• ezmack@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years 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
      2 years 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
          2 years 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
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

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

  • FrankFrankson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years 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
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

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

      • FrankFrankson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I get that but it needs to be labeled some way to clarify this at least. A lot of people look at this and could easily think it is what each area has the most of and that the positions of the types of land have something to do with the states they are near or cover.

        • n33rg@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Agreed. I definitely thought that at first, thinking some of them seemed very off. Glad I read these comments. It’s especially confusing considering where some things are in the map that it seams almost believable for example that NY/NJ are made up mostly of mostly urban and commercial areas.

          But it is a good chart (not map) for what it’s intended to show with some perspective provided in proper labeling.

        • Misconduct@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          A lot of people sure keep saying “a lot of people” and getting mad at the graph instead of just laughing it off that they didn’t get it at first. It’s not the end of the world if you don’t immediately understand something.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      i really do not understand how anyone can be confused by this, obviously it’s not a geographical map because new mexico does not contain the sum total of all american railways…

      It’s a fine graph that gives an intuitive sense for how much area is used for each thing.

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

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

  • nromdotcom@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years 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
        ·
        2 years 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
        2 years 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

  • LiesSlander@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    “Food we eat” is half the size of “livestock feed”. Plus look at how small wetlands/deserts are, wetlands especially are essential to climate resillience. What egregiously bad land use, wow. Thanks for this post, it’s great.

    • inasaba@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It takes 76% less land for us to just eat plants, rather than to grow them to feed to animals that we then in turn eat. Really amazing how inefficient it is.