North Dakota is the only clearly discernible state boundary. Anybody know why that is? Does something about the legal regime of North Dakota really change the settlement patterns that much? Or is it some kind of artefact of the way that ND census block are formed, compared to the surrounding states?
> Update: On a more detailed examination of those two states, I’m convinced the contrast here is due to differences in the sizes of the blocks. North Dakota’s blocks are more consistently small (StDev of 3.3) while South Dakota’s are more varied (StDev of 9.28). West of the Missouri River, South Dakota’s blocks are substantially larger than those in ND, so a single inhabitant can appear to take up more spaaaaaace. Between the states, this provides a good lesson in how changing the size and shape of a geographic unit can alter perceptions of the landscape.
Yep, I grew up in ND, and my nearest non family neighbor was 7 miles away. This was pretty common. So if you parcel things up smaller than say 5 miles you'll miss people there pretty easily.
Yeah, it looks like they are setting the census blocks small on what is farm, ranch, park, and reservation land. The Red River divides ND and MN and there is space there because of previous moves from flooding.
Most census geographies aim for equal-ish population, so they vary widely in size. Blocks are a little different, though, and are designed to be a more or less nicely boundaried thing as well -- surrounded by streets with no crossings, etc.
It's pretty clear on the west coast of NoDak.
*edit:
After looking at it for a tish longer, I can see all three borders quite clearly. Being a North Dakota native may help.
