Canadian Maps and Graphics

[hipster duck]

Ontario's highest peak, Isphatina Ridge (690 m), is higher than Nova Scotia's highest peak, White Hill (534 m) but what's more important is prominence, rather than elevation.

The mountains of Cape Breton island come straight out of the sea; Ishpatina Ridge is kind of a gentle rise out of an already high valley.

Another good example: Saskatchewan's highest point is 1,392 m, which is higher in elevation than Grouse Mountain (1,230 m).

[Peggerino]

Here's a higher-res map for the topography around Winnipeg. The hills in the top right are Birds Hill Provincial Park and adjacent areas. If you look closely, you can also see Garbage Hill west of downtown.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by someone123

There are lots of named mountains on Cape Breton, e.g. Franey Mountain. It is not all plateau, though some of it is.

Around mainland NS there are the South and North Mountains, etc. Most of them look more like rounded hills.

Yes, but I was just referring to what was labelled on that particular map as a mountain range. I know there are things individually named mountains all over the world. We have Mt. Pleasant in Vancouver, which isn't a mountain at all. I think the standard for a real mountain is 1000 feet, yet the highest peak in NS is ironically called "White Hill", and Nfld. island's highest peak is called the "Cabox" in the Lewis Hills. The other point I was making is that the Highlands are technically a different category from a mountain range. My point was more about nomenclature than anything else.

Most geologists classify a mountain as a landform that rises at least 1,000 feet (300 meters) or more above its surrounding area. A mountain range is a series or chain of mountains that are close together

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scien...ountains%20that%20are%20close%20together.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

Really? If there is something I know from Nova Scotia, is it's not flat.

When I lived there I actually used to describe it as mostly flat, especially around Halifax. It has mostly low elevation and gently rolling topography. The more northern areas and Cape Breton are exceptions.

https://goo.gl/maps/yLKLDnFtiMrKBp7f7

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Architype

Yes, but I was just referring to what was labelled on that particular map as a mountain range. I know there are things individually named mountains all over the world. We have Mt. Pleasant in Vancouver, which isn't a mountain at all. I think the standard for a real mountain is 1000 feet, yet the highest peak in NS is ironically called "White Hill", and Nfld. island's highest peak is called the "Cabox" in the Lewis Hills. The other point I was making is that the Highlands are technically a different category from a mountain range. My point was more about nomenclature than anything else.

Yes. My point is that while the main part of the CB Highlands is a plateau there are some individual peaks around there too.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by shreddog

So if your saying your region is the Kootenays, we don't you just post a map of Columbia mtns which pretty much aligns with it?

Ha cuz i's not very smart with the "interwebs".
Thanks

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Peggerino

Here's a higher-res map for the topography around Winnipeg. The hills in the top right are Birds Hill Provincial Park and adjacent areas. If you look closely, you can also see Garbage Hill west of downtown.

Yes, you can also see the old oxbow of the Red River that is now Enfield Crescent in St. Boniface, just east of the Forks.

I've heard that the area just east of Winnipeg is some of the flattest land in the world. Contour maps have hardly any lines on them.

You can also see the old Canada Cement quarries that are now the lakes in Fort Whyte Centre in SW Winnipeg.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Architype

When I lived there I actually used to describe it as mostly flat, especially around Halifax. It has mostly low elevation and gently rolling topography. The more northern areas and Cape Breton are exceptions.

https://goo.gl/maps/yLKLDnFtiMrKBp7f7

I guess the description of what "flat" is may varies from a person to another lol

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

I guess the description of what "flat" is may varies from a person to another lol

Most of the Halifax region kinda looks like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6455461,...zyccxHkS878X7vZg7nYYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Harrison]

Winnipeg is likely Canada's flattest major city (I'll use a pop greater than 500,000), no?

[drew]

^ unless there is a major city located on a salt flat somewhere, Winnipeg likely would rank near the top worldwide.

[EspionNoir]

Is that the Red River Floodway at the right side of the map? Truly a spectacular project. Winnipeg would’ve suffered from damages if it was not built.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Harrison

Winnipeg is likely Canada's flattest major city (I'll use a pop greater than 500,000), no?

Probably the world's. It couldn't be flatter unless there were no rivers.

[le calmar]

I took a look at Google Maps with the relief layer activated, and I see plenty of contour lines around Winnipeg. That said it is true the one area you pointed out east of Winnipeg has close to no contour lines, but I don't know if that's enough to warrant the city the title of the world's flattest city. There seems to be plenty of similarly flat cities. You could find a number of serious contenders in the US alone.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by le calmar

I took a look at Google Maps with the relief layer activated, and I see plenty of contour lines around Winnipeg. That said it is true the one area you pointed out east of Winnipeg has close to no contour lines, but I don't know if that's enough to warrant the city the title of the world's flattest city. There seems to be plenty of similarly flat cities. You could find a number of serious contenders in the US alone.

I honestly couldn't care less if Winnipeg is the 1st, 7th or 36th flattest city in the world so I'm not going to pursue this boring subject.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Most of the Halifax region kinda looks like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6455461,...zyccxHkS878X7vZg7nYYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It's a bit strange to describe the area as mostly flat when almost all of it has some kind of slope, even if the hills are only 70-150 m tall (actually somewhat significant as far as walking and driving go).

Architype's link is of one of the few areas of farmland you can find around there, about 50 km from the city.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I honestly couldn't care less if Winnipeg is the 1st, 7th or 36th flattest city in the world so I'm not going to pursue this boring subject.

As frequent but low-performance cyclist, I actually quite appreciate flat locales.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's a bit strange to describe the area as mostly flat when almost all of it has some kind of slope, even if the hills are only 70-150 m tall (actually somewhat significant as far as walking and driving go).

Architype's link is of one of the few areas of farmland you can find around there, about 50 km from the city.

Halifax definitely feels a lot less flat than cities like Ottawa, Montreal (aside from Mount Royal) or Toronto (inhabited areas, not the ravines).

Without being identical it's somewhat similar to Quebec City and even St. John's.

Halifax is also the least flat (and therefore most topographically interesting) major city in the Maritimes.

[someone123]

The hilliness can look nice and mountains are even more dramatic but they're often a practical annoyance. Around metro Vancouver the mountains really limit travel and development options and then there are hilly areas like North Van or New West that can be kind of annoying when the charm wears off. There's the scenery, sure, but also sometimes you are stuck just hoofing it up a big hill when you don't want to.

I looked it up on Google Earth and in the flat city I used to live in I had about a 90 m climb up to my place and then the place I commuted to on the other side was a bit over 50 m. It was literally uphill both ways, with about 150 m of cumulative climbing. It would have been very walkable/cyclable had it been flat but I would usually take the bus.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As frequent but low-performance cyclist, I actually quite appreciate flat locales.

Flat ground with a headwind will break your cycling spirit just as much as a hill does.