Canadian Maps and Graphics

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by wave46

Kelowna's at ~350m. Kamloops is similar. Prince George is ~575m. Fort St. John is at ~690m.

Saskatoon is at 481 meters elevation
and Regina is at 577 meters, almost at exactly the same elevation as Prince George. Which makes anything above 1300 meters in either of the two provinces seem rather high in elevation as compared to valley bottoms or the Plains below.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Going full circle (bouclons la boucle), Fermont is actually pretty "high", at over 600 m.

So that would make it one of the cities with the highest elevation in the province, but it looks rather flat. Prominence is more telling than elevation when it comes to determine the “wow factor” of a mountain imo. Those hills behind Fermont probably have an elevation of 700 m but they look like baby hills with a prominence of 100 m.

[lio45]

Exactly.

I'm pretty familiar with Amarillo, Texas (in the "high plains"). I just looked the elevation just for fun: 1100m! And plenty of areas around that city are prairie as flat as a sheet of paper, as far as the eye can see.

Having just crossed the BC interior, Rockies, Alberta, Saskatchewan, in a row, I can tell you that while SK isn't perfectly flat (the flattest I've seen along the TCH was Manitoba, I'd say the area before and near Winnipeg), it's still pretty damn flat. There are elevation changes, sure, but they're spread over large-ish distances.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

Since I'm on this thread, another couple maps...

Population Density map of Canada.

Something I've never really thought of before is how Saskatchewan's main population is spread diagonally across the province from SouthEast to NorthWest, in the same angle as Saskatoon/Regina vector.
Where as Alberta's is vertical from South to North, Calgary to Edmonton.

Subdivisions around Montréal are so tiny. There are about 1.1M people living on the North Shore (including Laval) and about 1.3M on the South Shore.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

That's surprising. Even the Ontario portion of Canadian Shield only has a median height of 300 m (though the area around Ignace can get up to 500 m).

I wonder if it's related to the fact that the glaciers extended further south in the east and retreated from the west earlier. You can see that southern parts of the western provinces are subsiding while there is still significant rebound in the east.

[Calgarian]

What jumps out at me from that map is how sparsely populated BC is. Makes sense though, not many people live where there are big mountains, just in the valleys below.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I wonder if it's related to the fact that the glaciers extended further south in the east and retreated from the west earlier. You can see that southern parts of the western provinces are subsiding while there is still significant rebound in the east.

That probably is the main reason, ice on the Southern Prairies would have been relatively thin as compared to down east, plus the fact any area covered with ice age glacier would have been scoured flat from the ice.
Cypress Hills in Saskatchewan and the extreme Southern part of foothills in Alberta was the only part of any Canadian Provinces not covered in ice during last ice age.




10,000 years ago BC, Ontario and Quebec were the only provinces still mostly covered in ice.



https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC31...uid=a09f5cbf-0a26-4678-8e47-1f11431d1833

[wave46]

I have a quibble with that population density map.

The upper bound of the grading is far too low and some areas far too large for useful comparison.

Toronto's density as per the map expands north past Barrie. That's not reality on the ground. The density drops off quickly north of Highway 7. It also looks as if Toronto is as densely populated as Regina. Again, not really.

Calgary and Edmonton are one homogeneous mass. You'd think it would be the equivalent of the Northeast megalopolis by that map. There's ~250km of sparsely populated farmland (fine, and Red Deer too) between those cities.

It does sort of give an idea of population density, but it definitely is skewed oddly.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by wave46

I have a quibble with that population density map.

The main issue with the map is that it's not a population density map. It seems to be based on population of census divisions, but the area of census divisions is not consistent. If they want to show population distribution, map either the density of the census divisions, or do a dot density map.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by jamincan

The main issue with the map is that it's not a population density map. It seems to be based on population of census divisions, but the area of census divisions is not consistent. If they want to show population distribution, map either the density of the census divisions, or do a dot density map.

It's very odd ... they colour in each census division to indicate its total population and then un-colour all the areas within the district that are basically unpopulated. So it is partly showing total population and partly showing one end of the density scale.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jamincan

The main issue with the map is that it's not a population density map. It seems to be based on population of census divisions, but the area of census divisions is not consistent. If they want to show population distribution, map either the density of the census divisions, or do a dot density map.

Agreed. There used to be an interactive census dot map for all of North America on the web. Sadly it is no longer available. I did find one screen grab of a map of North America however:

[wave46]

Originally Posted by jamincan

The main issue with the map is that it's not a population density map. It seems to be based on population of census divisions, but the area of census divisions is not consistent. If they want to show population distribution, map either the density of the census divisions, or do a dot density map.

You're correct.

It still has a weirdly low upper bound. Canada has census divisions of 500k, 1 million and 2 million. It just seems bizarre to lump them in together, as if lumping in people with annual incomes of $55,000 with multi-millionaires into the same batch and calling them all 'rich'.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by wave46

You're correct.

It still has a weirdly low upper bound. Canada has census divisions of 500k, 1 million and 2 million. It just seems bizarre to lump them in together, as if lumping in people with annual incomes of $55,000 with multi-millionaires into the same batch and calling them all 'rich'.

The people who hate the 1%ers do just that. 90% of the 1%ers are simply upper middle class, yet they are lumped in with the tech billionaires..........

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by lio45

Do you know where the fuck this town is? It's in remote Northern Quebec. That's like me using Uranium City weather data for "Saskatchewan" (and bolding it).

Except he didn't use Fermont as a representation of Quebec weather. And this is a public forum.... leave the trashy language/behaviour at home.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

Population Density map of Canada.

Something I've never really thought of before is how Saskatchewan's main population is spread diagonally across the province from SouthEast to NorthWest, in the same angle as Saskatoon/Regina vector.
Where as Alberta's is vertical from South to North, Calgary to Edmonton.

That southeast to northwest population vector actually starts in Kenora, Ontario and continues in a fairly straight line through the prairie all the way to Dawson Creek, BC.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by isaidso

That southeast to northwest population vector actually starts in Kenora, Ontario and continues in a fairly straight line through the prairie all the way to Dawson Creek, BC.

And Dawson Creek is lso Prairie. A lesser mentioned part of BC.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Except he didn't use Fermont as a representation of Quebec weather. And this is a public forum.... leave the trashy language/behaviour at home.

thank's isaidso, I appreciate you reining in some of the trash talk on this thread.

I also found out from private message that he was my hometown stalker from earlier in the week apparently










That Census Dotmap of North America is interesting, gives the impression that Minneapolis is more populous than LA & San Diego combined,
and Salt Lake City has just as many people as Miami, who knew

[MolsonExport]

I am finding it extremely hard to swallow that someone would actually feel it necessary to "warn you" about Lio passing through Saskatchewan. I mean, I believe that someone sent you that PM, but I cannot for the life of me understand how someone could ever think that Lio could represent a threat in such a manner. And moreover, I am shocked at how poor that person's grammar is.

[MonkeyRonin]

Who knew that passing through a city was stalking... Good thing Lio didn't stop in Toronto on his drive across the country - wouldn't want to have to worry about a "stocker" here!

[lio45]

I was actually pretty kind to your hometown, all things considered.

Trust me, you don't want to hear what MolsonEx (or, more generally, all the SSPers active in the Soul-Sucking Buildings thread) would have to say about, for example, this section of Jasper Street:

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9082984,...6RmOr5zw8mfaqLUAGhtBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


... maybe you're better off having everyone on ignore, in the end