Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlanShearer wrote:
Duffy wrote:
AlanShearer wrote:
Duffy wrote:
AlanShearer wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Ok.

Prove it.


Prove the negative? Show me one location that is more than 10 miles from a road, "as the crow flies." Provide the coordinates, and I'll find a road within a 10 mile radius.


Benson Lake - Yosemite


As far as I can tell, Benson Lake is just over 10 miles from the Twin Lakes trailhead. So assuming there is no service road that is closer, you may have found another spot.


I've found many. Look at the map at you'll find some, too.

It's a fun game to play!


You're right. I was wrong. There are a few. But just a few. You're "everywhere we go is more than 10 miles" is just as much bullshit.

To do this right, you would need a forest service map that shows all the logging roads and other motor vehicle trails that are not on your public provide map of the area.

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlanShearer wrote:
vitus979 wrote:
Anyone who doesn't think there are tons of remote areas, especially out West, needs to get out of town and out of their car for a change.


There are plenty of remote areas that are only a few miles from a road. Doesn't mean they're not remote.

Despite Duffy and my dispute, it seems like the place in California that is furthest from a road is still only just over 12 miles from a road. Doesn't mean it's not remote. And doesn't mean that there are plenty of other places much closer to a road that, depending on the criteria, would be considered much more remote. At a minimum, much more difficult to get to.

This is funny, so the thread starts off saying the very unclear statement is flat out false. Then people read a bit more clarity into it and go searching, and using poor maps decide wow, there are not many places that are more than 10 miles (shh the article could be close to true) Change direction...

Lets attack remoteness yeah, 10miles from a road does not make remote lets make up our definition then say the article is full of shit cause their semiclear definition of remote does not meet ours.

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CaptainCanada wrote:
BLeP wrote:
I know lots of roads that I would love to use but I can't because I am white.

No joke.


You are correct. Damn those redskins for insisting you stay off their private property!

F'n Immigrants send ehm home and give us our land back.

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [Tri-Banter] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tri-Banter wrote:
which group is the furthest from any other group at any one time
---

People on the ISS probably win that one.

Sometimes maybe, but it is only 400 km up and passes over populated areas all the time. Other times I would guess a lone boat in the Pacific or one of the Antarctic bases.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [307trout] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
307trout wrote:
http://www.peakbagger.com/report/report.aspx?r=w


This appears to be reasonably well done, with a bit more credibility than some dude with a ruler and a map.

BOOOM OH NO YOU DID NOT BRING FACTS TO A SLOWTWITCH DEBATE> 1 week suspension and $10 fine paid to Dan. now be gone.

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I thought the exact same thing until I looked at the area, just HOPING I could prove Duffy wrong. Yet, there just aren't any roads there based on google maps and earth imagery and digitized roads (they do have a LOT of really tiny roads in their database), bing maps, ArcGIS data downloaded from the county website, openstreetmap, census.gov data, and the basic ArcGIS streets map. No roads dude.

The problem is the person who wrote the article didn't explicitly state they were looking at officially designated "roadless" areas. I downloaded this data http://www.fs.usda.gov/...?cid=stelprdb5382437 and this data does support the claim that the furthest you can get is 15 miles (but this is ONLY if you are only looking in officially designated roadless areas). What they didn't consider is that there are roadless areas that didn't make the cut to be included in the Forest Service roadless area maps.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:

It's not something you can just eyeball on a topo, was actually my only point in this.

And I'm asking you, still, why not?

Is the topo less accurate than the map the advanced software uses?

Yes it is, lines on a map have to be a minimum thickness and depending on the scale the line is not to scale therefore the exact location is not correct. 2nd there is the question of printing accuracy and method used to print. With a computer you can change the visual scale without changing the data scale. So if the data is accurate to within a few feet that's the accuracy.

A simpler example do you think you can draw a more accurate map with crayons or fine tipped markers???

Also map makers choose what data to put on their map, the computer database would include all the data.

It really surprises me your even debating if a computer map is more accurate than one made and printed.

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
None of which matters when we're talking about determining a distance of 10 miles.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Sideways wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
Just read that there is no place east of the Mississippi where you are more than 10 miles from a road. West of the Mississippi there are 2 places you can be more than 10 miles from a road, 1 more than 15 and 1 more than 20.


