Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The largest city in each 10x10 degree latitude/longitude box

blog.plover.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 164 posts

Re: The largest city in each 10x10 degree latitude/longitude box

#111

Post by thescriptkiddie »

vikramkr wrote: post #100

A lot of comments about metros areas and the like, such as how Jacksonville shows up because of city limits being larger than atlanta, but if you start getting I to trying to define what a city's metro area is, you run into a lot of issues with giant powerful cities like NY. Can you really count the population of Newark, New Jersey as part of NYC, NY? Even though newark is firmly within the NYC metro area, it's a sep…

One way to work around the arbitrariness of city limits would be to only count the population living within a fixed distance of the city center. I would suggest 5 or 6 km, which is approximately the distance that your can comfortably walk in 1 hour, and also (perhaps not coincidentally) the approximate radius of Paris. This would get you a list of dense cities, which is probably what people are imagining when they thing of "large" cities.

Another way would be to count everyone as part of the population of whatever city they are physically closest to, without regard to political boundaries. But this would probably just get you a list of sprawling metropolitan areas.

Re: The largest city in each 10x10 degree latitude/longitude box

#112

Post by tantalor »

caf wrote: post #25

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.

> their adjacent sides certainly aren't at right angles

They certainly are. Parallels and meridians always meet at 90 degrees.

https://www.geogebra.org/m/kNtNZzsS

Re: The largest city in each 10x10 degree latitude/longitude box

#113

Post by lotsofpulp »

tristor wrote: post #58
hellofunk wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Chicago losing people?

Many reasons, but probably the biggest one is social shifts causing an overall degradation of city life resulting in people leaving. When the Chicago Board of Trade ended floor trading a significant amount of large finance companies moved elsewhere, some relocated to Dallas, some reduced staffing/office space and had principle officers in NYC already. There's a lot of conversations about cities in the Midwest simply…

If you’re looking for somewhere to invest, anywhere in the bottom of these lists will make it much harder to earn a decent ROI due to a higher taxes to government services ratio compared to places higher on the lists. Chicago unfortunately is at the bottom of both lists.

https://www.truthinaccounting.org/news/detail/financial-stat... https://www.truthinaccounting.org/news/detail/2020-financial...

Re: The largest city in each 10x10 degree latitude/longitude box

#114

Post by greggyb »

wcarey wrote: post #75
caf wrote: post #25

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.

A fun thought experiment is to noodle through whether, given the method of choosing cities described, the choice of map projection would influence the resulting list of cities.

Latitude and longitude exist as boundaries outside the domain of map projections. A different projection may draw these lines or curves differently, but they still delineate the same geographic boundaries. E.g. a different projection may not show rectangles, but instead curved regions, but the cities existing in those regions would be the same.

If you are thinking of drawing arbitrary rectangles on arbitrary projections, then you'd have to come up with a rigorous way to define your rectangles. If you don't, then you're just drawing random shapes on other random shapes. Either way, yes, a different projection with the same rectangles drawn over it would yield different answers, and this should be immediately obvious.

Re: The largest city in each 10x10 degree latitude/longitude box

#115

Post by doersino »

tantalor wrote: post #112
caf wrote: post #25

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.

> their adjacent sides certainly aren't at right angles They certainly are. Parallels and meridians always meet at 90 degrees. https://www.geogebra.org/m/kNtNZzsS

Right angles with regard to the latitude-longitude coordinate system, but not with regard to the surface of the earth. Recall that all meridians intersect at the poles.

Re: The largest city in each 10x10 degree latitude/longitude box

#116

Post by qw »

lambdasquirrel wrote: post #109
caf wrote: post #25

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.

Well it lends to an aliasing effect, that in Europe is even more comical. You completely lose the major cities of most countries like Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, and Poland. Central Europe is blotted out by Rome. The Romans finally conquer (most of) Germany. ;)

It also managed to include 5 Norwegian cities, but missed the largest city because it was in the same square as Berlin.

Re: The largest city in each 10x10 degree latitude/longitude box

#117

Post by bitslayer »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #111
vikramkr wrote: post #100

A lot of comments about metros areas and the like, such as how Jacksonville shows up because of city limits being larger than atlanta, but if you start getting I to trying to define what a city's metro area is, you run into a lot of issues with giant powerful cities like NY. Can you really count the population of Newark, New Jersey as part of NYC, NY? Even though newark is firmly within the NYC metro area, it's a sep…

One way to work around the arbitrariness of city limits would be to only count the population living within a fixed distance of the city center. I would suggest 5 or 6 km, which is approximately the distance that your can comfortably walk in 1 hour, and also (perhaps not coincidentally) the approximate radius of Paris. This would get you a list of dense cities, which is probably what people are imagining when they th…

A good way to define metropolitan areas is by commuter patterns. If a certain percentage of residents of a county or town all commute to the same adjoining larger town, then that gets counted.

Re: The largest city in each 10x10 degree latitude/longitude box

#118

Post by WillPostForFood »

blueblisters wrote: post #30

TIL Atlanta, GA has fewer people than Jacksonville, FL. The Atlanta metropolitan area has a lot more people.

Similar observation with Denver, which is in the same quad as Juarez. City of Denver population is ~620k, but the metro area is ~3 million.

Re: The largest city in each 10x10 degree latitude/longitude box

#119

Post by runarberg »

qw wrote: post #116
lambdasquirrel wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it lends to an aliasing effect, that in Europe is even more comical. You completely lose the major cities of most countries like Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, and Poland. Central Europe is blotted out by Rome. The Romans finally conquer (most of) Germany. ;)

It also managed to include 5 Norwegian cities, but missed the largest city because it was in the same square as Berlin.

It’s fun to see that out of the Nordic capitals: Nuuk, Reykjavík, Tórhavn, and Helsinki made it; while Copenhagen, Oslo, and Stockholm didn’t.

Re: The largest city in each 10x10 degree latitude/longitude box

#120

Post by qw »

runarberg wrote: post #119
qw wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also managed to include 5 Norwegian cities, but missed the largest city because it was in the same square as Berlin.

It’s fun to see that out of the Nordic capitals: Nuuk, Reykjavík, Tórhavn, and Helsinki made it; while Copenhagen, Oslo, and Stockholm didn’t.

Yes, they are all in the same quadrant as Berlin :-)
Post reply on HN