332
Lake depths and heights
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
332 points (93.9% liked)
Map Enthusiasts
3594 readers
130 users here now
For the map enthused!
Rules:
-
post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
-
be nice
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think we actually have to get out a ruler here. In the world of infographics, "not to scale" usually just means one dimension is at a different ratio from the other(s).
This is a map enthusiast community, not a lying with statistics and graphic design community.
Then go yell at OP about posting a non-map.
There's no lie here, nobody thought lakes are actually finger-shaped in cross-section.
Strawman arguments aside, it seems you've already forgotten how this comment chain started. Just let it go.
You're the one being randomly aggressive in an otherwise-friendly conversation.
I had forgotten the cross-sections were already mentioned, that's true. I mentally boiled down what you wrote to "not to scale means inconsistent scale". My point was that if there isn't any inconsistency in vertical scale - which is what I suspect - there's no "lie".