this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
333 points (93.7% liked)

Map Enthusiasts

3606 readers
27 users here now

For the map enthused!

Rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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).

[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is a map enthusiast community, not a lying with statistics and graphic design community.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Strawman arguments aside, it seems you've already forgotten how this comment chain started. Just let it go.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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".