Geographic oddities

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

At least two of us have been to the South Pole though

really cool. I would love to complete my continents (missing Antarctica and Africa).

[Boisebro]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

haha! I agree. Yet I would bet you a shiny new dime that not one member of SSP has been to Edinburgh of the Seven Seas (except for the odd bullshitter).

I was there so long ago, it was still known as Edinburgh of the One Sea.

True story.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

really cool. I would love to complete my continents (missing Antarctica and Africa).

according to the 12 people who've been there, you haven't REALLY seen the world, until you've seen it from the moon.

Originally Posted by Boisebro

might as well throw the Twin Cities in there. it's 401 miles from Chicago to St Paul, and less than 400 if you include metro boundaries.

splitting hairs, I know, but 10 sounds so much better than 9.

totally, but i left out the twin cities because of the sticklers ("you know, technically, the geographic midpoint of downtown minneapolis and downtown st. paul is precisely a 405.38 mile drive from downtown chicago, and thus WAY out of bounds, blah, blah, blah")


but yes, let's just say 10!

driving distances of 1M+ metro areas within 400 miles of chicago:

milwaukee: 92 miles
grand rapids: 178 miles
indianapolis: 185 miles
detroit: 283 miles
st. louis: 297 miles
cincinnati: 298 miles
louisville: 298 miles
cleveland: 346 miles
columbus: 359 miles
twin cities: 401 miles


i've personally done the chicago-twin cities drive numerous times, and with just a bit of speeding and one gas stop, it can be done in 5.5 hours. hit the road at 6:30am to get a little ahead of the worst of chicago am rush hour traffic and you're in the twin cities by noon.

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I originally compared Santiago with San Francisco not with Chicago, which is evidently inserted in a densely populated region. Porto Alegre or Curitiba, would be "Chicago" in this comparison.

Exactly. Santiago is like any city located in the western half of the US/Can. Not densely populated regions like coastal Brazil or US eastern half, but by any means isolated.

yeah, i'm not trying to make any arguments for Santiago being the definitive "Most Isolated City on Earth" or anything like that, i'm just saying that it's much more isolated from other largish metro areas than chicago is in a practical and psychological sense because of the Andes.

a former co-worker of mine grew up in Mendoza and said that he flew to Santiago more often than he drove there because the mountain road up and over the Andes is so long and slow, and sometimes even impassable in the winter. the southern Andes are no joke of a mountain range. (full disclosure: he was from a very upper middle class background, so his experience was perhaps not typical).

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Mendoza, Argentina is a 1.4M person metro, and is around 100 miles from Santiago as the crow flies, but because you have to go up and over the freaking andies to drive between the two, gmaps says it's over a 5 hour drive.

Inter-city highway travel in Chile and Argentina is very difficult. I think it's actually quite difficult over the whole of South America as many major cities are not connected by major roads, and even what might be considered a highway in South America would be what most people in the US would consider a state route, rather than what we think of as Federal Interstate Highways.

Years ago, I lived in Buenos Aires. My experience was that if the destination was outside of Metro BsAS or Uruguay, people just flew. Highway driving in that part of the world can be tedious and dangerous.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

a former co-worker of mine grew up in Mendoza and said that he flew to Santiago more often than he drove there because the mountain road up and over the Andes is so long and slow, and sometimes even impassable in the winter. the southern Andes are no joke of a mountain range. (full disclosure: he was from a very upper middle class background, so his experience was perhaps not typical).

This is a Streetview capture of the main Santiago-Mendoza highway.

That white mountain in the center is Aconcagua, the highest point in the Western Hemisphere.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yep. The distance between El Paso and Corpus Christi is 608 miles, and the shortest route to achieve that puts you through Mexico. El Paso to San Diego is 630 miles, but the nearest point from El Paso to the Pacific Ocean is around 365 miles in the Gulf of California at Guasimas, Mexico. What's more, is that location is actually about 100 miles farther south than Corpus Christi is.

