Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Try going on a long bike ride in the Sierras or the Cascades and you will think Western Mass is flat in comparison.
I've done that before. Neither region is flat. The Oregon Cascades are a sloping plateau in many spots, they don't look or feel that much hillier than northern New England, though the total elevation change is higher. There are plenty of spots in the West that aren't mountainous, but are hilly (say, hills around the Bay Area). No one there calls them flat. In terms of sloping terrain with constant up and downs, except for the coastal areas south of Maine, it isn't flat:
As for the actual topic of the thread, New England is scenic, but the interior isn't that different natural scenery-wise from the Appalachian Northeast.
Wondering why you think what you like, trumps what others like. Just so you know, I prefer green and rolling, over dramatic and rocky.
Please go back and read the thread again. I made a simple statement in my first post that New England may seem flat and less dramatic if you are used to the West, but not if you are from other parts of the country. That is all, I have been repeatedly attacked for four pages of this thread because of this simple statement, so I have been defending what I said.
I've done that before. Neither region is flat. The Oregon Cascades are a sloping plateau in many spots, they don't look or feel that much hillier than northern New England, though the total elevation change is higher. There are plenty of spots in the West that aren't mountainous, but are hilly (say, hills around the Bay Area). No one there calls them flat. In terms of sloping terrain with constant up and downs, except for the coastal areas south of Maine, it isn't flat:
As for the actual topic of the thread, New England is scenic, but the interior isn't that different natural scenery-wise from the Appalachian Northeast.
I grew up in the Bay Area and I would say that it is flat compared to the Sierras and Cascades.
I grew up in the Bay Area and I would say that it is flat compared to the Sierras and Cascades.
The Bay Area is not flat compared to anywhere. It's not flat. You really need to expand your vocabulary if you're going to start describing things to people. You are obsessed with "flat."
I would sound a like a real moron if I went to Mt Rainier or Mt Whitney and said, "wow, this place is flat... compared to Mt McKinley."
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaskwhy
Okay, then according to your definition, no landscape, even salt flats, are flat, because there are bumps on a micro level. It is completely dependent on what resolution you want to look at.
You have officially removed any doubt from my mind that you are here strictly to stir the pot and cause as much trouble as possible.
You are a troll; you are contributing nothing valuable to this topic.
You have officially removed any doubt from my mind that you are here strictly to stir the pot and cause as much trouble as possible.
You are a troll; you are contributing nothing valuable to this topic.
Fact is New England is not flat. Period.
I will not respond to you any further.
I had no interest in having this conversation in the first place. You responded to me first and freaked out over what I said. Not the other way around.
The Bay Area is not flat compared to anywhere. It's not flat. You really need to expand your vocabulary if you're going to start describing things to people. You are obsessed with "flat."
I would sound a like a real moron if I went to Mt Rainier or Mt Whitney and said, "wow, this place is flat... compared to Mt McKinley."
Flat is the opposite of mountainous. At least that is how I am using it, which is obvious in this context. If an area is less mountainous than another it is more flat. If an area is less flat than another, it is more hilly or mountainous.
Should I have instead said that the topography of New England was less dramatic, less mountainous, more rounded and more boring than the West? Would that have made you happy? I think not.
Tell me, what is the maximum gradient a landscape must have in order to be flat to you?
Hills are there or they are not, there is no seem. San Francisco doesn't seem flat. New England doesn't seem flat. Just because the White Mountains and Green Mountains aren't as big as the Rockies doesn't make them flat.
Does New England have nice scenery? or is it flat and boring?
I grew-up near Yosemite. If you like tall mountains, you will be disappointed in New England.
However it is not flat like the Mid-West is, nor is it boring.
Here in Maine the state is over 92% forest, with hundreds of rivers, lakes and ponds. We have over 3,000 miles of coast line. It is very beautiful.
I own 150 acres of forest here in Maine, out my back door I have 1/4 mile of river frontage. Very nice indeed.
If your looking for tall mountains, they are in short supply here. There is no mountain in New England tall enough to require that you bring oxygen with you to climb it. They are all fairly low elevation.
Driving here is very beautiful, few roads are straight, they are mostly curvy for dense forest, with many scenic views of water.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
