imported>Robyn (I climbed a hill once in Saskatchewan.) |
imported>Meghan |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
::::Hmm. Saskatchewan isn't so square as people think... --[[User:Meghan|Meghan]] 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | ::::Hmm. Saskatchewan isn't so square as people think... --[[User:Meghan|Meghan]] 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::It's not as flat as people think, either. It gets bumpier north of Prince Albert. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 18:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | :::::It's not as flat as people think, either. It gets bumpier north of Prince Albert. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 18:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::I'm talking two-dimensionally. The Saskatchewan/Manitoba border does not run parallel to a longitude. When I get the map up you'll see what I'm talking about. --[[User:Meghan|Meghan]] 19:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:03, 10 March 2009
99, eh? "If one of those graticules should happen to fall..." Nice map. --starbird18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't see what you've done differently that makes my graticules tall and yours wide. Perhaps someone else can spot it. -Robyn 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- The only thing I can think of is that BC is so wide it fills up the screen, and your grat #s have to go downward. Other than that I'll have to specify the cell heights, and my brain is not in coding-mode at the moment. --Meghan 19:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. The cells in both tables look the same to me, if I make my browser window wide enough. In some sense the cells should be taller than they are wide, so that the map is the same shape as the province. But this is perhaps not so important in the "all north all the time" provinces. --starbird 19:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think I've fixed it by specifying my table width. Now it should look the same no matter what your browser is configured to. --Meghan 20:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That looks much more like Alberta. Why are you including the Saskatchewan side of Lloydminster. I can't see any part of Alberta in that graticule. I think the town-straddling-the-provincial-border thing is blowing your mind. -Robyn 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Probably. Maybe I think 99 is a much nicer number than 98. I dunno.
- If a hash doesn't come along soon I might just make one of these for all the provinces. --Meghan 21:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Saskatchewan map will be so beautiful. :-) I can help you with names for Saskatchewan, though. I worked in northern Saskatchewan. I know the names of places that most people didn't know had people. -Robyn 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's great :D I can get a lot of names for southern Saskatchewan, thanks to my many summers there as a kid. We'll see how fast I can get this done. --Meghan 22:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. Saskatchewan isn't so square as people think... --Meghan 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's not as flat as people think, either. It gets bumpier north of Prince Albert. -Robyn 18:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm talking two-dimensionally. The Saskatchewan/Manitoba border does not run parallel to a longitude. When I get the map up you'll see what I'm talking about. --Meghan 19:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's not as flat as people think, either. It gets bumpier north of Prince Albert. -Robyn 18:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. Saskatchewan isn't so square as people think... --Meghan 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's great :D I can get a lot of names for southern Saskatchewan, thanks to my many summers there as a kid. We'll see how fast I can get this done. --Meghan 22:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Saskatchewan map will be so beautiful. :-) I can help you with names for Saskatchewan, though. I worked in northern Saskatchewan. I know the names of places that most people didn't know had people. -Robyn 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
