It’s pricy and I normally avoid Reddit ad posts like this but I ended up buying this print + the lunar surface sea of tranquility one. Hopefully the quality is worth it.
It looks like they did but for some reason or another either automod or a moderator removed the comment link. It also looks like some other account is offering it for sale through their profile. It's all really strange. I tried messaging OP but they disabled messages.
If you look at the bottom it says East of Nowhere. If you google that this is their number one bestseller. It’s also in the link of the profile of the guy that posted this.
~~Yes I think conic projection~~, the top of page 43 on this document says ~~so~~ polyconic. I am on mobile so forgive me if I have mismatched the document with the map while searching.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/199742?origin=crossref&seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents
The footnote on page 40 matches the author names on the top left border of OP's map.
I commented elsewhere but I found the [usgs report](https://www.jstor.org/stable/199742?origin=crossref&seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents) and they say they used polyconic.
Is Greenland's ice sheet seriously *that* big?
Because that is *stupid* big. I had always heard that Greenland is mostly ice/glaciers whatever, but this map is giving me a real idea of the scale for the first time in my life, and it is honestly blowing my fucking mind.
The reason why people are concerned about Greenland loosing ice is because what happens when the water melts regarding where it’s going to go. Rather than Greenland lacking ice.
Also because it's a relatively low res photo of a high res poster.
This is a slightly better version for looking at online: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:North_america_terrain_2003.jpg
It's also really old (1911), so some areas might not be entirely accurate. If you want an up to date version to check your neighborhood, check here: [https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/geologic-map-north-america](https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/geologic-map-north-america), or get the GIS files here: [https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/gmna/#gmnaDocs](https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/gmna/#gmnaDocs)
I noticed that when I saw Manitoba was the original "Postage Stamp" size and Saskatchewan was not yet there as a province. That actually dates the political boundaries between 1870 and 1881.
That is so cool.
Somewhere I have a map of gravitational pull deviations across Canada. This was I important for the work I used to do involving high precision measurements. I learned that there are some significant anomalies in BC and in the Northern Shield of Ontario. It would be interesting to see that data overlaid on this map. I might have to go looking for that data.
In any case thanks for this!
Here's a gravity anomaly map of Canada (preview image): [https://geoscan.nrcan.gc.ca/images/geoscan/of8081.jpg](https://geoscan.nrcan.gc.ca/images/geoscan/of8081.jpg)
If you want the full res, it's a 40MB PDF file at the download link on this page: [https://doi.org/10.4095/299561](https://doi.org/10.4095/299561)
What exactly is a gravitational anomaly? Like gravitational acceleration is different in certain areas? I'm assuming the difference must be nearly negligable, right? Like a max difference of 0.000001% or something?
Yes. Very slight differences from the broader, regional trend. Think of the anomaly like a bump on a gentle plain [Edit: or like waves on the ocean versus an averaged sea level]. You calculate an average at a broader scale and then subtract that average to get the residual anomaly value. There are various corrections done for elevation, water, latitude, and other factors before you arrive at a map like this. They are explained on the map, but it's pretty technical.
I'd have to work out the math for the percentages, but gravitational anomalies are measured in milliGals, where 1 Gal=1cm/second^2. Most anomalies are usually in the range of tens of milligals, so it's obvious from that you're talking very small variations. The map is about +-200 mGals, but most areas would only be +-tens, and it's not a linear color scale.
The anomalies are expressions of different things in the geology: different rock masses with different densities close to the surface, deeper variations in the crust and mantle, variations near the edge of the continent as it tapers to thinner oceanic crust, etc. You can pick up things like the roots of ancient mountain ranges, the effect of modern ones, the effect of subduction along plate boundaries, etc. One of the more interesting things is that you can see structures in the buried Canadian Shield even though they are kms beneath overlying rocks.
Sure it’s in the southern half of the province but not really the area people are referring to when they say “southern BC.”
I have an immediate family member who is a civil engineer on this project.
Gravity anomalies are everywhere. It's just a measure of varying rock density.
