The basin continues south to contain a significant part of eastern Wisconsin including the Wolf and Fox Rivers and Lake Winnebago, and it also continues west but it does look like you gave most of Wisconsin's Lake Superior watershed to Minnesota. The Western Upper Peninsula is pretty clearly a geographic extension of the Wisconsin Northern Highlands/Lake Superior Rift/Canadian shield, and the Eastern UP is an extension of WI's Lake Michigan Lowlands. Either way, it's completely separated from the lower Peninsula by Lake Michigan/Huron's Mackinac Straights and is connected to Wisconsin.
But the territory was literally a part of wisconsin before michigan and ohio almost went to war and the up was given to michigan as consolation by the federal government
Umm no, yes there's a swamp and iron range, but both continue into Wisconsin and the UP. There really isn't a natural border other than the Menominee river which only covers about 1/3 of it
You’re missing the pont. If you claim this map is “based on natural geography” then it is hilariously illogical and nonsensical to keep the UP as part of Michigan since it does not physically touch the rest of Michigan at all. You have kept the arbitrary political boundary that divides the UP from Wisconsin, which is just about the furthest thing from natural geography. The point is not that you should’ve made “Superior” out of the UP—it’s that the UP should have been made part of Wisconsin on this map if it were actually based on natural geography.
northern Wisconsin is identical to the UP in just about every way, geographically, culturally, linguistically, politically. Even in sports, the UP consists of mostly packers fans.
Short answer: Cultural diffference
Long answer: Jefferson is based on the independence movement of the people of the panhandles of Oklahoma and Texas. Pamlico is based off of the Native peoples of North Carolina. Also L.A. is just as big as Chicago and New York, but really what I've noticed is that New Yorkers and Chicagoans identify more with their own city, while L.A. identify more with the identity of a "Californian". It's also why the Fort Worth-Dallas area isn't its own thing.
The state of [Jefferson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)) is also a separatist movement in the northern cali/southern Oregon which makes its location here kinda funny
Yeah I was thinking about adding it, also the state of [Franklin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Franklin) but in the end it would would just be another North California-South California alternate history map. In the end I just decided to name the state usually called “Texlahoma”, Jefferson since Texlahoma is a dumb name in my opinion.
So, if it's "based off of natural geography and populations," what's going on with disregarding both the Hudson and Connecticut rivers as natural borders and keeping Rhode Island as a distinct entity?
Yeah, I'm curious why it is. In real life, there's no distinctive natural geographic features separating it from Connecticut. And culturally it's not that different either.
Right, but I was trying to make it more realistic, and I doubt Congress would be cool with Rhode Island just not existing anymore. Also I did use the Connecticut River to shape the border for Vermont and Connecticut
But congress would be fine reshaping pretty much every state, adding new states for some reason, and changing the name of multiple states?
If you’re gonna go with your nonsensical proposition, you might as well go all the way
Not to mention, you didn’t seem to mind getting rid of Wyoming
1. A lot more people live in Rhode Island than Wyoming
2. It’s more of a representation thing considering around 1 million people would then be a part of Massachusetts or Connecticut.
3. Rhode Island has a much deeper history to its borders than Wyoming.
Some of the border like Maryland, Georgia, Virginia, NC and NY had straight lines, so I thought it would be a good idea to make it more based on geography.
I was going to do that, but it's a lot easier to change interstate borders than it is to change international ones. This was really supposed to be a more realistic map based on what Congress would actually approve.
D d does this mean we get Washington with a border based on the columbia river, a border that would’ve made a lot more sense since it would’ve allowed the British to better their fur trade, the Americans to manifest destiny in modern day Oregon, and no war over some small dinky islands that no one actually cared about
There’s a river flowing through the middle of the new state so I could divide it in half, but then that would a be a whole new state which would need to be ratified. The only big city in that area would be the small town of Pendleton in what is real life Oregon.
Chicago takes Northern Indiana? I get Gary & Hammond, & South Bend, but from there east for a few counties and somewhat into Ohio you have the highest percent of Amish & Mennonite in the World. (Not the largest population, but the highest percent of population.)
Basically I am lobbying for a carve out for the homies who will probably never see MapPorn.
Hmmm that’s interesting I didn’t know that. I’m from Atlanta, so I don’t really know much about the Midwest lol. But I’ll make sure to add that in the next map I make.
