regions are much, much smaller than others.
I think something more interesting might be like a voronoi diagram of all cities such that the city is in like the top 5 within a 1000 miles radius or something (or just that but without the voronoi part). This should preserve the fact that only the largest cities in some area are present, but eliminate the arbitrariness of the boundaries. I think you would want to compute this with a sweep line algorithm.
A map projection that preserves area would be better, otherwise there's an excessive number of cities in the far northern hemisphere, and a lack of detail in the tropics.
I think this just teaches you the issue with discretization.
I’m fairly sure Toronto is larger than Chicago... EDIT: Yeah, back in 2013: https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/03/05/torontos_p... - and I’m pretty sure it’s almost at or crossed the 3M mark (COVID may have tossed a wrench in the latter). Ah. It’s because Toronto is in the same box as _New York_ - my bad!