3 ms·
For a truly sparsely populated landscape, you could do worse than getting a copy of the Michelin 741 (Sahara) or (a personal favourite) the Norwegian Polar Inst
by lb1lf 8y ago
For a truly sparsely populated landscape, you could do worse than getting a copy of the Michelin 741 (Sahara) or (a personal favourite) the Norwegian Polar Institute 1:250k maps of Dronning Maud Land in Antarctica.
- Cyph0n 8y agoI thought that 741 would just be a map of Sahara, but it actually includes most of North (where I'm from) and West Africa. Wouldn't a Canadian or Russian map have more sparsely populated land, or am I underestimating the size of the Sahara?
- lb1lf 8y ago-That is quite probable, I just looked up a couple of the maps I had on the shelves. Incidentally, if we make the leap from 'sparsely populated' to 'sparsely detailed', the winner on my map shelves probably is a map issued by the GDR authorities showing Berlin. The western sectors are blank, the only legend being 'Berlin (West)'.
- lliamander 8y agoI believe the Sahara is larger than the contiguous United States (i.e. excluding Alaska, Hawaii, etc.)
- ac29 8y agoDue to the way most common map projections work, places in northern/southern latitudes look larger than they actually are. The Sahara (9.2M km^2) is about the same size as Canada (9.1M km^2).