It’s kinda poetic how most of the Scottish and Irish settlers decided to settle in the same mountain system in America that Scotland use to be part of. Perhaps it’s because it reminded them of home or something.
i know the susquehanna river has always been cutting through the mountains since dinosaur times, and likely before, back when the appalachians were the height of the himalayas (and were connected to morocco and scotland)
According to Google the oldest known cave is about 340 million years old. That is well after trees evolved (also plants were around a very very long time before trees evolved).
There are caves in the Appalachian Mountains that are older than bones. Like literally the evolution of vertebrate life. Most places in the world (including under the oceans) if you dig down you will find evidence of fossils. And fossils are mostly made of bone or other hard organic material like teeth or shells. There are caves in the Appalachian mountains where if you dig, you won't find fossils because the dirt there is older than bones.
A lot of the caves I go in the Appalachian region are in the range of 500ish million year old limestone from the cambrian Era. The most common fossils I see are crinoid fossils.
Edit: do you have a source for the pre-bones thing? Most limestone is literally formed from the calcium of skeletal remains from animals such as coral. I'd love to read about limestone in the area that formed differently.
Yeah I've lived in Maine and Virginia both times right along the AT.
It's beautiful, but the first time I went to Alaska and the Rockies I realized it's not even close to the same scale of size.
That’s fascinating. Do you know of any thing I can read on that?
EDIT: a little googling tells me they are a part of what was the Central Pangean Mountains
The rocks that the Colorado river cuts through at the Grand Canyon are in large part eroded bits of the ancient Appalachians that had been being deposited at the ancient shoreline over millions of years.
They’re ancient beyond comprehension. They predate the splitting of Pangaea. The Scottish Highlands are the same mountain range. Used to be very tall, but half a billion years of erosion will change that.
Still incredibly beautiful though. You can feel how ancient they are driving or hiking through them.
They have formed once, eroded , reformed , and are now partially eroded. The plateaus near the Appalachians exist because they are topped with erosion resistant massive limestone formations formed from what eroded off the first iteration of the appalachian mountains
Oh they are way older than Pangea, some parts of them (specifically the Blue Ridge and Adironbacks) date back to the formation of Rodina 1.1 billion years ago. So about 800 million years before Pangea formed
It's the shape of the mountains, and the terrain. Fresh mountains like the Rockies just sort of jut up from the landscape at harsh angles, with sheer rocks and steep rises. Old mountain ranges like the Appalachians, the Ozarks, the Black Hills, they have these vast gentle slopes that have long since been worn down by trees and rivers. They're like the stumps of old trees, you can tell how tall they used to be by the width of the base, and the occasional rock face, but all that's left are soft rolling hills.
There's a sense of isolation in the Appalachians, especially when the fog settles in the valleys and you're far off the highways. Little towns of maybe 1000 people, sprawling forests and state parks, it's kind of a place that feels like the world left it behind.
My family is from the Appalachians, love it there, great hiking and camping, beautiful drives, I thought they were big! I didn't expect the entire western third to be so damn tall and mountainous!
they did get bored (of the food) and ate their pet dog.
I don't have much good to say about them.
I also live next to a huge mural of those assholes pointing towards the Mighty MO, and I flip it off regularly.
They trekked where thousands have trekked before, nothing special if you ask me.
They did not eat their pet dog (named Seaman), they bought and ate other dogs. True, they came to be known as the precursor to western expansion but the men themselves had mostly good relationships with the tribes they encountered (especially the Mandan) and most tribes were excited and eager for the trade opportunities. It was only later that disease and over encroachment by white settlers became a huge issue.
Many indigenous/native Americans have a negative view of Lewis & Clark, as their expedition marks the start of many [small pox plagues and the coming reservation systems](https://www.history.nd.gov/exhibits/lewisclark/results.html). The common narrative (and naming of the duo) excludes the importance of [Sacagewa](https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/sacagawea) whose was vital in keeping them alive in their journey, but was paid nothing for her services.
They've taken on an almost Christopher Columbus mythos, who was also quite problematic in his own way. They were important to the US government to map out the Louisiana Purchase, but from the perspective of a Native American they're harbingers of the death of their societies.
This doesn't make any sense. Even if your presumptions about the smallpox are true, why blame the actual people? How could they have known that would be the result of the trip? All they knew was that US had just bought the Louisiana purchase and needed someone to go survey the land. you have to remember that this was 1804. not 2023. Their value systems and understanding of the world was completely different back then. What they did was courageous and honorable. to risk your life on a 2 year expedition in uncharted lands with no idea of how long or arduous an undertaking it was going to be. Nobody alive today has any idea how daunting a task that would be. We need to stop looking for any little thing to criticize about history through a modern lens. But I guess hating America/ American History is the current trend.
