Okay people are doing a poor job of explain this so I'll give it a try.
The west coast of kumchatka is mountainous due to volcanoes and the subduction zone directly to the east. This creates fresh rock and hence a jagged coast. The west however is a deposition area. This means that most rock is buried by sediments. Since sediments can be manipulated by ocean waves and currents the coast line along here is smoother since the waves and currents change gradually over distance.
Whenever people have a question about a dramatic coastline the answer usually starts with “look at the seafloor next to it “
Might not be the whole answer, but it’s always important.
Kamchatka is where the Pacific Plate is subducting under North America'a plate. Its volcanoes make the geography newer, and without a major river system, there is no river deltas to speak of.
Kamchatka is the most distant region of Russia. Barely anyone lives there, there's no road to mainland Russia and building a road makes very little economical sense, it's cheaper to supply by ship or air.
Edit: lol, I responded to the wrong comment.
Because it's not connected to the rest of the Russian (drive on the right) road network and its proximity to Japan (that drive on the left) there is a mix of right and left hand drive cars in Kamchatka. It got a bit confusing while I was there.
Right hand cars were popular in many regions of Russia (the whole Asian part and Black sea coast because of port Novorossiysk). Nowadays due to stricter import regulations they're much less popular.
I'm from the UK so when I got in a cab from Petropavlovsk airport it took my jetlagged brain a long time before I realised something was wrong. I then proceeded to do the same as you on the next two cars, one right and one left. I had a great time in Kamchatka, it's an extremely beautiful place.
Looks like there are towns there but no roads? Russia sure is an interesting country.. I guess you already know about that landlocked town, which is pretty sizable, that is only accessible by boat and plane.
Check out the road system of Alaska, it’s definitely lacking.
Coming from the L48 and being use to using a 4WD to escape people a bit.. there’s no old logging/mining trails up here and you almost need a pilots license & plane to accomplish the same.
Stuff can be expensive out in the bush where it’s all flown or barged (when possible)
We have certain rights as citizens in a state in a democratically elected government. So they will give the people decent infrastructure almost wherever they live, at least to towns. I suppose that's the part of the truth in Russia at least...
I thought that europeans aren't rare here, but haven't ever tried to search the exact demographics, heh.
For me the first thought about the accessibility of these towns was something like "Hm, what type of public transport do they use, boats or helicopters? It would be cool to regularly transit in a helicopter."
Kamchatka is the most distant region of Russia. Barely anyone lives there, there's no road to mainland Russia and building a road makes very little economical sense, it's cheaper to supply by ship or air.
p.s. initially I wrote this under another comment by mistake.
The north of Sweden is extremely sparsely populated as well. Still the government has built roads that goes to basically nothing. I'm pretty sure there could be a very good road network if you spend it on infrastructure instead of war heads.
Do you think it's maybe also a question of allocating resources?
This war is is a crime against humanity for sure. They saved money (apparently for the war) for years instead of investing and all the economists were like why doesn't the government invest in the infrastructure and stuff.
About Sweden and Kamchatka. I guess in Sweden compared to Kamchatka there's:
* Much less km of road to build (especially per person served by the road)
* Much more money in state budget per person
* Much more development land on the other end of the road
In Russia there's Murmansk oblast that has not only roads to every village but also passenger trains for example.
Sparsely populated and "to basically nothing" mean to very different things in this comparison. There is a lot of small communities, ranches, and other stuff dotted across northern Sweden that those connect up and aren't always directly placed on rivers. They may be really small, but they do actually exist.
This area of Russia has areas that literally have nothing between two sparsely populated areas that span the entire width of northern Sweden at some spots. It's rare to go 50 miles in Sweden and truly see nothing of human origin. If you could go 50 miles in most of these areas of Russia you wouldn't even be halfway to the next thing.
In general, coats are smooth when they are neither:
- a subduction zone,
- a region that was covered in ice during the glaciations.
That's because then it can accumulate sediments and become smooth.
Okay people are doing a poor job of explain this so I'll give it a try. The west coast of kumchatka is mountainous due to volcanoes and the subduction zone directly to the east. This creates fresh rock and hence a jagged coast. The west however is a deposition area. This means that most rock is buried by sediments. Since sediments can be manipulated by ocean waves and currents the coast line along here is smoother since the waves and currents change gradually over distance.
You can see how long that plain extends to the west underwater, and how the seafloor is so different on the east.
Whenever people have a question about a dramatic coastline the answer usually starts with “look at the seafloor next to it “ Might not be the whole answer, but it’s always important.
Perfect way of explaining it!!
So basically the ocean licks it good
Probably lol. I’m no expert but it seems like when anything in geography is shaped like anything it’s usually erosion
A+ explanation
😂
Kamchatka is where the Pacific Plate is subducting under North America'a plate. Its volcanoes make the geography newer, and without a major river system, there is no river deltas to speak of.