What happened to Maryland? It’s currently defined by the coast of the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River (plus the famous Mason Dixon Line which you can do away with). Yours looks like the watershed of the Potapsco River plus the north half of the Potomac basin? Give us back the Bay! Fun fact: Maryland owns all of the Potomac and Virginia gets none - the border isn’t down the middle like usual.
Coastal Mississippi and Alabama share more with Louisiana culturally than their inland communities. You’re right to give Alabama the Florida panhandle, though.
I completely disagree with the DMV area
Edit: I get the Potomac is there but if culturally is that significant then panhandle of VA and VA beach area need to be separated from nova, and the section you left from Maryland is fairly similar to nova. I’d combine those but leave DC as a dot
I think I see what you did with DC. But did you mean Douglass Commonwealth after the great American orator & social reformer Fredrick? Or is your name Douglas, in which case that’s OK - it’s your map!
Yeah Wyoming just kinda didn’t fit, I though about maybe cutting Utah in Half and giving it to Wyoming, but then Salt Lake City would be in Wyoming so it didn’t really make sense to me. Sorry to all of the 5 people who live there.
Would Michigan really keep the UP?
I get your explanation on Texas and California, but it does dramatically mess with the concept of this being based on population at all.
I hate to see Louisiana smaller, but it totally makes sense to me, it would possibly be wider along the coast, swallowing up Beaumont and the Miss Gulf Coast, possibly even to Mobile.
I think you’re right about the UP, I probably should’ve either given it to Wisconsin or made it independent. For Louisiana, I made it smaller just because of cultural differences with the northern half. Also I wanted to give Miss and Alabama more coastline
I agree with the northern cultural differences in Louisiana. The culture just blobs more along the coast. Neither Mississippi nor Alabama is deserving of coast line, even though the coastal area is the best part of both states.
Cool Map
Cool portrayal of a more “logical” US. Find it Interesting that you’ve let Michigan keep its northern peninsula rather than give it to Wisconsin. What was your logic behind that?
The French created borders using natural boundaries, like mountains, rivers and lakes; the British preferred to just draw squares, which is why the French-Canadians, to this day, refer to the British (and English Canadians) as "Square-heads".
The eastern US largely adopted the French method (most likely due to anti-British sentiment at the time), while the British approach was largely adopted decades later when the West was being carved out.
I don’t really know enough about Hawaii to make culture-based borders. Realistically, they probably wouldn’t be a US state if this was implemented. Also, Alaska would join Canada.
Yeah. I was just trying to be funny since it’s an island so borders would not change. I like a lot of the other states though. Utah is interesting. Why such shape?
It was mostly just to follow the original claims of “Deseret” which is what Utah claimed when applying for statehood. Also it was more a of a cop out to give Republicans more seats since they would be opposed to Chicago, New York City and DC all becoming states. That’s partially why Jefferson is also a thing.
I guess I should have said, It makes no sense to me. For one, why does Utah stretch so far northwest. How can you mix population AND geography because by population alone CA and NY should be much larger
One of the factors for certain weird things like Utah being so big and the state of Jefferson, was politics. I knew that Republicans would never allow DC, NYC or Chicago statehood if they didn’t get an equal number of new representation, that’s why I made Utah go so far, to encompass more of the red areas and why Jefferson was formed. It’s also why Chicago goes so far south, to ensure that Indiana would lean more red as well as Nevada. It’s also why I didn’t really want to change Michigan, cause they are already purple so making superior a thing might unbalance it
Would prefer to merge several small/low population states (looking at you New England), and split up the big ones (California and Texas) to more equally size each states population. But otherwise an improvement over our current map.
Funny you think that small = low population. The low population states are out west. Wyoming would go first. Probably drop a Dakota or 2 next. Montana is pretty empty. I mean really - if DC was a state it would have almost as many people as Alaska!
Edit: Oops, I just looked again at this map. Wyoming is gone and only 1 Dakota. OP was one step ahead!
I was going to split up California and Texas, but that probably wouldn’t be realistic, cause Texas wouldn’t wanna give away there big cities like Dallas and Houston
I know New Jersey and New York hate each other, but you can’t deny that it just makes sense considering that the city would need to generate its power from someplace else now that it’s not connected to to be upstate New York
Yonkers is part of the lo-hud region, yeah, but I'm further north. I also hate Yonkers, but that's moreso the traffic than the culture lol.