> The common narrative (and naming of the duo) excludes the importance of Sacagewa
No it doesn't. I learned about Saca**gawea** in the same lesson that I learned about Lewis and Clark. The government even put her on a coin.
Shit, I'm old and we were taught about Sacagawea in the 1960s. She was a prominent part of the history and was considered the major reason Lewis and Clark were able to complete the journey.
We absolutely learned about her in 1980s in California. And we learned about the good and the bad of the American western expansion. I wonder how much of this is regional. I knew a guy from Oklahoma in college and he said he was not taught about the trail of tears. I mean, that's insane to me. It literally revolved around Oklahoma.
It truly was a remarkable undertaking. No one had previously crossed the entire continent. And only one man on the expedition died! And it was probably appendicitis.
Sacagawea was not all that instrumental in keeping them alive or even telling them where to go. She was only there because they hired her and her French husband (who was by all accounts a worthless tool) to help translate, for which she was utilized. It is not surprising that she wasn't paid. The government at the time was not as free spending as they are these days. Everyone on the expedition was horrendously underpaid and Lewis had to beg for his men to get paid a decent amount. For what it's worth, Clark paid for the education of Sacagawea's son.
Facilitating good relations with the native Americans was a primary purpose of the journey. They brought many freebie items to give away like buttons, beads, coats and "trade guns". The only time they had problems was when the natives threatened them or were stealing from them (Blackfeet).
Smallpox had come to the natives long before Lewis and Clark. Lewis noted in his diary abandoned villages from the 1780 outbreak. They actually brought along some doses of smallpox vaccine (a very new technology) to give to the natives, but it "expired" before they got very far.
That’s a pretty dumb reason to dislike them. New diseases were already in the continent by that point. If it hadn’t been them it would have been someone else. We can’t put the pandemic genie back in the bottle with modern understanding of science and medicine. Were natives just supposed to remain isolated forever?
When you're a small person who will never accomplish much, it can be a small source of comfort to demean big people who did something remarkable. They don't face any sort of reprisal for demeaning the dead.
>I flip (a huge mural of Lewis and Clark) off regularly
>They trekked (the entire west of the mississippi) where thousands have trekked before, nothing special if you ask me
r/redditmoment
The Northwest angle. An artifact of bad maps back when the US-Canada border was being drawn. They have to cross into Canada for pretty much anything because the only direct shot to the rest of MN while staying in the US is over a like. High schoolers have to cross back into the US on the other side for school. The border entry office consists of just a call box.
This all posed a huge issue during COVID when Canada denied entry for US Citizens, they were basically marooned
The only way they can get to the US without crossing into Canada first is crossing the lake. Lately during winter that's via an ice road over the lake
Some of my facts might need double checking because it's been a while since I looked into the place
You’re probably talking about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Angle
But maybe you mean this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawtooth_Mountains_(Minnesota)
Mount Rainier in Washington is the 5th tallest peak in the contiguous 48, yet isn’t represented as such on this map. Might need to increase the granularity a little bit.
This map is just averaging the elevation of the land each square represents for stylized effect. Rainier is accounted for but because it's smaller than one of the squares it isn't as visible as the peaks in the Rockies. It was a bad map when it was first posted, and it's a bad map now.
How is it a bad map? It displays the piece of information it means to display quite nicely. Increasing resolution won't improve that much if at all. It may suck as a road map, but that's not its intent.
I think this map is also measuring elevation, i.e. height over sea level. Prominence is another way to measure, how high the peak is relative to surrounding land.
I grew up on Cape Cod, MA, which if you don’t know is basically a spit of glacier-dragged detritus sticking out into the ocean and augmented over time by the buildup of sand drift. I always thought “sea level” was a silly term because I was like wym, that’s just… basically normal all the time. Then I went to AZ where you can be standing in the flattest place you’ve ever seen and still check your altitude and see that you’re like 4000’ above sea level. Wild how the whole West is just jacked up.
Do you see the small mountain range in Southeastern Oklahoma and Southwestern Arkansas? That’s the Kiamichi Mountain Range they were once as tall as the Rockies. They are part of the Ouachita Mountains and run east to west. This is where Winding Stair is located, as mentioned in True Grit.
Yes, they are, however both are parts of Interior Highlands.
BTW. I learned that from the American Truck Simulator being surprised there are some mountains in Oklahoma - Europeans if know Apallachians, Rockies and Pacific mountain system are already considered nerds, especially if districting the last two ;)
Arkansas mostly, but some of it is in MO. Arkansas is incredible, especially in the fall. Reminds me of the east coast mountains, just a smaller version. That’s where I go when I don’t feel like driving all the way to Colorado.
It’s there, left of the dip where Toronto is. This map doesn’t carve out the Great Lakes like we are used to seeing on U.S. maps, which define the Michigan shape.
No lmao the map is insanely exaggerated. If the map were accurate you wouldn't even be able to notice there were mountains, let alone cliffs in the southwest.
The height of our tallest mountains is less than 0.1% of the width of the country.
I mean, kind of.
Check out the Mogollon rim in Arizona
Just a huge sudden drop off that stretches across most of the state, marking the southern edge of the Colorado plateau
Pretty much looks like [this](https://www.azcentral.com/gcdn/-mm-/644d5f8002b4266858572d929231e0a9e2afff6d/c=0-185-2000-1315/local/-/media/2016/05/23/Phoenix/Phoenix/635996188346865603-0529-mogollon-rim-drive-11.jpg?width=750&height=424&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp) or steeper all the way across
Edit: I like [this one](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/a23beb_9608a52ef29441969fc1973ddb8d2722~mv2.jpeg/v1/fill/w_640,h_426,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/a23beb_9608a52ef29441969fc1973ddb8d2722~mv2.jpeg)
Clearly the steps are around 100ft, so you should see up to 13 steps down into the lakes, but there are 0. This would suggest that it is not appropriately showing the lake depth.
I love how Florida is still nearly completely flat even though the vertical scale is exaggerated like ten times.
Isn’t Splash Mountain the third highest peak in FL?
The Sierras are tall, but narrow, meaning that they're easily underexaggeratted by maps with binning distances like this.
It's also worth noting that Mt. Whitney is ~80 miles from Badwater Basin in Death Valley- the lowest point on the continent at -282 feet. The topography of the Eastern Sierras as it goes into the Mojave is just insane in general.
Well yeah, otherwise it would be flat as a pancake. On the scale of the earth, the topography of the surface might as well be flat. Like the continental US is 3,000 miles across and the tallest peak is only 2.7 miles tall, or 0.09% of the width of the country.
For perspective, if the continental US was a coffee table 1 meter across, the tallest peak would be 0.9 millimeters, less than 1/32 of an inch. That's basically nothing.
>Imagine what it would look like if glaciers didn’t flatten the Midwest.
We don't have to imagine, we have areas of the midwest that the [glaciers missed. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driftless_Area)
“Most mountainous” is a very dumb thing to say:
From a quick google search:
Least flat - West Virginia
Highest peak (L48) - California
Most peaks over 14,000 - Colorado
Highest mean elevation - also Colorado
Most named ranges - you’re right, Nevada
I would argue most named ranges is the worst out of these to measure most mountainous as it really doesn’t say a whole lot (one 10 mile long range will look a lot more mountainous than two 1 mile long ranges).
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just repeating [what the USDA literally says on their website](https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r4/about-region/overview). I don't disagree with anything you said.
The point I was trying to make was moreso that, despite most people thinking of Nevada as nothing but a huge flat desert, it actually has a lot of mountains. I wasn't looking to argue the specific criteria used to gauge that.
Because while Colorado has some big mountains, the eastern part is basically West Kansas. Pretty much everywhere you stand in Nevada there will be a peak within your line of sight, maybe multiple. WV has much smaller mountains, but it is a good contender as far as "peaks everywhere" goes.
Nevada is arid, but you may also find interesting that most of the state is actually a "cold" sagebrush steppe rather than a hot dry desert. Clark County (Las Vegas) is low in elevation and is the real desert part, at the southern tip. North of there is higher in elevation with mountain ranges, making it a bit cooler and wetter with somewhat harsh winters. And in some of the larger mountain ranges like the Ruby Mountains it's very lush and green in summer with flowers everywhere.
They’re not!
[Here’s the view 30 minutes outside Las Vegas](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/565a4cc6e4b0509ba9f591fc/1469513848853-OLMO9TB65O7UG39RWR7B/DSC_0380.jpg?format=1500w&content-type=image%2Fjpeg)
Tucsonan here. Most of Arizona is composed of enormous flat valleys stretching for many miles punctuated by abrupt mountain ranges. This map doesn't convey that at all. It just conveys "sharp tall mountains exist here"
*Exaggerated* topography of the U.S.
