Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ringobob t1_jeg5rtc wrote

Reply to comment by CalEPygous in There really isn't any reason why north is always upward and south is always downward on maps. by GuinnessTheBestBoi

Why does that make it make sense? You could just as easily say the land mass is more dense, so it should be considered the bottom, or considering populations, it makes more sense to consider the landmass as a mountain, and more people live in the valleys than the peaks.

There's not a geographical reason, there's a sociological reason, informed by geography.

0

CalEPygous t1_jegenk6 wrote

You realize your comments make no sense. That the prime meridian is at zero in Greenwich England is a sociological/historical fact. That north is on top makes sense based upon the geographic fact that most of the landmass of the earth is north of the equator. Therefore the names on the maps would be read (as one reads a book) from top to bottom. These latter two facts have nothing to do with the UK or anything other than geographic facts and common sense.

−1

ringobob t1_jegm9ou wrote

>That north is on top makes sense based upon the geographic fact that most of the landmass of the earth is north of the equator.

You say that like it's the obvious choice to make. It's not. It could just as easily make sense to put south on top because most of the landmass of the earth is north of the equator, and most of the landmass of the earth is below our feet, i.e. down. That's my entire point from beginning to end. Someone has to choose that majority of landmass equals higher up on the map. It's not a universal constant that someone would choose to put that at the top of the map. Nor is it a universal constant that my comment, therefore, makes no sense.

1