"Thin strip of land"
-
I'm not sure this is malintended
High aspect ratio just doesn't roll off the tongue does it?
-
If Scandinavia looks like a cock to you, then yes. But you might want to see a doctor it your cock looks like the outline of Norway and Sweden...
Sweden is clearly the cock and Finland the balls. Norway is only for Klingons.
-
If Scandinavia looks like a cock to you, then yes. But you might want to see a doctor it your cock looks like the outline of Norway and Sweden...
wrote last edited by [email protected]I saw a doctor in Amsterdam about it and he slid me €20 and kept saying, "I'm a real doctor". They really do things differently in Europe!
-
Sweden is clearly the cock and Finland the balls. Norway is only for Klingons.
Finland is not part of the traditional definition of Scandinavia
-
Finland is not part of the traditional definition of Scandinavia
Fennoscandia then
-
This post did not contain any content.
It is a relatively thin strip of land. I drove down the Carretera Austral a few years ago, you even have to drive through Argentina, because there are the sea and mountains and not enough space to "fit" a highway (alternatively you could take the ferry).
-
Full country for those interested
It is, undoubtedly, a thin strip of land.
-
As a Brit… … yeah actually
Yeah this is 100% correct. Today it's a damp and humid rock.
Wish I was on some far off thin strip of land, if I'm honest.
-
It is a relatively thin strip of land. I drove down the Carretera Austral a few years ago, you even have to drive through Argentina, because there are the sea and mountains and not enough space to "fit" a highway (alternatively you could take the ferry).
bro do you know how topographic maps relate to reality?
-
Full country for those interested
Yeah! Thanks. I was shouting "Zoom out! Zoom out!" at my screen.
-
It is a relatively thin strip of land. I drove down the Carretera Austral a few years ago, you even have to drive through Argentina, because there are the sea and mountains and not enough space to "fit" a highway (alternatively you could take the ferry).
What are you talking about? Chile gets wider at the bottom...
-
What are you talking about? Chile gets wider at the bottom...
You should zoom in and check the topography.
-
Brazil is a samosa balancing itself on its tip
wrote last edited by [email protected]Fun fact, Brazil has about the same length on the N-S as the E-W directions.
You can't notice this looking at most maps.
-
It is a relatively thin strip of land. I drove down the Carretera Austral a few years ago, you even have to drive through Argentina, because there are the sea and mountains and not enough space to "fit" a highway (alternatively you could take the ferry).
I'm sorry, but at no point does Chile get too thin to fit a highway. It is just that part meets a gulf and wildlife territory. They are all national parks. The alternative (to going into Argentina or the ferry) would be to deforest hundreds of hectares and blow up mountains just so tourists get an scenic car ride (that is already pretty scenic and spectacular as it is).
-
This post did not contain any content.
Well they're not wrong
It's enormous, but relatively speaking, a thin strip, yeah
-
I'm sorry, but at no point does Chile get too thin to fit a highway. It is just that part meets a gulf and wildlife territory. They are all national parks. The alternative (to going into Argentina or the ferry) would be to deforest hundreds of hectares and blow up mountains just so tourists get an scenic car ride (that is already pretty scenic and spectacular as it is).
That's why I put the "fit" in quotes. There is no space for a highway because of gulf, mountains and national parks, and that is a good thing.
If it was wider they would have built a highway for sure.
-
This post did not contain any content.
UK could have had Europe....
-
You should zoom in and check the topography.
I did that one day! That place is buck wild!
-
Full country for those interested
wrote last edited by [email protected]It is a very thick but even taller strip of land.
The point of reference for it's thinness shouldn't be it's own height, but rather the sizes of countries in general.
I mean, it's still be thin, but the UK has no place throwing stones from within that glass house lol
-
It is a very thick but even taller strip of land.
The point of reference for it's thinness shouldn't be it's own height, but rather the sizes of countries in general.
I mean, it's still be thin, but the UK has no place throwing stones from within that glass house lol
I feel like this is stretching the definition of "thin" to make sure nobody feels insecure about the proportions of the land claimed by local government.
What are we doing here, folks?
