Canadian Maps and Graphics

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Under 15O metres, I’d wager.

Ah right on. I love the drive down Avenue Road, you really see the difference in elevation there.


I came across this beauty of the City of Calgary, it's a bit old (from 2009) but still holds up. Really shows you the steep cliffs surrounding downtown, and you can see the stark contrast of where the Prairies end in the eastern 1/3 of the city and the Foothills of the Rockies in the western 2/3...

The elevation difference between our highest and lowest points is about 320 meters...



http://www.mappery.com/Calgary-Topo-Bike-Map

[Architype]

https://maps-vancouver.com/vancouver-elevation-map#&gid=1&pid=1

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Topographic map of Toronto:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Topographical_Map_of_Toronto.png

Neat. I can see the ridge to the east of the DVP and south of the 401. That's where a relative of mine lives (NW of Vic Park and Lawrence) and it is really high. They get a nice breeze in summertime. Nice neighbourhood.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Not that flat!


An interesting look at the Manitoba at the 49th.

[Bishop2047]

NS and PEI



NB

[someone123]

The scale matters for these elevation maps. A change in elevation of 100 m over 1 km is very noticeable, but over 100 km it isn't.

That NS map is pretty low resolution or just kind of misleading. You can hit 150 m elevation in less than 3 km from the Bedford Basin. Parts of Clayton Park are 150 m. NS barely has real mountains but there are spots with 50 m+ cliffs (e.g. Eagle Rock in Bedford) that are pretty nice in person, while the highest elevation points (e.g. Blue Mountain peak) feel only marginally taller than the surrounding area. A lot of NS is "lumpy", with many small-ish hills of similar height and not much flat land, so the highest point in a given area doesn't necessarily stand out much.

[lio45]

One of my pet peeves is maps where the color spectrum for the scale goes from one extreme color to another based only on the data range that's in the map itself. For example, a photovoltaic potential map of Nunavut where Ellesmere Island is dark blue and the southern area near the Manitoba border is bright red.

Elevation maps can easily fall into that trap. A PEI map could have the scale calibrated so 140 m is dark brown and sea level is green, and it would look like a very mountaineous island at first sight (until the viewer decides to look at the actual numbers and realizes a more correct map would have the entire island in green, with the scale used being a continent-wide one where the values in brown and beige are just absent from the island).

[someone123]

It all depends on what you want to visualize and whether or not you're interpreting it correctly. If you want to see small changes in elevation on PEI then the scale that matches the elevations might make sense. If you're comparing PEI and NB in two maps you want the same scale. If you're looking for alpine environments you want the scale that shows you that; PEI has 0 such areas. The photovoltaic potential map maybe not so much if the goal is generating power and the potential is mediocre to bad everywhere.

Of course in climate discussions for Canada many people misapply this scaling by effectively saying that whatever's around the southermost end of the country is amazing while anything somewhat colder than that is intolerable and awful (often with extremely sparse/biased sampling techniques; just a couple arbitrary points rather than a filled in area like this).

[lio45]

Lots of erosion went on in PEI between the first map and the second map!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Of course in climate discussions for Canada many people misapply this scaling by effectively saying that whatever's around the southermost end of the country is amazing while anything somewhat colder than that is intolerable and awful (often with extremely sparse/biased sampling techniques; just a couple arbitrary points rather than a filled in area like this).

Paraphrasing George Carlin: "Any Canadian climate that's at least ever-so-slightly [colder and/or less sunny and/or snowier and/or rainier and/or less reliably hot in summer] than the climate of your home region is just unlivable."

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Lots of erosion went on in PEI between the first map and the second map!

While the light green spots are the most boring topographically they're also the most developed and economically successful. Those reddish bands in northern NS and southern NB are empty areas, and the one in NS is annoying because the main highway runs through it and it has worse than normal weather due to a combination of factors (elevation + storm track up Bay of Fundy). Plus it's tolled.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by someone123

...the one in NS is annoying because the main highway runs through it and it has worse than normal weather due to a combination of factors (elevation + storm track up Bay of Fundy). Plus it's tolled.

