|Submited on :||Thu, 11th of Oct 2018 - 22:50:37 PM|
|Post ID :||9namsh|
|Post Name :||t3_9namsh|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2tk95|
Thank you for your Original Content, /u/thearrowhead!
Here is some important information about this post:
Nice! I kind of wonder how much of that land is national parkland, versus privately-owned land that is 'at risk' of development, but that's something I should look up on my own.
Dumb question - I'm assuming the great lakes are considered navigable waterways, but are left in so we can see the upper boundary?
A huge part of Texas and Oklahoma are basically untouched but are privately owned, does that take them out of the black? Because the Blackland Prairie is hardly on here and it produces more oxygen than the rainforest per acre. That is some untouched land.
You guys are lucky. Greetings from Europe. (Areas in red are those predominantly shaped by man.)
I feel like there might be a couple patches of missing data for certain small parts of North Dakota. I'm particularly concerned that more land is reserved for use as crop land, pasture land, and Industrial areas involved in Gravel pits, Iron Mining, coal mining, and obviously oil.
There is probably a higher ratio of industrial land usage around Williston than there is human population density.
Surprised the authors apparently don't consider logging to be "human footprint." Most of the timber land in western Washington and Oregon, including BLM and National Forest lands but (mostly) excluding National Park land, has been logged at one time or another. Yet much of that land is dark on the map.
It’s bizarre to me how much of the Dakotas are in the black. They’re covered in farms and ranches. To me, the amount of the US that feels like wilderness is far less than the black areas on the map.
You'll never find open areas in the central-east that don't have at least roads. Even places like the Smokies.
I feel like parts of NH are understated. It looks like only the Great North Woods has any "wilderness", but I know there are plenty of 1 square km areas in the White Mountain National Forest that are untouched by roads, crops and lights. Most of it is completely undeveloped.
smoky mountains is so developed that it's white on this map despite being a "great outdoors" national park
Question: why are some Great Lakes included in a map about “wilderness”?
Crazy to see the density of settlement that's still to this day reaching east to west post colonisation
I call bullshit. Have you ever been to northern nevada? There should one giant nevada shaped area in there. I have been there many times and there is nothing there.
Parts of Minnesota appear to be inaccurate. If crop land is considered human footprint then nearly all of the west central and southwest areas of the state at least should be white. Instead just the major highways and towns are not dark. There are some protected small wetlands and lakes but most counties are otherwise fully farmed. And definitely have been for decades.
You black out the entirety of the Great Lakes as if they haven't been polluted or affected in any way. I don't want to say that's disingenuous but I don't think it's right.
It's not this bad. There's more wild land remaining than this image indicates, such as appalachia, large chunks of Tennessee, and areas in Pac NW. However, we must retain natural areas at all costs.