|
Rah! posted:Bloodvein river? Artery Lake? Are you sure that's a map of Canada, and not Mordor? Mordor has fewer mosquitoes.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:It's the middle of the 19th century. You're involved in settling and administering a Great Plains territory. The land is good for farming, but is devoid of geographical features aside from the Missouri river. Every city that will become a major city later on is either currently a solitary trading post, a minor frontier fort or will have to be made out of whole cloth by you. I would divide it so it would spell my name in giant letters across the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 21:21
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:It's the middle of the 19th century. You're involved in settling and administering a Great Plains territory. The land is good for farming, but is devoid of geographical features aside from the Missouri river. Every city that will become a major city later on is either currently a solitary trading post, a minor frontier fort or will have to be made out of whole cloth by you. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:It's the middle of the 19th century. You're involved in settling and administering a Great Plains territory. The land is good for farming, but is devoid of geographical features aside from the Missouri river. Every city that will become a major city later on is either currently a solitary trading post, a minor frontier fort or will have to be made out of whole cloth by you. You're saying 19th century administrators did not have any imagination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Oops, now I feel stupid. Exploring more it just seems that small bodies of water show up darker on satellite images, which makes sense. (And for the record, I wasn't imagining giant pools of oil, but maybe some kind of strip mine or "tar sands" since I had no idea what those were. Not sure if that's more or less embarrassing than giant pools of oil.) If you ever wonder what strip mining looks like look for ground that looks like this:  All that yellowish colored ground? Former strip mine. The lake with the grey square over in the southeast corner, current strip mine. edit:  All those flashes are mining. (Except for the line that appears at the end that's an interstate) Peanut President fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:You're saying 19th century administrators did not have any imagination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I'm sure both administrators and settlers would've been thrilled to deal with hexagonal lots, oblong plots of land and roads that wiggle in an 's' shape because somebody thought that grids look boring. No, he's on to something, I mean this looks a lot more interesting: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, he's on to something, I mean this looks a lot more interesting: Oh, where's the Circleville Squaring Company when you need it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Often water shows up darker because they tweak the colors with data from non-visible bands. It can make water, vegetation, and bare dirt/rock easier to tell apart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I'm sure both administrators and settlers would've been thrilled to deal with hexagonal lots, oblong plots of land and roads that wiggle in an 's' shape because somebody thought that grids look boring. Years of wargaming has shown me that the best way to lay maps down is in hexagons. Grids as a map are clearly inferior.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:You've never flown over "fly over" country? It's a grid like that stretching to the horizon, only interrupted by the odd river or town. I'm European, we tend to go for more bends in roads and basing our settlements on existing geographical features. I think it's just the imposition of such a clearly manmade structure without regard for the existing geography. Like a grid stretching out from the river would make sense but you feel like the people planning it would have considered the river a blight on their perfect system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:I'm European, we tend to go for more bends in roads and basing our settlements on existing geographical features. That's all well and good, but in flyover country, there are no geographical features to base our settlements on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:I'm European, we tend to go for more bends in roads and basing our settlements on existing geographical features.  Deva Victrix, now Chester, UK  Noviodunum/Noeodunum, now Jublains, France  Verulamium, now some ruins near St. Albans, UK
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:I'm European, we tend to go for more bends in roads and basing our settlements on existing geographical features. There is no existing geography in Kansas. It's literally hundreds of miles of flat plains from the Mississippi to the Rockies edit: probably ~80% or more of that area looks like this, minus the occasional patch of trees close to the Mississippi and/or slowly rolling hill   Also, the area west of the Mississippi, ie the area discussed above, is pretty significantly different from the area around the great lakes. The plains states have pretty much no people living there. Illinois or Ohio alone probably have as many people as all of these states combined icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Pakled posted:That's all well and good, but in flyover country, there are no geographical features to base our settlements on. Note that the conventional definition of flyover country is typically "everything not literally on the coast of an ocean or Great Lake".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
I've always held the belief that it was mostly everything between the Mississippi and the Rockies and north of Texas.