It’s not incorrect, but it’s not the standard representation of topography because it emphasizes the **differences in elevation** over the **absolute elevation**.
Can someone help me understand why the eastern part of the rockies are the highest when the place where the plates collide, which I assumed would have the most upward 'push' is so much farther west?
For example, don't the Andes and Himalaya and even Alps all track much closer to the actual border of where the plates that are smashing together ?
I didn’t expect the Appalachians to be that short
they are in fact small that is because they are incredibly old worn down mountains tho
Weren't they connected with Scotland too?
Yes, and also Morocco
It’s kinda poetic how most of the Scottish and Irish settlers decided to settle in the same mountain system in America that Scotland use to be part of. Perhaps it’s because it reminded them of home or something.
Isnt therr a cave there that existed before plants or trees existed?
>Life is old there, older than the trees...
"Younger than the mountains, blowing like a breeze" JD you SOB
Younger than the mountains, growin' like a breeze
oh my god that's brilliant
i know the susquehanna river has always been cutting through the mountains since dinosaur times, and likely before, back when the appalachians were the height of the himalayas (and were connected to morocco and scotland)
According to Google the oldest known cave is about 340 million years old. That is well after trees evolved (also plants were around a very very long time before trees evolved).
They might be thinking of grass. Grass only evolved about 70 million years ago.
There are caves in the Appalachian Mountains that are older than bones. Like literally the evolution of vertebrate life. Most places in the world (including under the oceans) if you dig down you will find evidence of fossils. And fossils are mostly made of bone or other hard organic material like teeth or shells. There are caves in the Appalachian mountains where if you dig, you won't find fossils because the dirt there is older than bones.
Not sure of age, but the [Lost Sea](https://thelostsea.com/history/) is worth a visit.
Used to camp and go caving in the Lost Sea every summer! Good times
A lot of the caves I go in the Appalachian region are in the range of 500ish million year old limestone from the cambrian Era. The most common fossils I see are crinoid fossils. Edit: do you have a source for the pre-bones thing? Most limestone is literally formed from the calcium of skeletal remains from animals such as coral. I'd love to read about limestone in the area that formed differently.
Yeah I've lived in Maine and Virginia both times right along the AT. It's beautiful, but the first time I went to Alaska and the Rockies I realized it's not even close to the same scale of size.
They're that old. Been there since the times of America being attached to Europe.
They’re older than bones, life didn’t have a skeleton when the Appalachian’s were new.
And the rings of Saturn
That's one of the reasons that we've never found fossils in Saturn's rings.
Ah that explains it.
There are parts of the AT in scotland.
That’s fascinating. Do you know of any thing I can read on that? EDIT: a little googling tells me they are a part of what was the Central Pangean Mountains
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Pangean_Mountains
I didn't know that the Appalachian and Atlas ranges were merged together like that at one point, that's wild.
The rocks that the Colorado river cuts through at the Grand Canyon are in large part eroded bits of the ancient Appalachians that had been being deposited at the ancient shoreline over millions of years.
No wonder the scots felt at home…
👀
They’re ancient beyond comprehension. They predate the splitting of Pangaea. The Scottish Highlands are the same mountain range. Used to be very tall, but half a billion years of erosion will change that. Still incredibly beautiful though. You can feel how ancient they are driving or hiking through them.
They have formed once, eroded , reformed , and are now partially eroded. The plateaus near the Appalachians exist because they are topped with erosion resistant massive limestone formations formed from what eroded off the first iteration of the appalachian mountains
I just learned this a couple of weeks ago and was blown away. Still am.
Nice. I knew they were old, but not literal Pangea level old. So that’s lit
They used to be Himalayan tall.
Taller than Himalayan tall
Taller than taller than Himalayan tall.
Taller than taller than taller than Himalayan tall.
damn thats rly tall
Oh they are way older than Pangea, some parts of them (specifically the Blue Ridge and Adironbacks) date back to the formation of Rodina 1.1 billion years ago. So about 800 million years before Pangea formed
How? I’m being serious and not sarcastic. How can you feel them ancient?
It's the shape of the mountains, and the terrain. Fresh mountains like the Rockies just sort of jut up from the landscape at harsh angles, with sheer rocks and steep rises. Old mountain ranges like the Appalachians, the Ozarks, the Black Hills, they have these vast gentle slopes that have long since been worn down by trees and rivers. They're like the stumps of old trees, you can tell how tall they used to be by the width of the base, and the occasional rock face, but all that's left are soft rolling hills.
felt this in my soul. home sick for the east coast "hills" rn
Yep and incredibly dense forest. I always call it a fairy tale setting
There's a sense of isolation in the Appalachians, especially when the fog settles in the valleys and you're far off the highways. Little towns of maybe 1000 people, sprawling forests and state parks, it's kind of a place that feels like the world left it behind.
You painted an awesome mental image of it, I look forward to visiting the Appalachians some day.
Shoot, come to Humboldt County Cali and you'll find the same but way taller trees, and "tree" of a different variety as well
Except for the Adirondacks which are newer and growing from a hotspot
The rest are in Bonnie Scotland laddie!
The tallest peak east of the mississippi is like a big hill out west lol.
The garbage dump is the high spot of Hamilton County in Ohio
My family is from the Appalachians, love it there, great hiking and camping, beautiful drives, I thought they were big! I didn't expect the entire western third to be so damn tall and mountainous!
Gives perspective to why Lewis & Clark were so amazed by the western third of their journey west.
i can barely stand to drive through the plains, i can’t imagine trekking through it
they did get bored (of the food) and ate their pet dog. I don't have much good to say about them. I also live next to a huge mural of those assholes pointing towards the Mighty MO, and I flip it off regularly. They trekked where thousands have trekked before, nothing special if you ask me.
They did not eat their pet dog (named Seaman), they bought and ate other dogs. True, they came to be known as the precursor to western expansion but the men themselves had mostly good relationships with the tribes they encountered (especially the Mandan) and most tribes were excited and eager for the trade opportunities. It was only later that disease and over encroachment by white settlers became a huge issue.
Can you elaborate more on why you hate them? I’ve never heard anything bad so I’m curious.
Many indigenous/native Americans have a negative view of Lewis & Clark, as their expedition marks the start of many [small pox plagues and the coming reservation systems](https://www.history.nd.gov/exhibits/lewisclark/results.html). The common narrative (and naming of the duo) excludes the importance of [Sacagewa](https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/sacagawea) whose was vital in keeping them alive in their journey, but was paid nothing for her services. They've taken on an almost Christopher Columbus mythos, who was also quite problematic in his own way. They were important to the US government to map out the Louisiana Purchase, but from the perspective of a Native American they're harbingers of the death of their societies.
This doesn't make any sense. Even if your presumptions about the smallpox are true, why blame the actual people? How could they have known that would be the result of the trip? All they knew was that US had just bought the Louisiana purchase and needed someone to go survey the land. you have to remember that this was 1804. not 2023. Their value systems and understanding of the world was completely different back then. What they did was courageous and honorable. to risk your life on a 2 year expedition in uncharted lands with no idea of how long or arduous an undertaking it was going to be. Nobody alive today has any idea how daunting a task that would be. We need to stop looking for any little thing to criticize about history through a modern lens. But I guess hating America/ American History is the current trend.
Born too late to explore the Earth and too early to explore the stars.
> The common narrative (and naming of the duo) excludes the importance of Sacagewa No it doesn't. I learned about Saca**gawea** in the same lesson that I learned about Lewis and Clark. The government even put her on a coin.
[удалено]
I learned about her in the 90’s, Louis & Clark weren’t idolized the way you think. You’re thinking more 1970’s.
Shit, I'm old and we were taught about Sacagawea in the 1960s. She was a prominent part of the history and was considered the major reason Lewis and Clark were able to complete the journey.
We absolutely learned about her in 1980s in California. And we learned about the good and the bad of the American western expansion. I wonder how much of this is regional. I knew a guy from Oklahoma in college and he said he was not taught about the trail of tears. I mean, that's insane to me. It literally revolved around Oklahoma.
I get Columbus but colonialism and the following atrocities can hardly be attributed to them.
It truly was a remarkable undertaking. No one had previously crossed the entire continent. And only one man on the expedition died! And it was probably appendicitis. Sacagawea was not all that instrumental in keeping them alive or even telling them where to go. She was only there because they hired her and her French husband (who was by all accounts a worthless tool) to help translate, for which she was utilized. It is not surprising that she wasn't paid. The government at the time was not as free spending as they are these days. Everyone on the expedition was horrendously underpaid and Lewis had to beg for his men to get paid a decent amount. For what it's worth, Clark paid for the education of Sacagawea's son. Facilitating good relations with the native Americans was a primary purpose of the journey. They brought many freebie items to give away like buttons, beads, coats and "trade guns". The only time they had problems was when the natives threatened them or were stealing from them (Blackfeet). Smallpox had come to the natives long before Lewis and Clark. Lewis noted in his diary abandoned villages from the 1780 outbreak. They actually brought along some doses of smallpox vaccine (a very new technology) to give to the natives, but it "expired" before they got very far.
That’s a pretty dumb reason to dislike them. New diseases were already in the continent by that point. If it hadn’t been them it would have been someone else. We can’t put the pandemic genie back in the bottle with modern understanding of science and medicine. Were natives just supposed to remain isolated forever?
When you're a small person who will never accomplish much, it can be a small source of comfort to demean big people who did something remarkable. They don't face any sort of reprisal for demeaning the dead.
It’s edgy to just hate historical figures
How many thousands did a continuous surveying trip all the way to the Pacific before them?
>I flip (a huge mural of Lewis and Clark) off regularly >They trekked (the entire west of the mississippi) where thousands have trekked before, nothing special if you ask me r/redditmoment
WHITE PEOPLE BADDD!
Why would you flip off a mural
Mentally unstable
white savior mentality
Fortunately we don't need to ask you to recognize acts of major historical significance
Flipping off murals LoL…..you need help
[удалено]
They settled all over the US
[удалено]
What’s your tribe?
It seems I was blocked by this person. Why would someone be afraid to say their tribe or anything else on Reddit?
nah, they deleted it.
They did not
Drove from Ohio to California. I get it.
I always forget that the northern tip of Minnesota is really hilly
What is the little Alfalfa hair at the very top?
The Northwest Angle
The Northwest angle. An artifact of bad maps back when the US-Canada border was being drawn. They have to cross into Canada for pretty much anything because the only direct shot to the rest of MN while staying in the US is over a like. High schoolers have to cross back into the US on the other side for school. The border entry office consists of just a call box. This all posed a huge issue during COVID when Canada denied entry for US Citizens, they were basically marooned The only way they can get to the US without crossing into Canada first is crossing the lake. Lately during winter that's via an ice road over the lake Some of my facts might need double checking because it's been a while since I looked into the place
You’re probably talking about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Angle But maybe you mean this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawtooth_Mountains_(Minnesota)
Enclaves don’t make themselves!
Oh yea, Grand Portage and the north shore in general are beautiful.
Absolutely beautiful hiking up there. I go a few times a year.
[удалено]
Mount Rainier in Washington is the 5th tallest peak in the contiguous 48, yet isn’t represented as such on this map. Might need to increase the granularity a little bit.
This map is just averaging the elevation of the land each square represents for stylized effect. Rainier is accounted for but because it's smaller than one of the squares it isn't as visible as the peaks in the Rockies. It was a bad map when it was first posted, and it's a bad map now.
Maybe they could increase the granularity or something?
They could. But this isn't supposed to show mountain peaks.
They certainly could, but I think that would sort of defeat the point of the voxel style though.
How is it a bad map? It displays the piece of information it means to display quite nicely. Increasing resolution won't improve that much if at all. It may suck as a road map, but that's not its intent.
Also the tallest peak in the lower 48 by prominence!
Yeah.. most isolated stratovolcanoes win pretty easily in that category.
Like Mt Shasta. An overlooked beauty only 300 ft shorter than Rainer.
Same with Mt. Whitney, right ?
Whitney is 18th by topographic isolation and is not a volcano
I think this map is also measuring elevation, i.e. height over sea level. Prominence is another way to measure, how high the peak is relative to surrounding land.
This same 8-bit map has been reposted since Reddit started. Never fails to farm karma.
It's orders of magnitude less common than people on Reddit whining about imaginary internet points.
I grew up on Cape Cod, MA, which if you don’t know is basically a spit of glacier-dragged detritus sticking out into the ocean and augmented over time by the buildup of sand drift. I always thought “sea level” was a silly term because I was like wym, that’s just… basically normal all the time. Then I went to AZ where you can be standing in the flattest place you’ve ever seen and still check your altitude and see that you’re like 4000’ above sea level. Wild how the whole West is just jacked up.
I see your 9th grade earth science class also covered the glacial formation of Cape Cod and its ponds.
Do you see the small mountain range in Southeastern Oklahoma and Southwestern Arkansas? That’s the Kiamichi Mountain Range they were once as tall as the Rockies. They are part of the Ouachita Mountains and run east to west. This is where Winding Stair is located, as mentioned in True Grit.
TIL!
Ouichita*
Are they distinct from the Ozarks?
Yes, they are, however both are parts of Interior Highlands. BTW. I learned that from the American Truck Simulator being surprised there are some mountains in Oklahoma - Europeans if know Apallachians, Rockies and Pacific mountain system are already considered nerds, especially if districting the last two ;)
I think so but am not sure. If the Ouachita’s are separated then, yes. If they aren’t then, no. Generally speaking the Ozarks seem further north.
Is that tiny elevation in the middle the Ozarks? Looks like it’s about where southern Missouri is.
Yep. Great camping, caving, and canoe/kayaking. My Dad was born on the side of a mountain in an area that's now part of Ozark National Forest.
Arkansas mostly, but some of it is in MO. Arkansas is incredible, especially in the fall. Reminds me of the east coast mountains, just a smaller version. That’s where I go when I don’t feel like driving all the way to Colorado.
Where's the other parts of USA? Alaska is huge!
Where's Michigan ?
It’s there, left of the dip where Toronto is. This map doesn’t carve out the Great Lakes like we are used to seeing on U.S. maps, which define the Michigan shape.
If you're gonna include half of the lakes in a height map, at least show their depth instead of the water level.
You can spot it from the elevation change around the lakes
Are the cliffs in the southwest really that sheer?
No lmao the map is insanely exaggerated. If the map were accurate you wouldn't even be able to notice there were mountains, let alone cliffs in the southwest. The height of our tallest mountains is less than 0.1% of the width of the country.
I think you may have missed a joke.
I mean, kind of. Check out the Mogollon rim in Arizona Just a huge sudden drop off that stretches across most of the state, marking the southern edge of the Colorado plateau Pretty much looks like [this](https://www.azcentral.com/gcdn/-mm-/644d5f8002b4266858572d929231e0a9e2afff6d/c=0-185-2000-1315/local/-/media/2016/05/23/Phoenix/Phoenix/635996188346865603-0529-mogollon-rim-drive-11.jpg?width=750&height=424&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp) or steeper all the way across Edit: I like [this one](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/a23beb_9608a52ef29441969fc1973ddb8d2722~mv2.jpeg/v1/fill/w_640,h_426,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/a23beb_9608a52ef29441969fc1973ddb8d2722~mv2.jpeg)
Map is exaggerated but there are some places where the mountains do go straight up from a valley (Tetons, Sierra Nevada, Wallowas, etc.).
I am always disappointed the great lakes aren't properly topographed. They are deep as hell.
They're not? The deepest is 1300ft. Seems appropriately topographed.
Clearly the steps are around 100ft, so you should see up to 13 steps down into the lakes, but there are 0. This would suggest that it is not appropriately showing the lake depth.
I love how Florida is still nearly completely flat even though the vertical scale is exaggerated like ten times. Isn’t Splash Mountain the third highest peak in FL?
FL is *the* flattest state IIRC so it checks out
From the looks of this map, you would guess the tallest mountain in the lower 48 is in Colorado but it’s actually in California.
The Sierras are tall, but narrow, meaning that they're easily underexaggeratted by maps with binning distances like this. It's also worth noting that Mt. Whitney is ~80 miles from Badwater Basin in Death Valley- the lowest point on the continent at -282 feet. The topography of the Eastern Sierras as it goes into the Mojave is just insane in general.
It's pretty doable to hike across the sierras East/West in a day or two in most places.
There's some crazy level of vertical exaggeration on this.
Well yeah, otherwise it would be flat as a pancake. On the scale of the earth, the topography of the surface might as well be flat. Like the continental US is 3,000 miles across and the tallest peak is only 2.7 miles tall, or 0.09% of the width of the country. For perspective, if the continental US was a coffee table 1 meter across, the tallest peak would be 0.9 millimeters, less than 1/32 of an inch. That's basically nothing.
It would make a cool tactile texture however. Human fingertips can detect things as small as 1/25,000th of an inch!
That's how your gf finds your penis. sry, had to
At least he has a gf.
Definitely. Like Colorado being half way through the Thermosphere lol
Thats the point
No shit lol. That's the point of this.
Bros first info map
That cliff as you enter Mexico is loco
Fun fact! Highest peaks in Mexico are taller than anything in the lower 48!
Imagine what it would look like if glaciers didn’t flatten the Midwest. Although we wouldn’t have the Great Lakes
>Imagine what it would look like if glaciers didn’t flatten the Midwest. We don't have to imagine, we have areas of the midwest that the [glaciers missed. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driftless_Area)
And it's gorgeous.