"Hey! You didn't get stuck in a snow squall! Awesome! That'll be four bucks..."

[Innsertnamehere]

I thought the Cobequid pass tolls were sent to the government and weren’t directly payable by drivers? I don’t recall paying a toll when I drove the road 5 years ago or so.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I thought the Cobequid pass tolls were sent to the government and weren’t directly payable by drivers? I don’t recall paying a toll when I drove the road 5 years ago or so.

No you definitely pay a toll when you drive through there. I paid it about 2 years ago on my last driving trip to Nova Scotia.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I thought the Cobequid pass tolls were sent to the government and weren’t directly payable by drivers? I don’t recall paying a toll when I drove the road 5 years ago or so.

Most of the TCH between Edmundston and Salisbury (west of Moncton) is private, with "shadow tolls" paid by the government.

The Cobequid Pass in NS sadly is still tolled. It is $4 for a passenger car each way.

[Metro-One]

I do hope that everyone here realizes that you are all comparing / displaying maps with completely different color gradients and vertical exaggerations.

That horizontal view of Manitoba is using a vertical exaggeration of 100X!

For example you can make Florida look like the Rocky Mountains if you give each metre of elevation a different color representation and or an extreme vertical exaggeration.

[MonctonRad]

We do (I do at least)

Here's a topographical map of Moncton:



I realize the relief is exaggerated, but it is meaningful nonetheless. It allows you to see the breadth of the Petitcodiac River Valley, and explains why the river takes that 90 degree bend at Moncton, heading WSW rather than NNW.

Lutes Mountain to the NW of Moncton may just rise to 220 metres, but that elevation change is enough to be meaningful. There are at least several times per year that the top of Lutes Mountain will have snow on it, but the land down in the city proper is bare.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

We do (I do at least)

Here's a topographical map of Moncton:



I realize the relief is exaggerated, but it is meaningful nonetheless. It allows you to see the breadth of the Petitcodiac River Valley, and explains why the river takes that 90 degree bend at Moncton, heading WSW rather than NNW.

Lutes Mountain to the NW of Moncton may just rise to 220 metres, but that elevation change is enough to be meaningful. There are at least several times per year that the top of Lutes Mountain will have snow on it, but the land down in the city proper is bare.

You would be surprised at how many people don’t actually look at the data parameters for a map or graph (good example of this was a map posted years ago after Fukushima that displayed ocean currents, but everyone saw “red” and “green” spots so assumed it meant radiation levels and freaked out sharing the misunderstood image like wildfire). This was actually when I started to realize that there are a lot of idiots in the world that lack critical thinking.

Likewise I am sure some here see shades of brown and white (high relief) and instantly assume high mountain tops! Also when you squeeze an entire cross section of a province into a single image, especially a relatively flat one with slow gradual changes in elevation, well for those changes in elevation to be any larger than the width of a hair you need to do extreme vertical exaggerations.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by lio45

One of my pet peeves is maps where the color spectrum for the scale goes from one extreme color to another based only on the data range that's in the map itself. For example, a photovoltaic potential map of Nunavut where Ellesmere Island is dark blue and the southern area near the Manitoba border is bright red.

Elevation maps can easily fall into that trap. A PEI map could have the scale calibrated so 140 m is dark brown and sea level is green, and it would look like a very mountaineous island at first sight (until the viewer decides to look at the actual numbers and realizes a more correct map would have the entire island in green, with the scale used being a continent-wide one where the values in brown and beige are just absent from the island).

Why would you want a continent-wide scale when what you’re interested in is local variations in PEI? They’re not drawing these things with SSP “My province is the bumpiest!” bragging threads as the #1 use case.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I do hope that everyone here realizes that you are all comparing / displaying maps with completely different color gradients and vertical exaggerations.

That horizontal view of Manitoba is using a vertical exaggeration of 100X!

For example you can make Florida look like the Rocky Mountains if you give each metre of elevation a different color representation and or an extreme vertical exaggeration.

You wouldn't want those stinkin hillbillies of fly-over country think that they have anything that compares with the majesty of the Coastal Mountain Range! The gall!!!