5 ms·
Another point that is often overlooked is that geographical _flat_ size is misleading and often irrelevant. The distance/area of 1000 kilometers gives you very
by wraptile 6y ago
Another point that is often overlooked is that geographical _flat_ size is misleading and often irrelevant.
The distance/area of 1000 kilometers gives you very little information without topographical/logistical context.
i.e. knowing that it takes a 5 hour long drive between point A and point B or that area C has 2 million people living in it and has big undeveloped forest density is much more relevant than saying it's 200 kilometers apart or it's 100 kilometers m2 big.
TL;DR: landmass alone is very uninteresting and misleading.
- galaxyLogic 6y agoI was thinking about the coast-line. Somehow more coast-line seems like more better places to live. And mountains? They increase the surface area but would seem to make living and travel more difficult.
- jaclaz 6y agoThere are anamorphic maps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartogram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartogram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartogram#Shape-warping_contiguous_cartograms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartogram#Shape-warping_contig... but for whatever reason they are not common. I remember (but cannot find it right now) one of these maps of Europe that was based on the railway travel time between main cities that made it evident how time and distance are very different.