You must log in or register to comment.
cool graphic, but why did they decide to make the tall peaks the same color as the “too small for the scale” areas?
What’s going on with the top of the map?
The long ‘island’ north of Iceland and the long island to the left are probably the inhabited parts of Greenland. The north of Canada and the North of Russia seem to be very sparsely populated, too. So are the arid regions of Africa and Saudi-Arabia. According to my interpretation of this map.
What’s with the ugana population?
Curious to see how the peaks aren’t specifically for a country, but for a region. The tallest peaks within Brazilian territory geographically correspond to São Paulo (actually, Sao Paulo’s neighboring region including Guarulhos as well as Campinas) and Rio de Janeiro. Between them it’s possible to see a smaller peak, it’s probably Belo Horizonte. The peak below is probably Curitiba. There are peaks on the northeast corresponding to Northeastern capitals, such as Salvador, Fortaleza and Natal. The Brazilian north and middle-west are sparsely populated. So, in a sense, the indicators are specifically placed within the map, corresponding not just to countries, but accounting for local demographics as well. Nice.