Ethiser fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Yeah, cities are usually built on grids (when possible. sometimes they have to merge multiple competing grids together into a tangled mess). But that's because it makes it easier to navigate a densely-packed population center. In a city, every block contains many potential destinations, so the grid provides easy routes to all of them. I guess it's just weird to see such a perfect, omnipresent grid out in such a sparse area. Like, you'd expect more obvious arteries, with other roads only connecting actual places you'd travel to. How many of those roads actually get used? Now that there are actual major cities to connect, why is the grid maintained so perfectly, instead of merging more and more of the cells for larger fields and more flexible use? quote:Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:How many of those roads actually get used? Now that there are actual major cities to connect, why is the grid maintained so perfectly, instead of merging some cells for larger fields? They're not. Most of those roads are dirt or gravel, except for 5 or 6 multilane expressways with nearly all of the traffic. As for farm plots, most farms are multimillion dollar businesses, so maybe it's just more efficient to keep it like that for access and such? I'm not a farmer, I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:The Romans didn't roll like that. They may line some part of a new settlement up with a geographical feature, but the rest would be straight grids beyond that. Yeah the Romans are pretty much the perfect European example of this, aside from Rome itself of course I doubt it would ever be possible to give that city a rational street plan even after millennia, several fires and sackings, and ancient and modern redevelopment its still a mess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:How many of those roads actually get used? Now that there are actual major cities to connect, why is the grid maintained so perfectly, instead of merging some cells for larger fields? Historically speaking, all the roads were used, as access to fields and homes that were usually all owned by different people. Not heavy or even medium use, but still required. And I'm not sure about PLSS, but the Dominion Land Survey provides the minimum numbers of roads practicable. Now that the farming industry is starting to consolidate you could get away with consolidating fields, but that assumes that the roads are owned by the field owners (they don't), and that you wouldn't want to keep the fields separate for reasons of administration (different crops, different water or maintenance requirements, multiple crews, or just that you can't cover all the fields in a day).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 00:50
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:I'm European, we tend to go for more bends in roads and basing our settlements on existing geographical features. Grids are an easy way to lay things out in a nice, orderly, and intuitive fashion, and that's why road systems are often laid out like that. It also makes it more efficient to get around a city, I'f I'm not mistaken. And grids have been around in Europe since Roman times. You talk about your superior bendy roads, but deny your own grid heritage. Check mate you road layout elitist  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_plan#Roman_grid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_plan#Europe_and_its_colonies e: f;b As for one reason why Europe has more curvy roads, I remember reading somewhere that some of the major roads in London were originally cattle trails or something, and that's why they're windy today. I'm sure the same (or similar) is true for many cities around the world that can trace their history back many centuries. Also, American settlements conform to geographical features too for the most part. For example, hilly areas will usually (but not always) have windier roads, while surrounding flat areas will often be gridded. Also, our lovely 20th/21st century suburban developments are no stranger at all to windy roads, especially on the east coast and in the south, in my experience. Even some central cities have tons of windy roads, and a lack of a continuous street grid. Asheville, NC for example. But sometimes the street grid says "gently caress you" to topography: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cybergabi/13926962660/sizes/l
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
And grids really are a pretty decent way to layout a city. Extremely easy to navigate. Does get a little hellish when you look down on it from above, but that's not how you ever look at it for real.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Maybe it's apocryphal, but San Francisco's grid was supposedly drawn up by someone who had no experience building roads so he didn't stop to think that maybe drawing those nice straight lines up and down 20% grades wasn't a good idea. Or maybe he was working with a map that didn't show topo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Rah! posted:
