Thanks! Yeah, go for it!Scott P wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:51 amAwesome analysis! Are you OK with me using it for future references?bdloftin77 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:21 am Colorado is king of the high country in the lower 48. California has a good overall spread, but has high counts especially in the 4ers and under range. Despite its huge size, it still has the second highest concentration of peaks, behind Washington. Not surprisingly, California, Oregon, and Washington all have high counts in the lower elevation ranges, being right near the coast. Arizona also has high counts of low elevation peaks.
It is interesting that California would still beat Colorado even if the eastern plains were eliminated and even with California's huge size and large flatlands in the Central Valleys. Imagine how everything would be if the state had the same population as Colorado. Even with all of the people, California still has some of the larges roadless areas in the Lower 48. It's too bad that California is so California-ish. Other wise I think I could live there.Colorado has the 4th lowest concentration of peaks. If we donate the vast plains east of I-25 to Kansas, we'd be left with about 63,000 square miles (using ArcMap and I-25 TIGER shapefile). The new concentration would be 0.0697 peaks per square mile, which looks a lot better.
Yeah, that was surprising to me, too. Especially having driven down the expansive valley area on I-5. Right? That would be pretty amazing if it had Colorado's population. Kinda a bummer. At least it's still cool to visit occasionally.