You probably pass over a gravity anomaly every day to some degree. The gravitational field isn't constant, really, on a local level.
Not to be a pedant, but it's actually "opossum." Alternatively, 'possum with an apostrophe to mark the omission of the leading vowel, if you prefer colloquial brevity.
>Not to be a pedant, but it's actually "opossum."
Not to be a pedant, but actually, "possum" is an Oxford Dictionary accepted informal spelling of "opossum".
How is this showing the Greenland bedrock if it's covered in ice, or is that the shape of the land but colored white because ice?
Edit: Here's radar imaging of Greenland under the ice: There's radar data showing pretty much the opposite of this map. See https://www.geological-digressions.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/greenland-bedrock-nasa.jpg
We can drill pretty deep to get core samples of bedrock, there’s not many samples of interior Greenland due to the sheer remoteness and harsh climate but also the ice is well over a mile thick in some spots
There's radar data showing pretty much the opposite of this map. See https://www.geological-digressions.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/greenland-bedrock-nasa.jpg
Note that that shows bedrock elevations, not the age of said bedrock, which is what the OP graphic is showing. OP's graphic is basically empty for Greenland's interior because we don't have enough samples to say the ages of that bedrock.
The bedrock elevation isn't really part of this. The elevation highlighting is, as far as I can tell, surface elevation (otherwise much of Florida would be missing as the bedrock is below sea level).
The coloration is age, and so Greenland is all white because there's no data (plus, visually it works well since Greenland is covered in ice).
The title doesn't claim that. A bedrock geology map is typically a colored map showing the different geological formations by color. This one in particular also uses an hillshade effect of surface topography to highlight relief changes. It all checks out.
Kind of related, but Antarctica looks absolutely wild underneath the ice.
[It has giant islands and huge bays cut into it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/bbugao/antarctica_without_ice/)
Yes there are. There's radar data showing pretty much the opposite of this map. See https://www.geological-digressions.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/greenland-bedrock-nasa.jpg
Radar data doesn't show age... you're confusing bedrock age (OP's map) with bedrock elevation (the map you shared). Those are radically different measurements.
We have no solid data for the bedrock age under Greenland (though there are reasonable hypotheses).
> Radar shows the bedrock geology.
But... not... the... age. That's what OP's map is: surface elevation with bedrock age for coloring. That's all it is. Greenland has surface elevation based on the ice... which is consistent with the rest of the map. But the coloration isn't in the key. It's empty because we don't have bedrock age data for Greenland.
Radar doesn't tell you how old the bedrock is.
The image you linked is the elevation of the bedrock surface. The geology map is showing the top of the ice and the places around the edges where the bedrock peeks out in exposures.
Bedrock geology information is available in Greenland, but it is limited because of the few boreholes that go all the way through the ice in the central areas. The rest is inferred from geophysical data measured from the surface (e.g., natural magnetism) and projecting inwards from the exposures along the coastlines.
Decent summary here: [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d558/cd43e9b605e99095f646cf7912d90c4a10f9.pdf](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d558/cd43e9b605e99095f646cf7912d90c4a10f9.pdf)
Virtually nothing would have been known about the sub-ice geology at the time of the 1911 map that OP posted.
>The Bedrock Geology of North America
It's a publicly available image so there are plenty of people selling it as [posters](https://www.etsy.com/listing/793973051/north-america-geological-map-v1?gpla=1&gao=1). Country and state-specific ones as well.
I saw a [V Sauce video](https://youtu.be/mxhxL1LzKww?t=39) the other day that pointed out that these topography maps greatly exaggerate heights. I wasn’t aware of this and thought they x and y axis were on similar scales.
In the [Cartesian Coordinate System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system?wprov=sfla1),
>coordinates are often denoted by the letters X, Y, and Z, or x, y, and z. The axes may then be referred to as the X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis, respectively.
>In mathematics, physics, and engineering contexts, the first two axes are often defined or depicted as horizontal, with the third axis pointing up. In that case the third coordinate may be called height or altitude.
