Illinois isn't flat

[Rothman]

OK, did anybody not pick up on the fact that the analysis found an actual pancake to be less flat than North Dakota?  Or that, even if Kansas had a mountain taller than Everest, it would still be literally flatter than a pancake?

With such findings, one must question the validity of the study as a whole.  I mean, that's not even mentioning that it calls Colorado flatter than Georgia.

Colorado's half-flat.

[MikieTimT]

Yes it is.

Chris - A proud Coloradan.

Anything is flat compared to that.

Ever been to Arkansas?

Now that's a state which can subvert geographic expectations.  Same thing with parts of Oklahoma.

Never been there but from some videos I've seen, it does have some flat portions as well. Especially along I55.

I've been across Arkansas twice - once on I-40 and once on US 63. The western half of the state offers a surprising amount of terrain variation, and I-40 could even be considered scenic on many portions west of Little Rock. But anything east of US 67 is quite boring and flat - in my opinion worse than the stereotypically boring places like Nebraska and Iowa.

US-67/I-30/Future I-57 is a good general dividing line between the mountainous areas of Arkansas and the Timberlands/Delta regions.  NW>SE for scenery for sure.  Funny how the resource rich areas of pretty much anywhere turn into the poor regions eventually, and vice-versa.

I'd consider US-69 the dividing line between interesting vs. non-interesting Oklahoma, scenically.

[JayhawkCO]

OK, did anybody not pick up on the fact that the analysis found an actual pancake to be less flat than North Dakota?  Or that, even if Kansas had a mountain taller than Everest, it would still be literally flatter than a pancake?

With such findings, one must question the validity of the study as a whole.  I mean, that's not even mentioning that it calls Colorado flatter than Georgia.

Colorado's half-flat.

But the other half is so not flat, it should overcompensate for the flat part more than just some rolling hills in Alabama do.  And in reality, it's not even half flat.  More like 40% or so (and even out east, there are SOME spots aren't completely flat.)

Shitty GSV pic near Sterling:


Chris

[Crash_It]

Am I missing something? That road seemed pretty flat to me.

The other direction on that road is more interesting as there are signs warning of a 4% grade.

I was just reading through this entire thread from the start, and I don't know how nobody caught this gem. A sign that warns of a 4% grade has to be the most Illinois thing ever. Most states don't post such signs unless it's 7-8%.

We have that percentage here too. If I can ever get to that road that has it, I'll film it.

[Crash_It]

We had a discussion about Illinois's flatness in the Illinois Notes thread back in March of 2020, kicked off by this statement:

Can't be too hard to have a flat interstate there, given Illinois is the second flattest state, behind Florida

This study above claims that Illinois is just that. The second flattest state in the union. It evaluates the terrain of each state (almost) by percentage, with said percentages of the land being placed accordingly in the following categories: not flat, flat, flatter, flattest. In the 'flattest' category, Illinois only ranks 3rd, behind Louisiana, because only one less percent of Illinois's land is in the 'flattest' category compared to LA. What puts Illinois above Louisiana in this study is that more of Louisiana's land is in the 'not flat' category, 3 percent more.

That study is BS, don't even know what they even define as flat to begin with, and Louisiana only has about a few hundred feet in variance from low point to high point. IL has nearly 1000 feet.

[Max Rockatansky]

We had a discussion about Illinois's flatness in the Illinois Notes thread back in March of 2020, kicked off by this statement:

Can't be too hard to have a flat interstate there, given Illinois is the second flattest state, behind Florida

This study above claims that Illinois is just that. The second flattest state in the union. It evaluates the terrain of each state (almost) by percentage, with said percentages of the land being placed accordingly in the following categories: not flat, flat, flatter, flattest. In the 'flattest' category, Illinois only ranks 3rd, behind Louisiana, because only one less percent of Illinois's land is in the 'flattest' category compared to LA. What puts Illinois above Louisiana in this study is that more of Louisiana's land is in the 'not flat' category, 3 percent more.

That study is BS, don't even know what they even define as flat to begin with, and Louisiana only has about a few hundred feet in variance from low point to high point. IL has nearly 1000 feet.

Please qualify why your opinion should be considered as expert testimony on geographic variance. 

While we're at it, what's up all this homer-guy Illinois stuff?  Is this the new brand identity or something? 