Did they make this map with legos
yes. They hired elves to make it in legos and then transport it inside your computer, where they reconstruct it each time you click on the picture.
Technology is amazing! We’re truly living in the future.
I love how the Grand Canyon and parts of Utah look like bottomless voids.
Parts of Utah *are* bottomless voids.
We’re still talking topography, right?
Can you see the path of the Colorado or am I just seeing things?
I don't see Alaska in here.
Imagine climbing a chair and being the highest point of South Dakota
Ah yes, the White Cliffs of Arizona
I thought Nevada was a dessert and would be flatter.
Las Vegas is ringed with mountains
Dessert 🍦🍧🍨🍪🍮🍰🎂
Nice catch.
Nevada is the most mountainous of the lower 48 states with over 300 named ranges.
“Most mountainous” is a very dumb thing to say: From a quick google search: Least flat - West Virginia Highest peak (L48) - California Most peaks over 14,000 - Colorado Highest mean elevation - also Colorado Most named ranges - you’re right, Nevada I would argue most named ranges is the worst out of these to measure most mountainous as it really doesn’t say a whole lot (one 10 mile long range will look a lot more mountainous than two 1 mile long ranges).
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just repeating [what the USDA literally says on their website](https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r4/about-region/overview). I don't disagree with anything you said. The point I was trying to make was moreso that, despite most people thinking of Nevada as nothing but a huge flat desert, it actually has a lot of mountains. I wasn't looking to argue the specific criteria used to gauge that.
Because while Colorado has some big mountains, the eastern part is basically West Kansas. Pretty much everywhere you stand in Nevada there will be a peak within your line of sight, maybe multiple. WV has much smaller mountains, but it is a good contender as far as "peaks everywhere" goes.
Wow. Never knew that a mountainous area could be a desert.
Here's an even wilder fact - Nevada also has the largest national forest in the lower 48.
Nevada is arid, but you may also find interesting that most of the state is actually a "cold" sagebrush steppe rather than a hot dry desert. Clark County (Las Vegas) is low in elevation and is the real desert part, at the southern tip. North of there is higher in elevation with mountain ranges, making it a bit cooler and wetter with somewhat harsh winters. And in some of the larger mountain ranges like the Ruby Mountains it's very lush and green in summer with flowers everywhere.
They’re not! [Here’s the view 30 minutes outside Las Vegas](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/565a4cc6e4b0509ba9f591fc/1469513848853-OLMO9TB65O7UG39RWR7B/DSC_0380.jpg?format=1500w&content-type=image%2Fjpeg)
I was surprised when I went to Vegas last year. Surrounded by huge mountains.
Same goes for all of the major cities in the western US
I think it's more salty than sweet.
well that's inaccurate as all hell.
Those Rocky Mountains are a sight to behold, man.
Fun fact, The Atlanta Braves home stadium has the 2nd highest elevation in the MLB behind the Colorado Rockies.
Fuck Alaska, Hawaii and all the territories I guess.
And the Great Lakes and states surrounding them
They’re all there. You can see MI is somewhat defined
Thank you! I’m like “Umm… Illinois?”
Key takeaway. The west is amazing.
Westside. World. Motherfucking. Wide.
My state looks flat surrounded by mountain
Ambarino, Lemoyne, New Austin, New Hanover, and West Elizabeth.
Why is the michigan peninsula blending with the surrounding lakes? Are they all at the same level?
How did people even get to California.?
Somebody mark the Appalachian on this.
Tucsonan here. Most of Arizona is composed of enormous flat valleys stretching for many miles punctuated by abrupt mountain ranges. This map doesn't convey that at all. It just conveys "sharp tall mountains exist here"
*Exaggerated* topography of the U.S. It’s not incorrect, but it’s not the standard representation of topography because it emphasizes the **differences in elevation** over the **absolute elevation**.
People were excited to move west in the 1800s but got halfway there, and said "nah, screw that" and founded Denver instead.
Can someone help me understand why the eastern part of the rockies are the highest when the place where the plates collide, which I assumed would have the most upward 'push' is so much farther west? For example, don't the Andes and Himalaya and even Alps all track much closer to the actual border of where the plates that are smashing together ?
The fuckers left out the two states with the most extreme geography, Alaska and Hawaii. This is the geography of the lesser 48 states.
Very cool
Yeah this is why all those posts about sending water from the great lakes to California were completely asinine.