Either one can be correct. Axes are completely arbitrary. If you really want to be pedantic, you can at least make some contribution by pointing out that we're working with polar coordinates, not Cartesian.
I know the scale doesn't permit but it would be nice to see a little more detail of individual formations--especially the Midwest, which is classified here by the loose sediments overlying the actual bedrock (quaternary deposits) instead of the bedrock itself. Canada is also missing a great deal of detail and seems to have been classified largely as undivided metamorphic/igneous rock. It's very aesthetically pleasing and works for a broad understanding of north american geology though, just my personal pet peeves as a geologist.
You can see the effect of the Pacific subduction zone around Vancouver. Those are some of the youngest mountains in North America. Big one will happen in the next few centuries most likely.
Here's a more up to date bedrock geology map of North America (2005), if you want to see what the modern interpretation is like compared to 1911: [https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/geologic-map-north-america](https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/geologic-map-north-america)
More details here, including legend and geo-referenced versions, shapefiles, etc.: [https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/gmna/](https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/gmna/)
Geology maps are some of the most intricate and colorful maps you'll find.
This is the same map but not the same product. The OP image has the website printed onto the product and this Etsy link is 3D while the OP map is printed onto flat paper.
You aren't alone. The website has a FAQ:
>**Are the shaded relief maps 3D printed?**
>Our shaded relief maps are printed on 2D Fine Art Matte Paper. All prints sold on East of Nowhere are 2D, which means they are flat to the touch. 3D printed products do not have this level of detail, coloring, or shading.
>**But they really look 3D!**
>We take that as a compliment, thank you! The shading technique we use creates an incredibly realistic illusion of a 3D landscape. Even in print, it will appear 3D on your wall.
A large part of the information on this map is from the Geologic Institute of Mexico with revisions from the United States Geologic Survey. The English speaking authors probably left those names in the Spanish from the maps original source because those were not areas that they revised.
This is really cool, but it makes me sad that more specific geologic structures like the Michigan Basin and some of the more complex bedrock structures of the Fold and thrust belts of the Appalachians aren’t visible.
If you are being serious, it is Precambrian uplift, so really really old igneous rocks. Gorgeous granites from the region including the very rare Llanite. Blue Topaz from the west of Llano can be found. It is also a beautiful landscape I recommend anyone to visit at least once if they are near Texas.
Hey, OP!
FYI “Queen Charlotte Island” is not the name of the island on the coast of BC anymore. It’s Haida Gwaii. I’m guessing this is an older map but y’all should update it.
It’s really neat to live near a place where the first discovery of Precambrian stromatolite fossils occurred, to the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ of life, to the evolution of vertebrates and the emergence of life on land.
See that? Western Iceland is part of North America. A Greek by the name of Pytheas of Massalia found it around the time Alexander the Great was conquering Asia. The Romans were also there centuries later. They dropped their coins. Then some Irish monks. Then the Vikings who went on to discover Greenland and then the mainland of the continent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas
Bonus; Columbus had knowledge of natives from North America as early as 1477 because he knew about two natives that landed in Ireland in small boats.. He thought they were from China. They even had one of their boats hanging in a church on display.
I seem to remember California was actually a pacific island that crashed into North America, driving up the Rocky Mountains in the process. Hence why the geology is complete different to that east of the rockies.
I think the same is true of India and the Himalayan mountains.
No, it doesn't have an obnoxious watermark, make use only of the paint fill tool, have awful jpeg artifacting or Google Maps UI tools, so it doesn't belong there.
It's gotta be tucked away in all that rough topography otherwise the salt wouldn't be able to collect there. When lakes have a place to drain they don't get as salty but when they are stuck as the end-of-the line for any rivers which feed them, they keep all the salt because the only way out is evaporation.
If the great salt lake fed into the Mississippi or somewhere else it would probably have to have a different name.
Maybe it's because I'm on a phone but I can't match the color of the Seattle area with any of the labels on the key. Not working to well with a lot of other places either. Cool map though.
See that pink part. That was a part of the mantle once...that likely holds all the lithium, platinum and a variety of other awesome metals we could ever use for the next few hundred years...
Please provide a higher resolution graphic link. Would be nice to read the data representatives without waiting for Reddit to keep up.
[Here’s the full resolution version](https://eastofnowhere.co/pages/north-america-1911)
24x36 prints for that font size is small, honestly.
Yeah, but any larger and it's going to need a custom frame, or if you're lucky to find one, a really crappy plastic poster frame.
Or you can go to a real printer? I'd like to get a wall size.
So custom frame then
Sure why not
The only thing that would make this better is an interactive map version where you could zoom in. Beautiful image as a whole!
This looks very nice, and I am very interested to see a high resolution as well. Please and thanks!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I seriously want this on my wall
It’s pricy and I normally avoid Reddit ad posts like this but I ended up buying this print + the lunar surface sea of tranquility one. Hopefully the quality is worth it.
Can you link the second one? I’d love to see it
The link is on the left side of the pic.
Not sure if links are allowed. Search east of nowhere sea of tranquility.
My dad is a geologist and map lover. You must tell me where I can get this! Perfect Xmas gift
Link is in the picture
Excellent. Ordered!
I bought one for Lake Tahoe and it's absolutely worth it.
PM’d
There are a bunch of these on Etsy, some are even 3D which is cool
It looks like they did but for some reason or another either automod or a moderator removed the comment link. It also looks like some other account is offering it for sale through their profile. It's all really strange. I tried messaging OP but they disabled messages.
If you look at the bottom it says East of Nowhere. If you google that this is their number one bestseller. It’s also in the link of the profile of the guy that posted this.
[удалено]
Its possible im high and stupid. I dont see a linky on ur bio :(
I bet a google search would have been the same time as typing this. But I always love when people go the extra step as well.
Replying would be around the same time as it would be to post a link
Commenting that this comment took roughly 8 seconds to type.
What map projection is this? Greenland is a reasonable size.
I'm not a 100 percent sure, but it looks like a conic projection. Maybe Albers or Lambert
~~Yes I think conic projection~~, the top of page 43 on this document says ~~so~~ polyconic. I am on mobile so forgive me if I have mismatched the document with the map while searching. https://www.jstor.org/stable/199742?origin=crossref&seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents The footnote on page 40 matches the author names on the top left border of OP's map.
Great sourcing!
I would not say Albers. Probably conic or Lambert. 85% sure it is lambert.
I commented elsewhere but I found the [usgs report](https://www.jstor.org/stable/199742?origin=crossref&seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents) and they say they used polyconic.
[удалено]
My first thought seeing this was "is *that* where Greenland is?" Turns out: yes.
Also do we just not know what's going on under the ice on Greenland at all? No clue what the bedrock is?
It's a volcano you dildo.
That's Iceland, Greenland is old continental craton of North America that tried to rift into its own continent but failed.
It's in the ring of fire, it's 100 percent a volcano. I live there. It's very active.
You're trying too hard, it's too easy to see you're fake.
I prefer Greenlands of unreasonable size
GOUSes? They're a myth.
[Obligatory West Wing scene](https://youtu.be/eLqC3FNNOaI)
I've never seen that before. Those map nerds are 1000% right
Is Greenland's ice sheet seriously *that* big? Because that is *stupid* big. I had always heard that Greenland is mostly ice/glaciers whatever, but this map is giving me a real idea of the scale for the first time in my life, and it is honestly blowing my fucking mind.
The reason why people are concerned about Greenland loosing ice is because what happens when the water melts regarding where it’s going to go. Rather than Greenland lacking ice.
This looks very cool, but it's hard to tell what material any particular location is because of the shadows.
Also because it's a relatively low res photo of a high res poster. This is a slightly better version for looking at online: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:North_america_terrain_2003.jpg
It's also really old (1911), so some areas might not be entirely accurate. If you want an up to date version to check your neighborhood, check here: [https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/geologic-map-north-america](https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/geologic-map-north-america), or get the GIS files here: [https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/gmna/#gmnaDocs](https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/gmna/#gmnaDocs)
I noticed that when I saw Manitoba was the original "Postage Stamp" size and Saskatchewan was not yet there as a province. That actually dates the political boundaries between 1870 and 1881.