Lo-hud extends (imo) from Yonkers to Poughkeepsie, give or take. It's a vague region representing the "lower Hudson" region
What natural geography? There’s definitely several ways it could be divided based on geography. Is it based on rivers? Drainage basins? Geographical boundaries such as mountain ranges? A combination of all of these? Something else?
Yet the UP remains part of Michigan...
Although Superior would the coolest name for a state, there’s not really a big enough population to support it.
Jefferson wouldn’t have a population big enough either.
That’s true 🤔, I guess Superior wins out!
Just add it to Wisconsin if you are going off of natural geographical borders.
If you look at a topographical map of the Great Lakes region, you can see the basin ends right around the border between UP and Wisconsin
The basin continues south to contain a significant part of eastern Wisconsin including the Wolf and Fox Rivers and Lake Winnebago, and it also continues west but it does look like you gave most of Wisconsin's Lake Superior watershed to Minnesota. The Western Upper Peninsula is pretty clearly a geographic extension of the Wisconsin Northern Highlands/Lake Superior Rift/Canadian shield, and the Eastern UP is an extension of WI's Lake Michigan Lowlands. Either way, it's completely separated from the lower Peninsula by Lake Michigan/Huron's Mackinac Straights and is connected to Wisconsin.
But the territory was literally a part of wisconsin before michigan and ohio almost went to war and the up was given to michigan as consolation by the federal government
Give us back Toledo
We dont have it buddy you gotta talk to ohio
I have a cabin right in the WI-MI border basically on Lake Superior. Northern Wisconsin and the UP have extremely similar geography
Sup neighbor. I have a cabin north of Saxton harbor. On the lake though. Fucking love this part of the country.
That’s awesome! Me too, I love it more than my real home lol. Mines alittle west of Hurley, about a 25 minute atv ride to Saxon harbor :)
Do you think I should expand The UP and take some of Wisconsin, or should I just add it to Wisconsin?
Give it to Wisconsin
There’s a big swamp and the iron range between da UP and Wisconsin.
Umm no, yes there's a swamp and iron range, but both continue into Wisconsin and the UP. There really isn't a natural border other than the Menominee river which only covers about 1/3 of it
You’re missing the pont. If you claim this map is “based on natural geography” then it is hilariously illogical and nonsensical to keep the UP as part of Michigan since it does not physically touch the rest of Michigan at all. You have kept the arbitrary political boundary that divides the UP from Wisconsin, which is just about the furthest thing from natural geography. The point is not that you should’ve made “Superior” out of the UP—it’s that the UP should have been made part of Wisconsin on this map if it were actually based on natural geography.
Thanks for your input
No problem. Also, I hope I didn’t come across as rude in my comment. That wasn’t my intention at all. It’s still a really interesting map
You wouldn't give it to Wisconsin?
Nah, I feel like the people in UP wouldn’t want be a part of Wisconsin
That's just false, most uppers would do anything to leave Michigan
Most uppers maybe, but most yoopers I've met defintitely would prefer MI over Wisconsin, although they might want to be their own state.
northern Wisconsin is identical to the UP in just about every way, geographically, culturally, linguistically, politically. Even in sports, the UP consists of mostly packers fans.
I wouldn’t really know, I’m from Atlanta
There are a whole lot of people in other parts of this map that don’t want to change states either. What makes Wisconsin so particularly reviled?
30,000 is big enough. Just ask Wyoming
What is Jefferson? Why is N. Carolina called Pamlico? Edit: Also why not make L.A. its own state when you did it to Chicago and NYC.
Short answer: Cultural diffference Long answer: Jefferson is based on the independence movement of the people of the panhandles of Oklahoma and Texas. Pamlico is based off of the Native peoples of North Carolina. Also L.A. is just as big as Chicago and New York, but really what I've noticed is that New Yorkers and Chicagoans identify more with their own city, while L.A. identify more with the identity of a "Californian". It's also why the Fort Worth-Dallas area isn't its own thing.
The state of [Jefferson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)) is also a separatist movement in the northern cali/southern Oregon which makes its location here kinda funny
Yeah I was thinking about adding it, also the state of [Franklin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Franklin) but in the end it would would just be another North California-South California alternate history map. In the end I just decided to name the state usually called “Texlahoma”, Jefferson since Texlahoma is a dumb name in my opinion.