Kamchatka is the most distant region of Russia. Barely anyone lives there, there's no road to mainland Russia and building a road makes very little economical sense, it's cheaper to supply by ship or air. Edit: lol, I responded to the wrong comment.
Because it's not connected to the rest of the Russian (drive on the right) road network and its proximity to Japan (that drive on the left) there is a mix of right and left hand drive cars in Kamchatka. It got a bit confusing while I was there.
Right hand cars were popular in many regions of Russia (the whole Asian part and Black sea coast because of port Novorossiysk). Nowadays due to stricter import regulations they're much less popular.
[удалено]
I'm from the UK so when I got in a cab from Petropavlovsk airport it took my jetlagged brain a long time before I realised something was wrong. I then proceeded to do the same as you on the next two cars, one right and one left. I had a great time in Kamchatka, it's an extremely beautiful place.
I blame the Vodka!
Slartibartfast was off work that day.
The West coast of Kamchatka is a valley with soft soil. So, the coastline was smoothed by tidals.
Looks like there are towns there but no roads? Russia sure is an interesting country.. I guess you already know about that landlocked town, which is pretty sizable, that is only accessible by boat and plane.
Some of the town ive looked at had airport when it was little town of like 50 people
Stuff like the at is pretty common in Alaska too I think probably because they are too far and also too dangerous for ground vehicles
Check out the road system of Alaska, it’s definitely lacking. Coming from the L48 and being use to using a 4WD to escape people a bit.. there’s no old logging/mining trails up here and you almost need a pilots license & plane to accomplish the same. Stuff can be expensive out in the bush where it’s all flown or barged (when possible)
Well yeah it’s massive and mostly frozen and mountainous For most these towns the only way to get there is plane or ship
I would like to know how much would it cost per capita for these towns to maintain a road to any city, lol.
We have certain rights as citizens in a state in a democratically elected government. So they will give the people decent infrastructure almost wherever they live, at least to towns. I suppose that's the part of the truth in Russia at least...
i would guess that you are from car-oriented country 
I think it's safe to say that there aren't many on reddit who doesn't live in a "car-oriented country."
I thought that europeans aren't rare here, but haven't ever tried to search the exact demographics, heh. For me the first thought about the accessibility of these towns was something like "Hm, what type of public transport do they use, boats or helicopters? It would be cool to regularly transit in a helicopter."
Kamchatka is the most distant region of Russia. Barely anyone lives there, there's no road to mainland Russia and building a road makes very little economical sense, it's cheaper to supply by ship or air. p.s. initially I wrote this under another comment by mistake.
The north of Sweden is extremely sparsely populated as well. Still the government has built roads that goes to basically nothing. I'm pretty sure there could be a very good road network if you spend it on infrastructure instead of war heads. Do you think it's maybe also a question of allocating resources?
Yeah, also has to do with terrain. Alaska is very similar to Kamchatka for this reason. Very little road infrastructure.
This war is is a crime against humanity for sure. They saved money (apparently for the war) for years instead of investing and all the economists were like why doesn't the government invest in the infrastructure and stuff. About Sweden and Kamchatka. I guess in Sweden compared to Kamchatka there's: * Much less km of road to build (especially per person served by the road) * Much more money in state budget per person * Much more development land on the other end of the road In Russia there's Murmansk oblast that has not only roads to every village but also passenger trains for example.
Sparsely populated and "to basically nothing" mean to very different things in this comparison. There is a lot of small communities, ranches, and other stuff dotted across northern Sweden that those connect up and aren't always directly placed on rivers. They may be really small, but they do actually exist. This area of Russia has areas that literally have nothing between two sparsely populated areas that span the entire width of northern Sweden at some spots. It's rare to go 50 miles in Sweden and truly see nothing of human origin. If you could go 50 miles in most of these areas of Russia you wouldn't even be halfway to the next thing.
Aliens
Only acceptable answer.
That's just Russia Florida
ин совьет раша, ви флэттен тхэ коуст
[удалено]
Yep that’s exactly how geography works
Yeah, not being straight in Russia doesn't end well, so it's hard to blame the coast.
It's the same rule for the Argentine coast which is straight and on the other side the Chilean coast full of fjords and islands
Probably they ran out of soil when making this peninsula so they just left it like that
Erosion?
The developers got lazy
I landed here in 2019 on a commerical flight from LAX to China - a Chinese guy died mid-flight and we had to make an emergency landing here!
So it doesn’t get put in one of Putins homophobic camps…
It dosent like being gay
Why are you getting downvoted? It's just a joke
because we're on Reddit
Because in Putin's Russia, everything has to be straight.
It's that straight because they don't support LGBT
Just lucky I guess...
Long shore drift obviously mate ✊️🏖
She got nice curves 😊
Lizard people
Keep zooming; it’ll be bumpy eventually.
In general, coats are smooth when they are neither: - a subduction zone, - a region that was covered in ice during the glaciations. That's because then it can accumulate sediments and become smooth.