[JayhawkCO]

We had a discussion about Illinois's flatness in the Illinois Notes thread back in March of 2020, kicked off by this statement:

Can't be too hard to have a flat interstate there, given Illinois is the second flattest state, behind Florida

This study above claims that Illinois is just that. The second flattest state in the union. It evaluates the terrain of each state (almost) by percentage, with said percentages of the land being placed accordingly in the following categories: not flat, flat, flatter, flattest. In the 'flattest' category, Illinois only ranks 3rd, behind Louisiana, because only one less percent of Illinois's land is in the 'flattest' category compared to LA. What puts Illinois above Louisiana in this study is that more of Louisiana's land is in the 'not flat' category, 3 percent more.

That study is BS, don't even know what they even define as flat to begin with, and Louisiana only has about a few hundred feet in variance from low point to high point. IL has nearly 1000 feet.

Did you read the article?  It explains their methodology.

Chris

[Max Rockatansky]

We had a discussion about Illinois's flatness in the Illinois Notes thread back in March of 2020, kicked off by this statement:

Can't be too hard to have a flat interstate there, given Illinois is the second flattest state, behind Florida

This study above claims that Illinois is just that. The second flattest state in the union. It evaluates the terrain of each state (almost) by percentage, with said percentages of the land being placed accordingly in the following categories: not flat, flat, flatter, flattest. In the 'flattest' category, Illinois only ranks 3rd, behind Louisiana, because only one less percent of Illinois's land is in the 'flattest' category compared to LA. What puts Illinois above Louisiana in this study is that more of Louisiana's land is in the 'not flat' category, 3 percent more.

That study is BS, don't even know what they even define as flat to begin with, and Louisiana only has about a few hundred feet in variance from low point to high point. IL has nearly 1000 feet.

Did you read the article?  It explains their methodology.

Chris

Get out of here with your "science."

[thspfc]

We had a discussion about Illinois's flatness in the Illinois Notes thread back in March of 2020, kicked off by this statement:

Can't be too hard to have a flat interstate there, given Illinois is the second flattest state, behind Florida

This study above claims that Illinois is just that. The second flattest state in the union. It evaluates the terrain of each state (almost) by percentage, with said percentages of the land being placed accordingly in the following categories: not flat, flat, flatter, flattest. In the 'flattest' category, Illinois only ranks 3rd, behind Louisiana, because only one less percent of Illinois's land is in the 'flattest' category compared to LA. What puts Illinois above Louisiana in this study is that more of Louisiana's land is in the 'not flat' category, 3 percent more.

That study is BS, don't even know what they even define as flat to begin with, and Louisiana only has about a few hundred feet in variance from low point to high point. IL has nearly 1000 feet.

Illinois' high point is called the Willis Tower.

[JoePCool14]

We had a discussion about Illinois's flatness in the Illinois Notes thread back in March of 2020, kicked off by this statement:

Can't be too hard to have a flat interstate there, given Illinois is the second flattest state, behind Florida

This study above claims that Illinois is just that. The second flattest state in the union. It evaluates the terrain of each state (almost) by percentage, with said percentages of the land being placed accordingly in the following categories: not flat, flat, flatter, flattest. In the 'flattest' category, Illinois only ranks 3rd, behind Louisiana, because only one less percent of Illinois's land is in the 'flattest' category compared to LA. What puts Illinois above Louisiana in this study is that more of Louisiana's land is in the 'not flat' category, 3 percent more.

That study is BS, don't even know what they even define as flat to begin with, and Louisiana only has about a few hundred feet in variance from low point to high point. IL has nearly 1000 feet.

Illinois' high point is called the Willis Tower.

Meanwhile, Illinois' hiiiiiiigh point is probably Urbana-Champaign.

[JayhawkCO]

We had a discussion about Illinois's flatness in the Illinois Notes thread back in March of 2020, kicked off by this statement:

Can't be too hard to have a flat interstate there, given Illinois is the second flattest state, behind Florida

This study above claims that Illinois is just that. The second flattest state in the union. It evaluates the terrain of each state (almost) by percentage, with said percentages of the land being placed accordingly in the following categories: not flat, flat, flatter, flattest. In the 'flattest' category, Illinois only ranks 3rd, behind Louisiana, because only one less percent of Illinois's land is in the 'flattest' category compared to LA. What puts Illinois above Louisiana in this study is that more of Louisiana's land is in the 'not flat' category, 3 percent more.

