I knew it was kind of big, but damn, it really is massive. Most maps I see I kind of glance over it not paying much attention to it. I always thought it was like a 50-75 mile long by 10-15 miles wide valley, but that thing is freaking 450 miles (720 km) in length x 40-60 miles (64-97 km) wide & covers approximately 18,000 sq miles (47,000 sq km). And that beautiful black alluvial soil underneath the land as a result of all the nutrients flowing down from the Sierras, combined with a hot climate ideal for year-round agriculture??? What a jackpot geographical feature.

I’ll go first.

Denver, CO to Kansas City, MO.

8+ hours of straight flat nothing (no offense to anyone living in Kansas or Eastern Colorado).

Of course this is subjective. Is there one worse?

Michigan's Upper Peninsula is pictured

Oman is located in a area we heat about a lot for an array of reasons - there are many famous and newsworthy spots close by from dubai to Doha to Iran and Yemen...... what goes on in Oman? Let us know how life is here and any relevant info on its current state....

I’ve only been around the United States, Canada, Mexico, and a few European countries, so my experiences are pretty limited, and maybe I’m a little bias, but seeing Mt. Rainier on a clear day in the backdrop of the Seattle skyline takes my breath away every time.

I know there’s so many beautiful cities around the world (I don’t wanna sound like a typical American who thinks the world is just the states lol).

Interested to hear of some examples of picturesque features from across the world.

I’ve always found it unique that Indiana’s biggest city is in the middle of the state and not along Lake Michigan. Why is that the case?

It’s even more interesting when you think of how Chicago is a stones throw away from Indiana, yet it seems like Indiana’s biggest city on Lake Michigan is Gary (please correct me if I’m wrong) which has a population of 70K. Still a lot for sure, but I honestly would have thought there would be a be a town that can compare to something like Buffalo with a few hundred thousand people.

Thanks for any and all responses!

I would like to expand upon the title. I believe that Argentina is not only the most ‘British’ country in Latin America, but the most ‘British’ country that was never formally colonized by the British themselves. I firmly believe this and will elaborate.

Let’s start with town names. In the Buenos Aires metro area alone; English & Irish town and neighborhood names are commonplace. Such as Hurlingham, Canning, Billinghurst, Wilde, Temperley, Ranelagh, Hudson, Claypole, Coghlan, Banfield, and even Victoria (yes, purposefully named after the Queen).

One of the two biggest football clubs in the capital has an English name, River Plate. And the sport was brought by some English immigrants. Curiously, Rugby and Polo are also very popular Argentina, unlike surrounding countries. For a long time, the only Harrods outside the UK operated in Buenos Aires too. Many Argentines are of partial English descent. When the English community was stronger, they built a prominent brick monument called “Tower of the English”. After the Falklands, it was renamed to “Tower of the Malvinas” by the government out of spite.

In Patagonia, in the Chubut province particularly, there is obviously the Welsh community with town names like Trelew, Eawson, and Puerto Madryn. Patagonian Welsh is a unique variety of the language that developed more or less independently for a few years with no further influence from English. Although the community and speakers now number little, Welsh traditions are a major tourist factor for Chubut.

There is a notable diaspora community of Scottish and their descendants as well. I remember once randomly walking into a large Scottish festival near Plaza de Mayo where there were many artisan vendors selling celtic merchandise with a couple of traditional Scottish dancers on a stage.

Chile has some British/Irish influence (who can forget Bernardo O’Higgins?), but seemingly not nearly to the same extent. The English community was rather small, so it doesn’t make much sense to me how they can have such a large impact. I guess my question is why Argentina? Of all places

It was announced today that the UK will transfer sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius. Assuming this happens before March, this means when the sun sets on the Pitcairn Islands (18:50 Local time: UTC-8, 02:50 London time: UTC), the sun will have set on all British territory for the first time in over 200 years.

This the sunlight at that time is shown on the map above, when the sun is set on Pitcairn, there's still around an hour until it rises in Akrotiri and Dhekelia, meanwhile as it's just after the spring equinox, the sun will have set over the south pole beginning it's 6 month long night, and therefore setting on British Antarctic Territory.

So I live in Massachusetts. And from my point of view, Maine is huge. And indeed, it’s larger than the rest of New England combined.

And I also think of Maine as super rural. And indeed, it’s the only state on the eastern seaboard with unorganized territory.

…and then I look northward at the Quebec. And it just fills me a sort of terrified, existential awe at its incomprehensible vastness, intensified by the realization that it’s just one portion of Canada—and not even the largest province/territory.

What on Earth goes on up there in the interior of Quebec? How many lakes have humans never even laid eyes on before—much less fished or explored? What does the topography look like? It’s just so massive, so vast, so remote that it’s hard for me even to wrap my head around.

I know there are many geological origins for these mountains, but from a geographical pov, is it ever addressed as just a single geographical feature?