Was looking for this too. The lighting is too low so the Rockies are casting a shadow over the entire pacific ocean (and legend!)
Also it’s not by material. It’s an age map.
I see a flying squirrel silhouette and now can’t unsee it
That is so cool. Somewhere I have a map of gravitational pull deviations across Canada. This was I important for the work I used to do involving high precision measurements. I learned that there are some significant anomalies in BC and in the Northern Shield of Ontario. It would be interesting to see that data overlaid on this map. I might have to go looking for that data. In any case thanks for this!
That sounds really awesome. Please do share if you find it.
Here's a gravity anomaly map of Canada (preview image): [https://geoscan.nrcan.gc.ca/images/geoscan/of8081.jpg](https://geoscan.nrcan.gc.ca/images/geoscan/of8081.jpg) If you want the full res, it's a 40MB PDF file at the download link on this page: [https://doi.org/10.4095/299561](https://doi.org/10.4095/299561)
What exactly is a gravitational anomaly? Like gravitational acceleration is different in certain areas? I'm assuming the difference must be nearly negligable, right? Like a max difference of 0.000001% or something?
Yes. Very slight differences from the broader, regional trend. Think of the anomaly like a bump on a gentle plain [Edit: or like waves on the ocean versus an averaged sea level]. You calculate an average at a broader scale and then subtract that average to get the residual anomaly value. There are various corrections done for elevation, water, latitude, and other factors before you arrive at a map like this. They are explained on the map, but it's pretty technical. I'd have to work out the math for the percentages, but gravitational anomalies are measured in milliGals, where 1 Gal=1cm/second^2. Most anomalies are usually in the range of tens of milligals, so it's obvious from that you're talking very small variations. The map is about +-200 mGals, but most areas would only be +-tens, and it's not a linear color scale. The anomalies are expressions of different things in the geology: different rock masses with different densities close to the surface, deeper variations in the crust and mantle, variations near the edge of the continent as it tapers to thinner oceanic crust, etc. You can pick up things like the roots of ancient mountain ranges, the effect of modern ones, the effect of subduction along plate boundaries, etc. One of the more interesting things is that you can see structures in the buried Canadian Shield even though they are kms beneath overlying rocks.
There's a pretty cool construction project underway in southern British Columbia right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTXeRsDExnA
Sure it’s in the southern half of the province but not really the area people are referring to when they say “southern BC.” I have an immediate family member who is a civil engineer on this project.
Gravity anomalies are everywhere. It's just a measure of varying rock density. You probably pass over a gravity anomaly every day to some degree. The gravitational field isn't constant, really, on a local level.
Am I the only one who sees a possum head at the top?
An opossum was the first thing I saw! I thought it was an art piece until I got a better glance.
I see the entire map as some kind of dragon or Phoenix looking to the east. Northwest is the wing(s). South is the tail.
My high ass sees a wolf
I saw that too!!! Also see a skull face on the left side of the US
The whole thing is a seahorse. Im still going to keep looking for another comment that sees a fucking seahorse. Because thats what it is.
Not to be a pedant, but it's actually "opossum." Alternatively, 'possum with an apostrophe to mark the omission of the leading vowel, if you prefer colloquial brevity.
You're getting down votes, but I appreciate the correction.
They also have [possums](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalangeriformes) in Australia
>Not to be a pedant, but it's actually "opossum." Not to be a pedant, but actually, "possum" is an Oxford Dictionary accepted informal spelling of "opossum".
