<pedantic>Scale</pedantic> Was [Re: Combining 4 C-class networks: how?]

["Eric G . Miller" <egm2@jps.net>]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 12:33:25AM +0200, Harald Thingelstad wrote:
> Sorry to break in but..
> Looking upon the earth as flat is a fine assumption if you're working on a
> small scale.

You've got that backwards. Small scale is large area, large scale is
small area, cartographically.  It helps to remember that cartographic
scales are a fractional representation.  1:5,000 is large scale, while
1:100,000 scale is small scale (1/5000 vs. 1/100,000).  That is <one
unit on the map>:<n units on the planet>.

> And yes, it's rather popular to think of the earth as (approximately)
> round these days, but we may not always do so. It's entirely a matter of
> which simplifications we see as most important. 

It is approximately round (spherical).  A better approximation is made
with an ellipsoid (rather than a spheroid).  But, I didn't know it was
popular to think of the Earth as round.  It's flat on a map (Flat Earth
Society)!.

Okay, I'm done.

-- 
According to MegaHAL:
    The emu is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace.