[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[Cutlass]

I would assume that it is public roads, federal, state and local going by the descriptions on second link.
Private roads on farms, industrial plants, mines, gated communities etc paved and unpaved could well cover a significate area.

Most of the open land in Maine that in other states would be publicly owned is in Maine owned by companies that work logging. So they made a lot of substantial permanent gravel roads. Many of which are used by the public. But all on private land. Roads like this:

There's a fair amount of the state you can't get to on public roads. This is as good as it gets.

 

[Arwon]

The other question here is whether the forest cover figure is defined by land use or zoning classifications or by satellite imagery. It's likely to be the latter, but a chance of being the former. Even if it's satellites, the definition of forest as distinct from more scattered trees may be an issue too.

 

[Silurian]

Alan's Factory outlet got the figures from the Wiki the

""This is only the total amount of timberland, the actual forest cover for each state may be significantly higher.""[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_cover_by_state_in_the_United_States

Timberland is areas of marketable timber which may included the haul roads. If you are going to buy a forest for the trees you want the haul roads so I would assume they are included in the area.

Roads often have areas of woods on there verges such as this on the M25 just north of London https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6838898,-0.2125406,667a,35y,2.76t/data=!3m1!1e3. (I assume that one side of the wood is the original Potters Bar bypass and the other side was built when it was widened into the M25)

 

[Cutlass]

Even if the definitions are subject to debate, it's still a significant outlier from the other stares. With 3 other states that are 12 points behind, and it drops rapidly from there.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The other question here is whether the forest cover figure is defined by land use or zoning classifications or by satellite imagery. It's likely to be the latter, but a chance of being the former. Even if it's satellites, the definition of forest as distinct from more scattered trees may be an issue too.

Maybe? For the most part this type of satellite imagery is inspected and classified by algorithms. In order to commercialize this data, they would likely agree on some standard of what classifies as a forest. In other words, if what is defined as a forest in a satellite image doesn't line up with some broadly accepted definition, (likely given by NASA or NOAA) then those data sets probably won't get used very often.

I would not pay tens of thousands of dollars for suspect data anyways.

 

[Arwon]

I'm just thinking that what looks like scattered trees and scrubland in a drier biome may actually be forest, but not look like the forest in another, lusher, part of the world. An American defined interpretation from the same image might come up with a different answer than an international organisation does, and I'd expect the latter to underestimate in dry areas if anything.

I know in Australia we tend to define our own land cover in ways distinct from standards set internationally (read: in Europe) for reasons like that.

Definitions are still an issue according to NASA, particularly around fringe and intermediate areas- https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=86986

 

[christos200]

Saw this on twitter today (tweeted by Conrad Hackett - https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/929488768041738240). Only 1% of Greeks trust a lot the government (only Italy matched Greece) and only 12% somewhat trust the government. Only Colombia and Peru have less trust in government, though both of them have more % of people trusting a lot their government (7 and 4% respectively).

 

[Cutlass]

Wow. South Korea is in 3rd world nation company on that one. Recent scandals, I imagine?

 

[JohannaK]

It does better than Spain. And guess what, Spain would have the same government if there were elections today.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Wow. South Korea is in 3rd world nation company on that one.

I don't think that's an accurate assesment because of how high approval rating the governments in africa have

which does surprise me a bit that that's the case

 

[Kyriakos]

^Having high trust in gov just needs the population to be gullible af/ or fascist af. It isn't a particularly 1rst world trait

 

[Colon]

Wow. South Korea is in 3rd world nation company on that one. Recent scandals, I imagine?

You missed whole president's fortuneteller/BFF-abusing-her-position-leading-to-the-president's-impeachment-scandal?

The poll is a bit outdated. I wager France would score better than Venezuela now.

 

[12tn2]

Can I request some graphs or charts? I'd love to see the World wealth distribution & the Global income distribution, down to each percentile. Google image searches give not-to-scale pyramids & very wide grouping (for example, $10000 - $100000 is such a large gap) results, while a Youtube video has a pretty good presentation but too brief & lacks actual figures for each percentile.
What I'm asking for is maybe (interactive) column charts with a clear way to know what the value of a representative person of a percentile is. For example, one will know he's somewhere between the 51st% & 52nd% in wealth because his is $5000, while the 51st column has a value of $4956 & the 52nd is $5083. The same with the income graph - if displaying those numbers makes it too cluttered, is making the chart interactive the only way to go?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

^Having high trust in gov just needs the population to be gullible af/ or fascist af. It isn't a particularly 1rst world trait

Or, you know, a (recent) history of (relatively) competent governments.

 

[Samson]

Or, you know, a (recent) history of (relatively) competent governments.

Yeah, but when the Philippines is higher than anywhere in Europe that cannot be the whole story.

 

[Takhisis]

Samson, that would be applicable if Filipinos had the same values as (Western) Europeans.

 

[Kyriakos]

^That sounds raschist.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I've posted at least one of these before, but they are all extremely pertinent at this point in time given current US congressional policy.

Spoiler :

 

[Paul in Saudi]

The Economist Intelligence Unit forecasts the slowest-growing economies for 2018. (I live in Saudi Arabia and this is not good news.)

 

[Arakhor]

Oh look, the UK is on that chart. I can't think why.