Cool stats.

This reminds me of going to college in Upstate New York (Ithaca). The students from Michigan would drive home through Ontario. Things may have changed (I went to college in the late 90s) but for sure if not having to deal with immigration, it's the fastest and shortest route.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Inter-city highway travel in Chile and Argentina is very difficult. I think it's actually quite difficult over the whole of South America as many major cities are not connected by major roads, and even what might be considered a highway in South America would be what most people in the US would consider a state route, rather than what we think of as Federal Interstate Highways.

Years ago, I lived in Buenos Aires. My experience was that if the destination was outside of Metro BsAS or Uruguay, people just flew. Highway driving in that part of the world can be tedious and dangerous.

Yeah, I've done road trips across a good chunk of Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. Chile has a fairly good system of limited-access roads connecting the country that would look familiar to North Americans. Argentinean and Brazilian cities are mostly connected through roads that look like typical rural state routes in the U.S. Once you get away from the cities, neither Brazil or Argentina has much in the way of limited access highways connecting population centers that Americans are accustomed to.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by mr1138

City/County boundaries that appear to defy property ownership -

I have identified two places where this occurs and I'm wondering if anybody here can explain how this happens. I'm sure that each place has its own story, but the two examples I have found are the southern boundary of San Francisco and part of the northern boundary of Baltimore.

In each of these places, it appears that the political boundary defies not only the street pattern of neighborhoods like Crocker-Amazon (SF) and Woodhome Heights (Baltimore), but in many cases runs right through individual lots and homes. The little bit of research I have done on this topic reveals that in both cases, the political boundary was likely set before the homes and streets were constructed. In the case of SF, is sounds as though the boundary was set in the mid 1800s with development coming along in the 1930s, and in the case of Baltimore the political boundary was set in 1948 with development appearing to be of a post-war pattern.

This raises the question - how could this happen? Were these parcels already subdivided prior to the political boundary being set? And if not, why on earth would a developer subdivide their neighborhoods in this way? And are the individual parcels that fall along these lines legally in two separate counties, or do they pay property taxes to both counties?

This is something that has puzzled me for a few years and, given the topic of this thread, perhaps somebody reading this can provide some insight!

All over the Philadelphia suburbs along the Pennsylvania-Delaware line if you zoom in on the view that shows property lines and building structures, you'll see single family home lots that seem to land in both states, and in some cases, cut right through the house.

I believe the USPS address takes precedent, which is typically aligned with the front entrance of the home.

It is very common in Delaware & Chester County PA to have backyard neighbors who are in New Castle County, DE.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

This is a Streetview capture of the main Santiago-Mendoza highway.

That white mountain in the center is Aconcagua, the highest point in the Western Hemisphere.

Starkly beautiful.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Starkly beautiful.

• Video Link

[craigs]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Santiago is within 4:30 flight from 4 megacities (Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Lima).

Okay, let's use your random metric of 4.5 hours then.

First of all, one can fly from San Francisco to any populated place in California within that time frame. California has about 40,000,000 people--which is more than twice the entire population of Chile.

Second, one can fly from San Francisco within that timeframe to the following 1M+ metropolitan areas outside of California: Albuquerque, Atlanta, Austin, Calgary, Chicago, Cincinnati, Ciudad Juarez, Cuernavaca, Dallas, Dayton, Denver, Edmonton, El Paso, Guadalajara, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Mexico City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Monterrey, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Portland, Puebla, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Seattle, Tijuana, Toluca, Tucson, and Vancouver (close but no cigar: Columbus at 4 hours, 34 minutes; Detroit at 4 hours, 37 minutes).

So that's 36 such metros, in addition to California's 1M+ metros of Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, and Fresno.