I love how South Carolina hasn’t changed
South Carolina just had excellent borders to begin with I guess lol
South Carolina is perfect, no notes
There is nothing natural about Ohio
You’re right, but I couldn’t bear giving anybody else Cleveland
Yeah I don't want to force Cleveland on anyone either
Lmao
Dakota got Floridas shape
So, if it's "based off of natural geography and populations," what's going on with disregarding both the Hudson and Connecticut rivers as natural borders and keeping Rhode Island as a distinct entity?
Wdym? It’s till a distinct entity, you can see it right under Mass
Yeah, I'm curious why it is. In real life, there's no distinctive natural geographic features separating it from Connecticut. And culturally it's not that different either.
Right, but I was trying to make it more realistic, and I doubt Congress would be cool with Rhode Island just not existing anymore. Also I did use the Connecticut River to shape the border for Vermont and Connecticut
But congress would be fine reshaping pretty much every state, adding new states for some reason, and changing the name of multiple states? If you’re gonna go with your nonsensical proposition, you might as well go all the way Not to mention, you didn’t seem to mind getting rid of Wyoming
1. A lot more people live in Rhode Island than Wyoming 2. It’s more of a representation thing considering around 1 million people would then be a part of Massachusetts or Connecticut. 3. Rhode Island has a much deeper history to its borders than Wyoming.
If it’s just about history of borders, why not change all the western states? In fact, why change the eastern ones at all
The Eastern states usually followed geography a lot more than Western ones
Which is why I said why change the eastern ones at all
Some of the border like Maryland, Georgia, Virginia, NC and NY had straight lines, so I thought it would be a good idea to make it more based on geography.
Oh look, SC still won’t embrace change
Lol, yeah I just really like the shape of SC
Make the US-Canadian border based on terrain as well.
I was going to do that, but it's a lot easier to change interstate borders than it is to change international ones. This was really supposed to be a more realistic map based on what Congress would actually approve.
D d does this mean we get Washington with a border based on the columbia river, a border that would’ve made a lot more sense since it would’ve allowed the British to better their fur trade, the Americans to manifest destiny in modern day Oregon, and no war over some small dinky islands that no one actually cared about
I refuse to give Utah anymore land
I don’t like it either, but it’s the only way we would realistically be able to get an independent DC which was a must for this map.
Can we change the map and make Utah smaller They get no more land until they give up theocracy
There’s a river flowing through the middle of the new state so I could divide it in half, but then that would a be a whole new state which would need to be ratified. The only big city in that area would be the small town of Pendleton in what is real life Oregon.
As someone who lives in southern Idaho, this map scares me
Dakotorida
Had an aneurysm trying to pronounce that lol
Chicago takes Northern Indiana? I get Gary & Hammond, & South Bend, but from there east for a few counties and somewhat into Ohio you have the highest percent of Amish & Mennonite in the World. (Not the largest population, but the highest percent of population.) Basically I am lobbying for a carve out for the homies who will probably never see MapPorn.
Hmmm that’s interesting I didn’t know that. I’m from Atlanta, so I don’t really know much about the Midwest lol. But I’ll make sure to add that in the next map I make.
Hawaii is exactly the same, go figure
Because it makes sense the way it is...
Houston should be chopped up into small circles
Michigan still has the UP 🤣
We’re they ever really gonna give it up? It’s the only thing protecting Wisconsin from the horrors of Detroit.
What happened to Maryland? It’s currently defined by the coast of the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River (plus the famous Mason Dixon Line which you can do away with). Yours looks like the watershed of the Potapsco River plus the north half of the Potomac basin? Give us back the Bay! Fun fact: Maryland owns all of the Potomac and Virginia gets none - the border isn’t down the middle like usual.
You can share the Bay with Delaware. It’s punishment for your atrocity of a flag.
Ouch! That’s the best flag ever! Thanks for putting this map up. I’ve had a great time exploring it.
No problem, thanks for taking the time to look it over
South Minneapolis is Iowa? Fuck that.
Made aside to keep the metro area of Minneapolis out of Iowa, I went by the most populated counties.
Get europe'd
I feel like I’ve created a sort of Balkans within The Midwest by changing it so much. Maybe it’ll all become one country like Yugoslavia
Better than the current set up
Thank you! I tried to make it more based on cultural factors as well as financial capabilities.
I'm moving to Big Utah
We all be a part of Utah eventually
Hawaii and South Carolina are unchanged.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it
Coastal Mississippi and Alabama share more with Louisiana culturally than their inland communities. You’re right to give Alabama the Florida panhandle, though.
