tiny lemmy 

Lake depths and heights

c/map_enthusiasts · u/Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 334 points

Open external link


Comments

u/beastlykings@sh.itjust.works · 2 points

Right!? I've lived here my whole life, so it's normal for me. But when we had friends in to visit from a coastal state, the waves were big, and they were amazed. They kept forgetting it wasn't the ocean, and they loved that they didn't have to rinse off the salt afterwards 😁

u/beastlykings@sh.itjust.works · 2 points

Yeah it's crazy, the Mackinac bridge is like 5 miles long, no foot traffic allowed except for one day of the year when thousands of people get together and walk across it.

u/sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 points

Wow, no way! I thought the part between the UP and LP was a lot narrower than it is! Never realized that it was just one big lake with a narrow part

u/FlyingSquid@lemmy.world · 2 points

The waves on Lake Michigan were far larger than I expected when I visited. Not as high as the Atlantic or Pacific, but pretty big.

u/beastlykings@sh.itjust.works · 13 points

It's the same body of water, one lake. It's just massive, and surrounds the lower peninsula of Michigan, so they gave each side of the lake a different name.

Truly it's massive, it behaves almost like the ocean in a lot of ways. A lot of water.

u/Bldck@beehaw.org · 1 points

Huron and Michigan are hydrologically a single lake because the flow of water through the straits keeps their water levels in overall equilibrium.

u/Mr_Blott@feddit.uk · 15 points

The map makes absolutely no sense to 97% of the planet *and that's what bothers you?* 😂

u/deus@lemmy.world · 14 points

This was originally just a map of the Great Lakes system. Someone added Baikal and Titicaca to it later for comparison.

u/credo@lemmy.world · 7 points

So you’re saying it’s not really special. Not the highest, not the deepest?

Sure. Throw it in!

u/tibi@lemmy.world · 4 points

If the map was titled properly like "Great lakes vs deepest and highest elevation lakes", I wouldn't mind.

u/CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 points

Then go yell at OP about posting a non-map.

There's no lie here, nobody thought lakes are actually finger-shaped in cross-section.

u/CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 0 points

I think we actually have to get out a ruler here. In the world of *infographics*, "not to scale" usually just means one dimension is at a different ratio from the other(s).

u/Wolf314159@startrek.website · 1 points

It says "not to scale", which in the world of mapping means very specifically that the scale is inconsistent. An exaggerated vertical scale would not include the disclaimer for "not to scale" and is very common, as I already said. It's common for maps showing vertical reliefs like profiles or cross sections to have a horizontal scale of something like 1:20 while the vertical dimension has a scale of 1:5 or 1:10, which would still be considered "to scale". If you still can't fit everything on a single sheet, you can add a break line or a jog to indicate a discontinuity, but the map would still be "to scale". This map is "not to scale" because it says so, so the only real information we should be able to glean from it are the connections between things; size, angles, and lengths as are meaningless because that's what "not to scale" is specifically warning us about.

u/CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 points

The disclaimer doesn't say it's inconsistent, though. Just exaggerated, which is good because otherwise everything except maybe Baikal would be a horizontal line.

u/Chronographs@lemmy.zip · 7 points

It looks like these are two separate graphics spliced together, everything on the right seems to be to scale (or reasonably close to it)

u/aihorde@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 points

u/NielsBohron@lemmy.world · 49 points

This map bothers me as they omit Lake Tahoe, which is higher than Baikal (~6,200 ft) and deeper than everything except Baikal (~1,600 ft deep)

What's the point of including all that empty space between Baikal and Titicaca when there's a world renowned lake that would be great to include

u/thelsim@sh.itjust.works · 45 points

Why is lake Baikal the only one with measurements in meters?

Feels like the map maker made a half-hearted attempt and just gave up after the first one.

u/Wolf314159@startrek.website · 31 points

Why bother making this at all if it's not to scale? Sure, nobody expects the horizontal scale to be the same as the vertical scale. Vertical exaggeration is common when displaying profiles or cross sections, but those are generally still considered to be at a particular scale. But, if the vertical scale isn't consistent, then what even is the point of the graphic? Just list some numbers in a table. Putting this in graphical form without a consistent scale is just lying and lazy.

u/huquad@lemmy.ml · 6 points

My favorite lake is the Pacific. Its like the king of the lakes.

u/sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 points

Why is Lake Michigan combined with Lake Huron when all the other lakes are individual?

u/OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml · 3 points

Lots of criticisms but still really cool. I'd love to see one to scale as well (for width and depth)