That study is BS, don't even know what they even define as flat to begin with, and Louisiana only has about a few hundred feet in variance from low point to high point. IL has nearly 1000 feet.

Did you read the article?  It explains their methodology.

Chris

Get out of here with your "science."

Internet Discussions - where one can read the headline of an article and argue vociferously against it despite not having the slightest idea what the article itself contains.  Our society is doomed.

Chris

[Rick Powell]

Hard to go downhill when everything's flat...

Which thread in the AARoads Forum is most flatulent?

[Mapmikey]

OK, did anybody not pick up on the fact that the analysis found an actual pancake to be less flat than North Dakota?  Or that, even if Kansas had a mountain taller than Everest, it would still be literally flatter than a pancake?

With such findings, one must question the validity of the study as a whole.  I mean, that's not even mentioning that it calls Colorado flatter than Georgia.

Read it more carefully.  The study showed how the 2003 spoof study was able to use legitimate data to prove Kansas is flatter than a pancake.  You can do that sort of manipulation with lots of things.  Ants can carry multiple times their weight...fleas can jump many times their size.  If you took those attributes and applied them to human dimensions (a human size flea can jump 120 ft!)  then you could conclude that ants and fleas are stronger than people.  Which they are not in absolute terms. 

The study made up a definition of flat based n what they though human perception of flat is.  This is not exactly solid physical science.  This must mean there is no scientific definition of flat or they would've used it.  Blizzards have a human perception to them...people use the term blizzard all the time, but much of the time the weather they are observing does not meet all the technical definitions of a blizzard.

Their methodology (~100 ft feature within ~3 miles with proportionality the closer you are to the reference point) also gives equal weight to a 101 ft mound as it would a 10,000 ft mountain.   So a spot immediately east of Grand Teton is given the same flatness score as a spot in NW Florida that has a 100 ft rise within 3 miles.

My thought of a different way to answer the question whose state is flattest would be this:  I have seen where people did mathematical topography manipulations to see how much surface area would Colorado have if it were flattened out.  So do this for all the states, then compare the ratios to their land area that is based on their dimensions.  Smallest ratios are the flattest.  West Virginia, because it has almost no flatish areas other than right around a few rivers is likely the least flat in this regard.  Colorado would likely be much closer to WV using this method, because despite the eastern part being non-mountainous, the mountains on the western side are very tall.

[kphoger]

Illinois' high point is called the Willis Tower.

You win the thread.  Congratulations!

[formulanone]

Wait, are we talking about a standard buttermilk pancake, blueberry pancake, a flapjack, or hotcake?

If we're going to get pseudoscientific, at least bring food into the discussion.

[Max Rockatansky]

Illinois' high point is called the Willis Tower.

You win the thread.  Congratulations!

Willis?...what you talkin about?  Everyone knows it's the Sears Tower. 

[thspfc]

Illinois' high point is called the Willis Tower.

You win the thread.  Congratulations!

Willis?...what you talkin about?  Everyone knows it's the Sears Tower.

Not sure if you're joking, but if you're not, this sort of thing ticks me off . . . stuff changes over time, get over it. Willis is a better name than Sears anyways.

[1995hoo]

Why should anybody call it "Willis Tower"?

[Takumi]

Me entering this thread for the first time

[Max Rockatansky]

Illinois' high point is called the Willis Tower.

You win the thread.  Congratulations!

Willis?...what you talkin about?  Everyone knows it's the Sears Tower.

Not sure if you're joking, but if you're not, this sort of thing ticks me off . . . stuff changes over time, get over it. Willis is a better name than Sears anyways.

I'm not.  It might be a me thing but I refuse to call a classic building anything but it's original name.

[Roadgeekteen]

What happened here

[Rothman]

What happened here

So...you started your own thread.  Are you really needing that much attention?

[Scott5114]

If FritzOwl wasn't a coward:

[Takumi]

If FritzOwl wasn't a coward:

theres my plan

[ET21]

Illinois' high point is called the Willis Tower.

You win the thread.  Congratulations!

Willis?...what you talkin about?  Everyone knows it's the Sears Tower.

Not sure if you're joking, but if you're not, this sort of thing ticks me off . . . stuff changes over time, get over it. Willis is a better name than Sears anyways.

Sears Tower