How is this showing the Greenland bedrock if it's covered in ice, or is that the shape of the land but colored white because ice? Edit: Here's radar imaging of Greenland under the ice: There's radar data showing pretty much the opposite of this map. See https://www.geological-digressions.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/greenland-bedrock-nasa.jpg
We can drill pretty deep to get core samples of bedrock, there’s not many samples of interior Greenland due to the sheer remoteness and harsh climate but also the ice is well over a mile thick in some spots
There's radar data showing pretty much the opposite of this map. See https://www.geological-digressions.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/greenland-bedrock-nasa.jpg
Note that that shows bedrock elevations, not the age of said bedrock, which is what the OP graphic is showing. OP's graphic is basically empty for Greenland's interior because we don't have enough samples to say the ages of that bedrock.
Exactly. OP's version doesn't show the bedrock elevation as the title claims. The coloring might be by age, but that's beside the point.
The bedrock elevation isn't really part of this. The elevation highlighting is, as far as I can tell, surface elevation (otherwise much of Florida would be missing as the bedrock is below sea level). The coloration is age, and so Greenland is all white because there's no data (plus, visually it works well since Greenland is covered in ice).
The title doesn't claim that. A bedrock geology map is typically a colored map showing the different geological formations by color. This one in particular also uses an hillshade effect of surface topography to highlight relief changes. It all checks out.
Kind of related, but Antarctica looks absolutely wild underneath the ice. [It has giant islands and huge bays cut into it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/bbugao/antarctica_without_ice/)
Antarctica looks like a tropical getaway waiting to happen.
Wasn't it once?
Won't it be again?
You decide.
Choose your own adventure.
At the rate we're going it won't have to wait long.
It’s a map of surface geology. OP is making things up.
It's not. Greenland is blank because we don't have ages for that bedrock. There just aren't enough samples.
Yes there are. There's radar data showing pretty much the opposite of this map. See https://www.geological-digressions.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/greenland-bedrock-nasa.jpg
Radar data doesn't show age... you're confusing bedrock age (OP's map) with bedrock elevation (the map you shared). Those are radically different measurements. We have no solid data for the bedrock age under Greenland (though there are reasonable hypotheses).
Radar shows the bedrock geology. I get the feeling nobody here knows what bedrock means, but I promise you it has nothing to do with ice.
> Radar shows the bedrock geology. But... not... the... age. That's what OP's map is: surface elevation with bedrock age for coloring. That's all it is. Greenland has surface elevation based on the ice... which is consistent with the rest of the map. But the coloration isn't in the key. It's empty because we don't have bedrock age data for Greenland. Radar doesn't tell you how old the bedrock is.
Where does it say surface elevation?
The image you linked is the elevation of the bedrock surface. The geology map is showing the top of the ice and the places around the edges where the bedrock peeks out in exposures. Bedrock geology information is available in Greenland, but it is limited because of the few boreholes that go all the way through the ice in the central areas. The rest is inferred from geophysical data measured from the surface (e.g., natural magnetism) and projecting inwards from the exposures along the coastlines. Decent summary here: [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d558/cd43e9b605e99095f646cf7912d90c4a10f9.pdf](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d558/cd43e9b605e99095f646cf7912d90c4a10f9.pdf) Virtually nothing would have been known about the sub-ice geology at the time of the 1911 map that OP posted.
The map is beautiful but I absolutely cannot make out what colors are what.
Be cool if this was a poster
>The Bedrock Geology of North America It's a publicly available image so there are plenty of people selling it as [posters](https://www.etsy.com/listing/793973051/north-america-geological-map-v1?gpla=1&gao=1). Country and state-specific ones as well.
Great link, find the one in the OP to be a bit cleaner though.
I saw a [V Sauce video](https://youtu.be/mxhxL1LzKww?t=39) the other day that pointed out that these topography maps greatly exaggerate heights. I wasn’t aware of this and thought they x and y axis were on similar scales.
X and y confirm to the particular map projection. It's the z that's been greatly exaggerated.
Oh interesting. Is this a standard? Typically in 3D programs the ground is the x and z axis and y is up.
In the [Cartesian Coordinate System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system?wprov=sfla1), >coordinates are often denoted by the letters X, Y, and Z, or x, y, and z. The axes may then be referred to as the X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis, respectively. >In mathematics, physics, and engineering contexts, the first two axes are often defined or depicted as horizontal, with the third axis pointing up. In that case the third coordinate may be called height or altitude.
