• Thelsim@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why is lake Baikal the only one with measurements in meters?
    Feels like the map maker made a half-hearted attempt and just gave up after the first one.

  • Wolf314159@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why bother making this at all if it’s not to scale? Sure, nobody expects the horizontal scale to be the same as the vertical scale. Vertical exaggeration is common when displaying profiles or cross sections, but those are generally still considered to be at a particular scale. But, if the vertical scale isn’t consistent, then what even is the point of the graphic? Just list some numbers in a table. Putting this in graphical form without a consistent scale is just lying and lazy.

  • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This map bothers me as they omit Lake Tahoe, which is higher than Baikal (~6,200 ft) and deeper than everything except Baikal (~1,600 ft deep)

    What’s the point of including all that empty space between Baikal and Titicaca when there’s a world renowned lake that would be great to include

    • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The map makes absolutely no sense to 97% of the planet and that’s what bothers you? 😂

    • deus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      This was originally just a map of the Great Lakes system. Someone added Baikal and Titicaca to it later for comparison.

    • credo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      So you’re saying it’s not really special. Not the highest, not the deepest?

      Sure. Throw it in!