Talk:Pole of inaccessibility
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The article says that this definition is used by explorers and ... conspiracy theorists. What conspiracy theories exist around these definitions? Nyh 10:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Eurasian Pole
Google shows a rather extensive building complex near the Eurasian Pole of Inaccessibility, at about . Anybody know what it is? ➥the Epopt 16:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like it might be the town of Xazgat, which according to http://www.fallingrain.com/world/CH/13/Xazgat.html is at . Google maps puts that about 4 miles to the north of where your link points to, which is the exact centre of the settlement, but I don't see anything much else nearby that could be Xazgat instead. The fallingrain.com link also says "approximate population for 7 km radius from this point: 169", while on the satellite photo it looks rather bigger than that... but who knows how accurate that population data might be. Matt 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Meaning of this sentence from article?
It isn't clear to me what this sentence means, "Coincidentally, the Eurasian and the Pacific poles have approximately the same radius." What type of radius are we talking about? ike9898 14:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have clarified that the Eurasian pole is about as far from the ocean as the Pacific pole is from land. ➥the Epopt 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Map
Someone with skill, how about a map? 71.102.144.27 20:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] N2i
What are the penguins on Team N2i's logo doing? ➥the Epopt 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eurasian pole calculation
Someone has a clue on who calculated the coordinates of the pole and how? Any reference/citation?Andres72 15:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Southern Pole of Inaccessibility: various contradictions between articles
- This article implies that the Southern Pole of Inaccessibility was first reached on December 14, 1958 by the 3rd Soviet Antarctic Expedition (this information was recently copied across from South Pole, although I believe the coordinates originally given there were wrong and referred to a totally different definition of this Pole). The article Pole of inaccessibility (Antarctic research station) implies that it was first reached by the second Soviet Antarctic Expedition, and the same date of 14 December 1958 is mentioned. Maybe both were in the area - I don't know - but it would be nice to clarify which expedition actually established the station, and which was the first to reach where and when. Note that it is not adequate just to state that someone was the "first to reach the Pole of Inaccessibility" because there is absolutely no agreement about where it is. Instead the firsts need to be explicitly referred to coordinate locations.
- This article says that the Soviet Pole of Inaccessibility station lies 878 km from the South Pole. Pole of inaccessibility (Antarctic research station) says 463 km. A simple calculation seems to indicate that the 463 km figure cannot be correct for the stated coordinates, but since the location of this wretched place is all such a muddle I'm reluctant to change it independently.
- This article equates the defunct Pole of inaccessibility (Antarctic research station) with "Polyus Nedostupnosti", yet the actual article Polyus Nedostupnosti says that it's "still active". Is this a mistake, or are we actually talking about two different stations?
[edit] Terminology
At some point in the past someone changed the name "Eurasian Pole of Inaccessiblity" to "Continental Pole of Inaccessibility" with the comment "Better naming, I think". I don't know what the preferred term is -- there are a lot more Google hits for "Eurasian" than "Continental", but how many of them are just effectively copies of the text that was once in Wikipedia I haven't tried to figure out.
Unfortunately with the addition now of another "continental pole", the section no longer really makes sense. It starts off saying "The Continental Pole of Inaccessibility ... is the place on land that is farthest from the ocean. It lies in Eurasia..." but then later says "In North America, the Continental Pole of Inaccessibility is in southwest South Dakota..." This implies that there is one such pole for every continent, so there is no such thing as "the" Continental Pole. To make sense of it one would have to qualify with "Eurasian Continental Pole of Inaccessibility", "North American Continental Pole of Inaccessibility" etc., in which case it seems much easier just to put it back how it was and call it the "Eurasian Pole of Inaccessibility" (and "North American Pole of Inaccessibility" I suppose). Does anyone have any views on this? Matt 01:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Map quality
- The map shows dark red in the South Atlantic -- this seems wrong to me: the island of Tristan de Cunha lies right there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.185.127 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, distance to coastline does not exceed 2000 km in the Indian ocean and neither in the Atlantic, as suggested in that map
. The spanish Wikipedia has a more detailed map that we could use here:
. This image is besides better source-referenced.
Map of distance to the coastline with locations of the main Poles of Inaccessibility. Thin isolines every 250 km; thick lines every 1000 km.
- Unfortunately, the Pacific ocean is distorted and squished to the margins in that map... AnonMoos (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- The proposed image is a Mollweide projection, which has the advantage of respecting areas. Any equal-area projection will distort shapes. The image presently used Image:Distance.from.coast.png does not respect areas. See map projections. Gaianauta (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