Isle Royale in northern Lake Superior doesn't count??? Never seen a moose driving anything up there...that place is about as far out of the way as you can get in the lower 48.


It's been proven numerous times in this thread that the original assertion is bullshit.

Well it appears to not be perfectly accurate it also does not appear to be as far off as you think given this data.

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Also map makers choose what data to put on their map, the computer database would include all the data.

But in this case the computer database people did not include all the data. If they did they would find several areas (some of them i listed here previously) that would be more than 10 miles form the nearest road.

Nobody here has yet to prove that Benson Lake is within 10 miles of a road.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:
Read the entire thing I'm pretty sure I lost 50 IQ points.

How can you tell?

I read one of your posts and it made sense

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CaptainCanada wrote:
JSA wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:
Read the entire thing I'm pretty sure I lost 50 IQ points.


How can you tell?


I read one of your posts and it made sense

My job regularly requires me to convince idiots. Glad to see my years of hard work are not in vain.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:
None of which matters when we're talking about determining a distance of 10 miles.

None of any of this really matters.

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lol. Touche!








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:
JSA wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:
Read the entire thing I'm pretty sure I lost 50 IQ points.


How can you tell?


I read one of your posts and it made sense

My job regularly requires me to convince idiots. Glad to see my years of hard work are not in vain.

Hahahah ... hard work. You are a lawyer. How hard is it to cheat people out of money?

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [eb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
eb wrote:
eb wrote:
You would be wrong. Besides, you really should list those in reverse order as cloud cover typically has far less impact than line-of-sight issues. That's particularly true in the mountainous location I linked to.

So you lost on length - want to try girth now?


racin_rusty wrote:
So you're not smart enough to climb to the top of a mountain and you think cloud cover has little bearing on reception. Gotcha.


Hahaha. Have climbed more mountains than you ever will, and that's not what I said about cloud cover.

You lose on girth, too. No surprise.

Alrighty then...

Don't confuse how well a sat radio works with isolation

The 2 are mutually exclusive.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CaptainCanada wrote:
JSA wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:
JSA wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:
Read the entire thing I'm pretty sure I lost 50 IQ points.


How can you tell?


I read one of your posts and it made sense


My job regularly requires me to convince idiots. Glad to see my years of hard work are not in vain.


Hahahah ... hard work. You are a lawyer. How hard is it to cheat people out of money?

Not very hard, when they are as "smart" as you ...

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [racin_rusty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
racin_rusty wrote:
eb wrote:
eb wrote:
You would be wrong. Besides, you really should list those in reverse order as cloud cover typically has far less impact than line-of-sight issues. That's particularly true in the mountainous location I linked to.

So you lost on length - want to try girth now?


racin_rusty wrote:
So you're not smart enough to climb to the top of a mountain and you think cloud cover has little bearing on reception. Gotcha.


Hahaha. Have climbed more mountains than you ever will, and that's not what I said about cloud cover.

You lose on girth, too. No surprise.


Alrighty then...

Don't confuse how well a sat radio works with isolation

The 2 are mutually exclusive.

Your response is flaccid. Looks like you lose on rigidity, too.

Seriously - if you want to discuss sat phone issues I'm game, but posting random links that you don't understand isn't getting us anywhere.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [torrey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
torrey wrote:
Tri-Banter wrote:
which group is the furthest from any other group at any one time
---

People on the ISS probably win that one.


Sometimes maybe, but it is only 400 km up and passes over populated areas all the time. Other times I would guess a lone boat in the Pacific or one of the Antarctic bases.

At one time, there were groups of people about 238,000 miles from any other people. Last time anyone was that far away was 1972.
Quote Reply
Re: Remoteness in the U.S. [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's from an article I read, it's hardly my premise. Just like the LR to turn some interesting information into a pissing match.


Just more proof that people only believe what they believe.


I'm not surprised at all to be honest. I biked a lot in the U.S and did a fair amount of hiking in "remote" areas but was never really remote. I also biked up on the farthest road north in Canada (Inuvik) and when I was on that road, there wasn't any other road for 750 km. You might fight that in Alaska but no chance anywhere below the Canadian border.
Quote Reply

Prev Next