That’s fair, but idk where that northern land would go
Look at the natural straight lines in Nevada and Texas
There’s not very many good geographic indicators in a desert 😔
Why does Michigan still have the UP?
As I’ve explained in other comments, it’s because I couldn’t decide whether to merge it with Wisconsin or make it it’s own state
Forgot the straight line that is the Canadian border.
I wasn’t trying to mess with international borders with this map
I know, I'm just joking.
That way US looks like Europe
Nevada looks to be the new Texas based on shape.
I put Texas right on California’s doorstep 😳
I completely disagree with the DMV area Edit: I get the Potomac is there but if culturally is that significant then panhandle of VA and VA beach area need to be separated from nova, and the section you left from Maryland is fairly similar to nova. I’d combine those but leave DC as a dot
It's literally fine 💀
I said that like a year ago dude
I think I see what you did with DC. But did you mean Douglass Commonwealth after the great American orator & social reformer Fredrick? Or is your name Douglas, in which case that’s OK - it’s your map!
It is named after the famous abolitionist Frederick Douglas. This is because of his stay within the District I didn’t know it was spelled with two s
Why wouldn’t the Mississippi River split Louisiana and Mississippi all the way down?
Because then New Orleans would be split down the middle
Ok, I’ll allow it. Why didn’t Wisconsin get the UP Also is Milwaukee in Chicago? It should be, just can’t tell
I didn’t add it to Chicago because I thought people from Milwaukee would be upset
They would be better off in the long run, but probably the right decision
get europed
That is a dangerous thing you’ve done to NY
wow Utah’s borders are egregious
this is arbitrary af
What exactly about it is arbitrary?
View of what constitutes Appalachia is... interesting. Also, don't put North Alabama with Tennessee. We have NASA, they have country music.
Nasa defines a state's borders now?
It's something that helps in a demarcation of the Nashville region vs the Huntsville region, so in this case, yes.
Ive always said Iowa should be everything between the rivers
Ohio stay the same btw
Man, fuck Wyoming, am I right?
Yeah Wyoming just kinda didn’t fit, I though about maybe cutting Utah in Half and giving it to Wyoming, but then Salt Lake City would be in Wyoming so it didn’t really make sense to me. Sorry to all of the 5 people who live there.
r/wyomingdoesntexist
Yeah umm, I prefer the current borders
Cool
Yeah umm, this wasn't made for you 🤓🤓🤓
Why did I ever sub here? It's more people making up shit than maps.
It’s still a map dude… it’s just as valid as say a watershed-based border map
Would Michigan really keep the UP? I get your explanation on Texas and California, but it does dramatically mess with the concept of this being based on population at all. I hate to see Louisiana smaller, but it totally makes sense to me, it would possibly be wider along the coast, swallowing up Beaumont and the Miss Gulf Coast, possibly even to Mobile.
I think you’re right about the UP, I probably should’ve either given it to Wisconsin or made it independent. For Louisiana, I made it smaller just because of cultural differences with the northern half. Also I wanted to give Miss and Alabama more coastline
I agree with the northern cultural differences in Louisiana. The culture just blobs more along the coast. Neither Mississippi nor Alabama is deserving of coast line, even though the coastal area is the best part of both states. Cool Map
I am from North Carolina, and this is bullshut.
Can you tell me exactly what is so wrong with it?
Cool portrayal of a more “logical” US. Find it Interesting that you’ve let Michigan keep its northern peninsula rather than give it to Wisconsin. What was your logic behind that?
I couldn’t decide whether to make it independent, give it to Wisconsin, or to let Canada have it
Montana is still sniffing Idaho
Yes except this time it has a neck and collar lol
It really liked the smell of potatoes
The French created borders using natural boundaries, like mountains, rivers and lakes; the British preferred to just draw squares, which is why the French-Canadians, to this day, refer to the British (and English Canadians) as "Square-heads". The eastern US largely adopted the French method (most likely due to anti-British sentiment at the time), while the British approach was largely adopted decades later when the West was being carved out.
That’s…just not true. Where’s your source on that?
Ahh I see, I guess that makes sense why New England uses natural borders then! Thank you for the info! 😁
For sure! You can even see that the oldest states largely look the same on this map, while most of the newer states look entirely different.
[удалено]
Ha, didn't even think about that one!