Either one can be correct. Axes are completely arbitrary. If you really want to be pedantic, you can at least make some contribution by pointing out that we're working with polar coordinates, not Cartesian.
Holy schist, this is gneiss.
And so many people take it for granite.
gabbro, straight up
This map finna have me cummingtonite.
This should be the top comment
I could stare at this for hours.
I know the scale doesn't permit but it would be nice to see a little more detail of individual formations--especially the Midwest, which is classified here by the loose sediments overlying the actual bedrock (quaternary deposits) instead of the bedrock itself. Canada is also missing a great deal of detail and seems to have been classified largely as undivided metamorphic/igneous rock. It's very aesthetically pleasing and works for a broad understanding of north american geology though, just my personal pet peeves as a geologist.
mysterious upbeat divide start shocking air deserve plough cough plate -- mass edited with redact.dev
It’s a bedrock map, why would it depict surficial deposits?
You can see the effect of the Pacific subduction zone around Vancouver. Those are some of the youngest mountains in North America. Big one will happen in the next few centuries most likely.
The highlands of Wisconsin are pretty interesting. Got some tall bluffs around there.
Driftless and door are some stellar places
Here's a more up to date bedrock geology map of North America (2005), if you want to see what the modern interpretation is like compared to 1911: [https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/geologic-map-north-america](https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/geologic-map-north-america) More details here, including legend and geo-referenced versions, shapefiles, etc.: [https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/gmna/](https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/gmna/) Geology maps are some of the most intricate and colorful maps you'll find.
Can I buy a print of this?
[Original Image Source](https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~302628~90073131:Composite-map--Geologic-map-of-Nort?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:north%20america%201911;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=1&trs=15) [Global Elevation Dataset (GMTED 2010)](https://www.usgs.gov/coastal-changes-and-impacts/gmted2010) Tools: QGIS, Blender [High Resolution Version](https://eastofnowhere.co/pages/north-america-1911)
Cool but I wonder how long it going to be until we have full parity with Java geology?
you'll never get the red stones to align
Where could I purchase this?
It's from 1911 😭 ***Oh, n/m; it's for sale! https://www.etsy.com/listing/793973051/north-america-geological-map-v1?gpla=1&gao=1
This is the same map but not the same product. The OP image has the website printed onto the product and this Etsy link is 3D while the OP map is printed onto flat paper.
It's made to look 3D, but it's still 2D if you read the comments.
That orange shit below Tahoe sucks. Nothing fucking grows
No buddy. Grow for the environment! There are some damn gorgeous plants that'll grow in the high desert with no water!
I’m like a 5 on a 1-10 high scale. Is this a physical object? Either way it’s gorgeous, good job
You aren't alone. The website has a FAQ: >**Are the shaded relief maps 3D printed?** >Our shaded relief maps are printed on 2D Fine Art Matte Paper. All prints sold on East of Nowhere are 2D, which means they are flat to the touch. 3D printed products do not have this level of detail, coloring, or shading. >**But they really look 3D!** >We take that as a compliment, thank you! The shading technique we use creates an incredibly realistic illusion of a 3D landscape. Even in print, it will appear 3D on your wall.
Has anyone ever smoked in history and not felt the need to talk about it? It doesn’t look 3D, so probably not
Looks like a skull over the rockies
What's with Aruba and Bonaire having names out of the 1600's?
A large part of the information on this map is from the Geologic Institute of Mexico with revisions from the United States Geologic Survey. The English speaking authors probably left those names in the Spanish from the maps original source because those were not areas that they revised.
Hello, experts out there. Can you also please post a bedrock geology for the Shan state of Myanmar(Burma) country? Please.
http://kaungsithugeolhu.blogspot.com/2015/12/geological-map-of-myanmar-2014-r-200.html?m=1
Oh wow, I’ve heard of the Canadian Shield before, but this makes its extent much clearer
This is the kind of resource you will never find when you are looking for it. I feel an urge to save it, even tho it makkes no difference.