withak posted:Maybe it's apocryphal, but San Francisco's grid was supposedly drawn up by someone who had no experience building roads so he didn't stop to think that maybe drawing those nice straight lines up and down 20% grades wasn't a good idea. Or maybe he was working with a map that didn't show topo. E: Please preferably answer with a map of San Francisco and/or show where the grades are, as the only experience I have with San Francisco literally comes from watching "The Streets of San Francisco" fade5 fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Dumb question, but what exactly would you do in San Francisco to not have such steep streets? Pre-level the land beforehand?  but with more buildings and not lazily drawn in paint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:You could have the streets be a bit more of a switchback, which would be a bit of a bother in terms of navigation but would at least have gentler grades to deal with. Something like E:  Here we go, here's a map of San Francisco's height; drat, what were they thinking?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Dumb question, but what exactly would you do in San Francisco to not have such steep streets? Pre-level the land beforehand?  It's basically built by me in Sim City 4 by dragging RCI districts across giant swaths of mountains and letting it auto-place roads. EDIT: I'm dumb, that's a map called "if crime were elevation." The real thing isn't exactly much better though. Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Ideally the roads run at an angle, or zig-zag up steep hills, zigging as often as necessary to keep the grade flatter than some acceptable value. The parts of the SF area built in the 20th century do this. Compare the street grid in Daly City for instance to that in the NE corner of SF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Dumb question, but what exactly would you do in San Francisco to not have such steep streets? Pre-level the land beforehand? SF definitely doesn't cover all hills in a continuous street grid, as you can see in the map posted above by fade5. The hilliest parts of SF are in the center of the city, and weren't developed until the mid 20th century, and they do have a lot of curving/angled roads...though it still is basically a grid pattern i guess. It's just one that's deformed so the streets can follow the path of least resistance up the hills. withak posted:Maybe it's apocryphal, but San Francisco's grid was supposedly drawn up by someone who had no experience building roads so he didn't stop to think that maybe drawing those nice straight lines up and down 20% grades wasn't a good idea. Or maybe he was working with a map that didn't show topo. I don't know the story behind the original street layout, but 20% grade? Psshhh, the 10 steepest stretches of street in the city (which aren't on the biggest central hills, as one might expect), which were mostly developed in an unbroken grid pattern in the 1800s/early 1900s, are all above 30% grade. It's a good thing it almost never freezes/snows here, and that when it does, it melts in like 20 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
There's one pretty famous street in San Francisco that got over its steepness problem: While we're on grids, here's some politically-loaded maps courtesy of Leopold Kohr.   
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Is that a real picture? The light patterns seem really grid-like in the middle there, seems odd to me. Though maybe there's just a bunch of intersecting grid-like roads in those states, and towns formed at the intersections? It all starts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Any maps of what the various powers expected to gain as a result of WW1? Every single country seems to have wanted to be greedy and increase their land area colour of the map for no good reasons. I would be really interested in the answer to this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:There's one pretty famous street in San Francisco that got over its steepness problem: "Coast State" would be a pretty cool state. Aside from the name. As for that street in SF (Lombard street), here's Dirty Harry driving down it's less known, more crooked cousin, Vermont street: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNJdMiFXQAM They were built like that because they were too steep for most cars and people with wheelchairs, according to Wikipedia...but there are a bunch of steeper streets in the city that are straight. Maybe the city decided it was too expensive to bother with doing the same thing to the others. Rah! fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Note that the conventional definition of flyover country is typically "everything not literally on the coast of an ocean or Great Lake". Flyover country is entirely "Everything between the Atlantic and Pacific not named Chicago".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Dumb question, but what exactly would you do in San Francisco to not have such steep streets? Pre-level the land beforehand? Well hey it worked for Seattle! (After a good chunk of the city was destroyed in a fire)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Rah! posted:"Coast State" would be a pretty cool state. Aside from the name. When I went to SF I walked down Lombard to check it out and some rear end in a top hat rich guy almost ran me over as he was pulling out of his fancy house in his fancy car going way too fast. That's my San Francisco road story thanks for listening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Flyover country is entirely "Everything between the Atlantic and Pacific not named Chicago". I thought it was 'anything that's not New York or LA'. Surely Charleston and Savannah don't count.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:When I went to SF I walked down Lombard to check it out and some rear end in a top hat rich guy almost ran me over as he was pulling out of his fancy house in his fancy car going way too fast. You will be pleased to learn that it is temporarily being closed to vehicular traffic on weekends. Though apparently the people that live there were shocked at the crowds of pedestrians that turned up the first weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
So what exactly was the criteria for dividing up the US like this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 03:53
|
|