Within this radius there are Cordoba, Rosario, Mendoza (ARGENTINA); Assuncion (PARAGUAY), Montevideo (URUGUAY), Porto Alegre, Florianópolis, Curitiba, Londrina, at least 5 metro areas inside São Paulo macrometropolitan area, Ribeirão Preto, Belo Horizonte, Campo Grande (BRAZIL), Santa Cruz de la Sierra, La Paz (BOLIVIA); Arequipa (PERU). 20 cities aside the 4 aforementioned megacities.

And considering +500,000 urban areas, in Brazil alone you have at least extra 10-12 more cities inside this radius.

Considering how many 1M+ metros one can fly to in 4.5 hours from San Francisco, I'm not even bothering with 500K metros. If the metric is 1M+ metropolitan areas within four and a half hours' travel time, the data shows Santiago is more geographically isolated than San Francisco.

[ChiSoxRox]

Another way to look at Santiago is that it is the farthest major metro from the world centroid of population (i.e. minimizing distances to the average person).


(Wiki article)

To rephrase, for the average person on Earth, Chile is the world's farthest country.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by craigs

Okay, let's use your random metric of 4.5 hours then.

First of all, one can fly from San Francisco to any populated place in California within that time frame. California has about 40,000,000 people--which is more than twice the entire population of Chile.

Second, one can fly from San Francisco within that timeframe to the following 1M+ metropolitan areas outside of California: Albuquerque, Atlanta, Austin, Calgary, Chicago, Cincinnati, Ciudad Juarez, Cuernavaca, Dallas, Dayton, Denver, Edmonton, El Paso, Guadalajara, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Mexico City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Monterrey, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Portland, Puebla, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Seattle, Tijuana, Toluca, Tucson, and Vancouver (close but no cigar: Columbus at 4 hours, 34 minutes; Detroit at 4 hours, 37 minutes).

So that's 36 such metros, in addition to California's 1M+ metros of Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, and Fresno.


Considering how many 1M+ metros one can fly to in 4.5 hours from San Francisco, I'm not even bothering with 500K metros. If the metric is 1M+ metropolitan areas within four and a half hours' travel time, the data shows Santiago is more geographically isolated than San Francisco.

Using the population radius tool and establishing a 3,000 km parameter (close to those 4:30 flight), we have 198 million people around San Francisco and 193 million around Santiago. Not a big difference.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Another way to look at Santiago is that it is the farthest major metro from the world centroid of population (i.e. minimizing distances to the average person).


(Wiki article)

To rephrase, for the average person on Earth, Chile is the world's farthest country.

interesting... and what's the closest? Islamabad?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

• Video Link

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Another way to look at Santiago is that it is the farthest major metro from the world centroid of population (i.e. minimizing distances to the average person).


(Wiki article)

To rephrase, for the average person on Earth, Chile is the world's farthest country.

Great map. With the population boom in Africa and declining populations in East Asia, the center will start moving west towards the middle east. It would be interesting to see it animated over the course of human history.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

interesting... and what's the closest? Islamabad?

It looks like it's centered over the sparsely populated Tibetan Plateau. The closest city is probably somewhere in northern India.

[Centropolis]

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

interesting... and what's the closest? Islamabad?

Coincidentally I saw a map on the Instagram suggestions about it. It’s somewhere between Bombay and New Delhi.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Coincidentally I saw a map on the Instagram suggestions about it. It’s somewhere between Bombay and New Delhi.

The Wikipedia article claims that a higher-resolution dataset results in Almaty as the closest large city to the "centroid." But it's defining the centroid as the position that minimizes the geodesic distance to the world's population (geometric median), which is not necessarily the metric I would prefer.

Someone should come up with a spherical-harmonic decomposition of the world's population density and then we can go wild and define the metrics we like.

edit: turns out (as usual) someone else thought of this beforehand: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2359989?seq=1
edit2: better link not behind a paywall: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC49480/

A quick search doesn't reveal something much more recent / high resolution. Any volunteers?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Using the population radius tool and establishing a 3,000 km parameter (close to those 4:30 flight), we have 198 million people around San Francisco and 193 million around Santiago. Not a big difference.

Can you show your work?