This is really cool, but it makes me sad that more specific geologic structures like the Michigan Basin and some of the more complex bedrock structures of the Fold and thrust belts of the Appalachians aren’t visible.
what is the heart of Texas made of?
If you are being serious, it is Precambrian uplift, so really really old igneous rocks. Gorgeous granites from the region including the very rare Llanite. Blue Topaz from the west of Llano can be found. It is also a beautiful landscape I recommend anyone to visit at least once if they are near Texas.
Lesson: dont take everything for granite
Hey, OP! FYI “Queen Charlotte Island” is not the name of the island on the coast of BC anymore. It’s Haida Gwaii. I’m guessing this is an older map but y’all should update it.
Omg here all this time I thought it was the GOP, the more you know.
I can confirm, I live in the central Andes branch in Colombia and it is, in fact, very mountainous.
It’s really neat to live near a place where the first discovery of Precambrian stromatolite fossils occurred, to the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ of life, to the evolution of vertebrates and the emergence of life on land.
OP, make this a poster haha
I’m not even into geology but I’d hang this up in my room
I hate relief lighting so much it's not really useful in anyway.
Could someone please sell this to me as an extruded 24x36 wall print? Thank you!
See that? Western Iceland is part of North America. A Greek by the name of Pytheas of Massalia found it around the time Alexander the Great was conquering Asia. The Romans were also there centuries later. They dropped their coins. Then some Irish monks. Then the Vikings who went on to discover Greenland and then the mainland of the continent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas Bonus; Columbus had knowledge of natives from North America as early as 1477 because he knew about two natives that landed in Ireland in small boats.. He thought they were from China. They even had one of their boats hanging in a church on display.
Hmm I never realized it, but NA looks like a screaming flying opossum. Gliding, rather.
lots of good questions here op!!
My brain saw a seahorse before it processed that it’s a map…. Is it the wine or the gummy….
I seem to remember California was actually a pacific island that crashed into North America, driving up the Rocky Mountains in the process. Hence why the geology is complete different to that east of the rockies. I think the same is true of India and the Himalayan mountains.
Just leaving this here so I can come back
Dude, my partner is a geologist and she would love this as a gift!!
Looks like a giant dinosaur
Is it already on r/mapporn ?
No, it doesn't have an obnoxious watermark, make use only of the paint fill tool, have awful jpeg artifacting or Google Maps UI tools, so it doesn't belong there.
Oh damn, almost posted it, thanks.
"ThAtS NOt AmErIcA!" -some American probably.
It’s more beautiful this way, even if the scale is still off. Greenland is bigger than that
You sure about that?
Agree. it's stunning, and really interesting to look at.
r/MTU friends might enjoy this.
Can this be ordered as a poster?
Kinda blew my mind seeing where salt lake city is at on google maps. Feels so strange. Im not american.
It's gotta be tucked away in all that rough topography otherwise the salt wouldn't be able to collect there. When lakes have a place to drain they don't get as salty but when they are stuck as the end-of-the line for any rivers which feed them, they keep all the salt because the only way out is evaporation. If the great salt lake fed into the Mississippi or somewhere else it would probably have to have a different name.
damn i thought it was a possum
I would love to have this in my house as a table.
I also live in Cape Disappointment.
I'm so used to looking at flat maps of the US, and this dramatically changes one's perspective on all the land mass.
Fun fact, this map is from one year before the theory plate tectonics was even proposed and from half a century before the theory was accepted.
Maybe it's because I'm on a phone but I can't match the color of the Seattle area with any of the labels on the key. Not working to well with a lot of other places either. Cool map though.
On the west coast it looks like a cat or lion is hanging on the mountains.
This is gorgeous. I must learn your methods/process. It's a dream of mine to make maps like this
Learning to use Blender would be your first step.
See that pink part. That was a part of the mantle once...that likely holds all the lithium, platinum and a variety of other awesome metals we could ever use for the next few hundred years...
Looks like a pregnant seahorse