undefined | Better HN

0 pointscronix7y ago0 comments

Except that the new map makes it seem as though California is some lush, green, tropical land. I think the green is way over-emphasized on the new map compared to the old, which is a bit more realistic looking to my eyes.

0 comments

rconti7y ago

The arbitrary transition from green to brown on the old maps, when in reality, there is no such transition, is the real problem. When navigating by foot those shapes SHOULD be accurate; I care less about the legal boundaries of the exact park and more about what i'm seeing as I walk around.

ariwilson7y ago

Why do you care that the map represents the green parts accurately? How does that enhance your walking experience?

IMO 99% of the time people use maps to get to destinations, so maps should be focused on destinations, not shapes (insofar as the shapes don't prevent you from getting to your destination).

theoh7y ago

The shape of e.g. a wooded area can be important for orientation when on foot.

But really, maps are nothing but shapes (streets, waterways, coastlines) that constrain navigation on the ground, so it's difficult to make sense of your proposed focus on destinations to the exclusion of shapes.

1 more reply

TylerE7y ago

If you're navigating on foot why aren't you using a topo map?

saagarjha7y ago

Have you seen California in satellite view? It's mostly green.

kaikai7y ago

In the spring maybe. For much of the year it's brown because it's desert, nonnative grassland, or city. Big chunks are forest, especially in the north, but brown is still dominant.

kristofferR7y ago

Sure, but brown areas on the map marks different types of areas, so they obviously can't use brown. Imagine how much of the world would look in the winter, it would just be a completely white map.

The colors of the map obviously can't be based on the season.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse