this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
682 points (92.0% liked)

Data Is Beautiful

6695 readers
3 users here now

A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz


(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] survivorseason44@midwest.social -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

That makes no sense for Michigan at all. I’d imagine Michigan land use is mostly forest (so much national forest/protected wetlands here), then agriculture, then urban space (Metro Detroit is most of this), then a little pasture. The only way “idle” makes sense to me is if any protected forest/natural land is considered “idle”

[–] nzodd@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But it's clearly not broken down by state. Surely it would be nonsensical to put all of airports in the country in a giant square in southern Texas, right? That's not what this map is intending to say.

I know this map isn’t clearly broken down by state, which is (part of) why this map struggles to communicate what it’s trying to say IMO. I think the first map in the linked Bloomberg article (with land use data broken down on a more granular level) does a better job at communicating the same trends