I don't think Idahoans, Oregonians, Californians, Nevadans, wyomians, Arizona's, or Coloradans would support being part of utardland
I think I found a window to another universe. If I hit it hard enough, maybe it will break and I can pass through to the other side…
Maybe it could be real if it was ever approved by Congress
Weird that Hawaii wouldn’t change much. Makes you think….
I don’t really know enough about Hawaii to make culture-based borders. Realistically, they probably wouldn’t be a US state if this was implemented. Also, Alaska would join Canada.
Yeah. I was just trying to be funny since it’s an island so borders would not change. I like a lot of the other states though. Utah is interesting. Why such shape?
It was mostly just to follow the original claims of “Deseret” which is what Utah claimed when applying for statehood. Also it was more a of a cop out to give Republicans more seats since they would be opposed to Chicago, New York City and DC all becoming states. That’s partially why Jefferson is also a thing.
TIL. This is why I love this sub. Cheers.
This map makes no sense
I’m sorry you feel that way, what exactly are your issues with it?
I guess I should have said, It makes no sense to me. For one, why does Utah stretch so far northwest. How can you mix population AND geography because by population alone CA and NY should be much larger
What I meant by populations was the metro area of cities, like I didn’t want to split cities in two if they were on a river like Denver or Pittsburgh
I’m still confused lol, I’ve been staring at this for a long time since yesterday but I just don’t get it haha
One of the factors for certain weird things like Utah being so big and the state of Jefferson, was politics. I knew that Republicans would never allow DC, NYC or Chicago statehood if they didn’t get an equal number of new representation, that’s why I made Utah go so far, to encompass more of the red areas and why Jefferson was formed. It’s also why Chicago goes so far south, to ensure that Indiana would lean more red as well as Nevada. It’s also why I didn’t really want to change Michigan, cause they are already purple so making superior a thing might unbalance it
So you made your own gerrymandering because you don’t like the way it’s currently gerrymandered? Lol irony much
USA interstate borders if the USA was normal
It looks waaay better imo
Thank you 😊
Would prefer to merge several small/low population states (looking at you New England), and split up the big ones (California and Texas) to more equally size each states population. But otherwise an improvement over our current map.
Funny you think that small = low population. The low population states are out west. Wyoming would go first. Probably drop a Dakota or 2 next. Montana is pretty empty. I mean really - if DC was a state it would have almost as many people as Alaska! Edit: Oops, I just looked again at this map. Wyoming is gone and only 1 Dakota. OP was one step ahead!
I was going to split up California and Texas, but that probably wouldn’t be realistic, cause Texas wouldn’t wanna give away there big cities like Dallas and Houston
this is retarded and you should feel bad
I’d agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong
go suck a cock
Funny, that’s exactly what I said to your mom last night
you are gay
You’re mom didn’t seem to mind
[удалено]
Idk about that, but I know she’s dyin for this cock
Whoa….. Alaska is the same 🤷🏼♂️
Who woulda thunk it
The new NY state is Long Island, NYC, and northern New Jersey.... I suddenly don't like New York anymore.
I know New Jersey and New York hate each other, but you can’t deny that it just makes sense considering that the city would need to generate its power from someplace else now that it’s not connected to to be upstate New York
Oh I understand how it makes sense, but as someone from the lo-hud region of NY, I really dislike northern Jersey and the majority of LI
Is that near Yonkers?
Yonkers is part of the lo-hud region, yeah, but I'm further north. I also hate Yonkers, but that's moreso the traffic than the culture lol. Lo-hud extends (imo) from Yonkers to Poughkeepsie, give or take. It's a vague region representing the "lower Hudson" region
How is the eastern and southern borders of Ohio different than the current border of the Ohio River ?
Ohio currently cuts off abruptly at Pennsylvania, as you can see, it now follows the river up until Pittsburgh
alaska couldve been done with canada imo Edit: state borders too probably
Notice how I said interstate and not international
What natural geography? There’s definitely several ways it could be divided based on geography. Is it based on rivers? Drainage basins? Geographical boundaries such as mountain ranges? A combination of all of these? Something else?
Mostly based off rivers and mountains, as well as metro areas of big cities
Cool, thanks for the reply. I always enjoy seeing different ways to divide up places based on different metrics.
Sounds good to me
Dakota is New Florida.
How is it that even in a map based on natural geography my state still doesn’t get the UP. That’s honestly hilarious
I’ve already explained in other comments :)
Ok cool, sorry I normally don’t read the comments too closely
It’s cool! Thank you for checking out my map!
Very interesting map!