• ezmack@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Seems like I’m getting 3 reactions to this map:

    • Neat map
    • I don’t understand this map
    • I will find you and kill your family for this crime against data
    • yuun@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      cannot believe how many people are confused that the use blocks aren’t showing use in that location, just size in relation to the size of the country

        • WhyIDie@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          it’s not a monstrosity, but I kinda agree that pooling the blocks together and overlaying it directly onto a map implies a geographical link with the usage

  • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because everyone else is shitting on it - I just wanna let you know OP that I actually liked this map

  • Akasazh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d suggest a merger between ‘100 largest landowning families’ and ‘Food we eat’.

  • nromdotcom@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It is absolutely blowing my mind how many people are looking at this and thinking that is trying to show, like, primary land use per block on the map or something?

    Like it’s well-known that maple syrup comes exclusively from northwest PA, plus all the logging that happens in downtown San Francisco and LA.

      • N509@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pie charts are useless in general.

        For the example shown here there are way too many categories for a pie chart. You would not be able to see anything past the top 3 or so categories as the slices get too thin and the labels would be all over the place.

        Lastly you would miss out on the size comparisons to e.g. states.

        This is much better.

      • yuun@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        the added context of the US map gives it some utility that a pie chart, which is just straight trash, does not have

        a bar graph or even just a table would convey similar information more precisely and usefully, but if your only goal is to give an intuitive sense of the land use (not writing policy or anything here) it suits

      • jimrob4@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh great, the “everyone lives in cities and I have no concept of rural living” people are here now too.

        Edit: Awww, ya’ll are butthurt and downvoting me for pointing out not everyone has access to mass transportation or reliable shopping within three blocks of their house.

        • andruid@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Rual, as in my lively hood is based on the land I live on/near or “rual” as in a suburb built in the green way, but I still do the rest of my work and living in the city?

  • FrankFrankson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a weird ass pie chart using the US map as a base right? If I am correct then this is a terrible way to display this data.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why? It gives people a relatable size and shape to compare to. Like saying the 100 richest landowners own equivalent to Florida.