Difference between revisions of "Talk:2009-08-01 49 -113"
From Geohashing
imported>Relet m |
imported>Elbie (no worries about the laughing, I find it funny too) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Regarding the farming... I've noticed these square fields with circles in them on Google Maps/Earth many times. Is it irrigation that produces the circles? I find it a bit odd that they use a square grid of fields: hexagonal like a honeycomb would be more efficient. --[[User:Macronencer|macronencer]] 14:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | Regarding the farming... I've noticed these square fields with circles in them on Google Maps/Earth many times. Is it irrigation that produces the circles? I find it a bit odd that they use a square grid of fields: hexagonal like a honeycomb would be more efficient. --[[User:Macronencer|macronencer]] 14:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
:You are correct. I assume compactness is not a necessity. ;) -- [[User:relet|relet]] 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | :You are correct. I assume compactness is not a necessity. ;) -- [[User:relet|relet]] 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::The circles are indeed from the irrigation -- you can read more about it here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_pivot_irrigation] The land in Alberta was parceled into farms before this became the norm, thus the rectangular lands. And while hexagonal would be more efficient in theory, but it would be a pain in the ass to rezone the entire province, rebuild the roads, do all the paperwork, and avoid all the pitchforks. Albertans are afraid of change. [[User:Elbie|- Elbie]] 16:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:37, 2 August 2009
Oh boy... I know I shouldn't laugh, but I was chuckling throughout much of this. I hope you weren't too badly bitten! The way you make this sound, I think it almost qualifies for a MNIMB honorable mention!! Regarding the farming... I've noticed these square fields with circles in them on Google Maps/Earth many times. Is it irrigation that produces the circles? I find it a bit odd that they use a square grid of fields: hexagonal like a honeycomb would be more efficient. --macronencer 14:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct. I assume compactness is not a necessity. ;) -- relet 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The circles are indeed from the irrigation -- you can read more about it here: [1] The land in Alberta was parceled into farms before this became the norm, thus the rectangular lands. And while hexagonal would be more efficient in theory, but it would be a pain in the ass to rezone the entire province, rebuild the roads, do all the paperwork, and avoid all the pitchforks. Albertans are afraid of change. - Elbie 16:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
