Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is Texas flatter than Indiana? It actually has mountains, unlike Indiana.
The algorithm is deeply flawed. If a state with large mountains has a huge totally flat coastal plain area it will still count as more flat than a state that has small hills throughout, but no mountains.
The algorithm is deeply flawed. If a state with large mountains has a huge totally flat coastal plain area it will still count as more flat than a state that has small hills throughout, but no mountains.
Not that flawed. The study is more about percentage of hilly/mountainous land in each state. Not ultimate altitude; not base to summit rises; percentage.
To put it in extremes: If you have one 40,000 foot tall mountain in the middle of 600 square miles of flat swampland, by percentage of rugged land you are less so than say, 300 square miles of 100 foot hills.
Not that flawed. The study is more about percentage of hilly/mountainous land in each state. Not ultimate altitude; not base to summit rises; percentage.
To put it in extremes: If you have one 40,000 foot tall mountain in the middle of 600 square miles of flat swampland, by percentage of rugged land you are less so than say, 300 square miles of 100 foot hills.
Well, it seems like the algorithm weighs a region of zero relief disproportionately compared to regions with very short relief. Hence why North Carolina is 11th and Tennessee is 33rd, despite the two having nearly the same relief profile. The difference is that even though NC is the more mountainous of the two, its coastal plain is completely flat. Mathematically this has a huge effect, even if perceptively to a human, Tennessee's western plain near the Mississippi River is just as mundane. As an even more extreme example of how a state gets punished for having a coastal plain: Nebraska also ranks above NC.
Similarly New York ranks way behind Pennsylvania for seemingly abstract reasons. Clearly the elevation difference should factor into the calculation, but it doesn't seem to.
This is because teeny tiny bumps weigh as much as tall mountains to the algorithm. That's because locally a 45 degree slant on a tiny bump has the same relief as a 45 degree slant on a tall mountain. In fact even if the bumps are not perceptible to humans, they still weigh heavily. Hence why absolute relief needs to be taken into account to make the ratings more accurate. The example you point out would still hold true. The difference is that a state covered end to end with small hills would no longer rank the same as a state with tall mountains end to end, and a state with tall mountains and a coastal plain wouldn't be ranked below a state with nothing but hills.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vatnos
Well, it seems like the algorithm weighs a region of zero relief disproportionately compared to regions with very short relief. Hence why North Carolina is 11th and Tennessee is 33rd, despite the two having nearly the same relief profile. The difference is that even though NC is the more mountainous of the two, its coastal plain is completely flat. Mathematically this has a huge effect, even if perceptively to a human, Tennessee's western plain near the Mississippi River is just as mundane. As an even more extreme example of how a state gets punished for having a coastal plain: Nebraska also ranks above NC.
Similarly New York ranks way behind Pennsylvania for seemingly abstract reasons. Clearly the elevation difference should factor into the calculation, but it doesn't seem to.
This is because teeny tiny bumps weigh as much as tall mountains to the algorithm. That's because locally a 45 degree slant on a tiny bump has the same relief as a 45 degree slant on a tall mountain. In fact even if the bumps are not perceptible to humans, they still weigh heavily. Hence why absolute relief needs to be taken into account to make the ratings more accurate. The example you point out would still hold true. The difference is that a state covered end to end with small hills would no longer rank the same as a state with tall mountains end to end, and a state with tall mountains and a coastal plain wouldn't be ranked below a state with nothing but hills.
I'll admit. That got beyond me pretty fast.
I'll gracefully back out now as the math is above me at this point. haha
To put it in extremes: If you have one 40,000 foot tall mountain in the middle of 600 square miles of flat swampland, by percentage of rugged land you are less so than say, 300 square miles of 100 foot hills.
This is what I said in my post, and its why Nevada ranked as so flat because of its valley next to valley structure. The valleys are wide and flat, but lots of huge, tall mountains.
It's not an accurate study to judge the perception of flatness, I don't think anyone has considered Nevada a flat state.
Pretty much. Who needs mountains when you have world class beaches lined with palm trees?
Because mountains provide a lifetime of adventure to hike and explore and something to look at from a different angle around each bend. Florida's beaches? Youve seen one, youve seen em all.
While I wont disagree that Texas has vast flat areas I live at the start of the hill country and flat is not a word used around here.
Agree. The Hill Country of Texas is about the size of West Virginia, from what I can tell from having driven all over the region, and is characterized by steep terrain, deep valleys, lots of canyons, and just beautiful scenery. The prettiest parts are right in west Austin and just west of Austin, and northwest of San Antonio toward Bandera, Vanderpool, and Leakey. The main highways, like 290 and I-10, don't take you through the nicest parts.
Muct of east Texas is pine forest, very wet, and gently rolling to somewhat hilly in some areas. Looks like the Piedmont of North Carolina. Cherokee County has some prominent ridges with nice views (near Alto and Rusk). Everything about this part of the state is the South. Climate, topography, vegetation, culture.
The coastal plain is flat, although very green (especially the wet upper coast) and sometimes tropical looking.
In West Texas, which is dry and quite a contrast to the eastern part of the state, are quite a few mountain ranges, the nicest being Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Nothing like you see in the rockies states. West Texas also has huge expanses of flatness, especially the Permian Basin and Panhandle, although the Panhandle has Palo Duro Canyon, which I believe is something like 125 miles long. It's beautiful, but not Grand Canyon style by any means. People who have driven through those large expanses of flatness are often surprised that other areas of the state are anything but flat.
It's my state, Florida. We can proudly claim to produce more US national flatness than nearly any other state. You like flat? Florida is the place for you! It's flat-out fabulous
What surprised me, though, is the rolling terrain on the west and north sides of Orlando. And then between Orlando and Leesburg are some areas with hills that are high enough that you get some views. Not "that" big, but surprising nonetheless. I've never been in the Florida Panhandle, but from what I've seen in photos, there's a fairly nice roll to the terrain.
I am shocked! That area rivals the Allegheny plateau of Appalachia. I'd like to go out there in person.
It's not all like that, but there are definitely quite a few areas like you see in the photos, including on the west side of Austin where people really live the good life, so to speak. Even people who have lived here all their lives have never explored all of the Hill Country, or if they do, they're very surprised.
There are parts of the Hill Country that have very good fall color, particularly in the canyons and along the creeks and rivers. Some areas have a lot of maples. Like anywhere, the weather has to be correct for the color to be good, so some years are better than others.
If you visit, go in the spring (for flowers) or fall. Summer is way too hot, and nights are cold enough in the winter to brown out the grasses. Things are much greener during the spring or fall.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
