I'm not sure you are correct. I work with GIS (academic not commercial or accessibility related to be fair) but normally the issue with green and shades of green is when it's in contrast with a red or orange shade. That's when colour blind issues come into play.

If this were purely greyscale, you would be able to see each tone fine (although could be tweaked to increase contrast eg lighter green to start and bigger steps) which is the quick test for colourblind problems.

I disagree with you (especially on the colour point), but at least you took the time to make your points constructive. Too many people were just saying "you did the worst job possible" and that is not a helpful way to give feedback.

You and I have different definitions of misleading, I guess. No worries.

More efficient that way. Go, goer, and goest

You're still wrong, it's neither ridiculous nor totally misleading even if it is sub-optimal in the shades of green used. The data is showing forests not general vegetation cover, I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a light green tone for the 0-20% bucket.

Also, happy cake day.

Good job the Sahara isn't an Indian state then...

I doubt you would use the same 20% buckets if you were doing a more global map, doesn't make the colour choice as inherently bad as people are suggesting in the comments.

There is a difference between constructive criticism / feedback and saying "this is the worst possible thing you could do"

What is misleading about the title? Just the use of "%age"? Because, while I agree with those pointing out that it is not necessary, it is also fairly common. What else was so misleading about the title?

The colours are really not that egregious: quite clearly it is showing that the darker the green, the higher the percentage of trees. Really not "the worst possible way to use colour" but I guess people on the internet love to be outraged.

Ever heard of grass? Nothing wrong with using light green as the base colour that gets darker with higher percentage of forests.

Too many people criticising a perfectly legitimate choice of gradient and shouting hyperboles. Let's be honest, the use of colour is not "ridiculous" even if it's not the most optimal design.

Calling it misleading is a little strong. You would prefer it to be brown, I would personally prefer a more pale green, but the amount of hate in the comments is crazy.

The darker the green, the more forests. Seems to make sense to me.

Wow, people in the comments really didn't like the concept of "the darker the green, the more trees".