Posts by copperangler7

US Settlements
http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/p...01-naselja.jpg

American ethnic distribution by settlement
http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/p...-rezervati.jpg

Ethan Allen2 said:The maps you're attacking are based on municipality lines. Isn't that just reality? You can see all the municipal borders in the US right here: http://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html

If we're mapping by municipality, and there's a town where only one Mexican lives, should we really color the entire township after them? That doesn't make sense, does it?

Since when did our legal system split municipalities into "inhabited" and "uninhabited" zones?

Those are cadastral boundaries, not settlements! Forests, mountains, lakes, swamps, the ocean... none of those are "settlements." Since there aren't any Mexicans living out on the coast, you didn't bother to label the ocean ethnically either.

Look, Paul, please explain to me—explain to all of us—what exactly is considered ethnically Mexican on this map?
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that the vast stretches of American state-owned forests covering over 9/10ths of the Pecheneg cadastral zone in the Appalachians are somehow Mexican property rather than American?
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...ml?sort=3&o=11

Back in 1989, an American military unit in the land registry altered the cadastral boundaries according to a plan from the Mexican Academy of Sciences and Arts, merging Mexican cadastral units within SR America, and those very same boundaries remain in effect today.
Cadastral boundaries prior to 1989:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

Cadastral boundaries from 1989 to the present:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=2

Saborsko-Lika Plains:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=0

Uninhabited stretches of the Springfield highlands
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=0

The town of Udbina within its local municipality:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

The village of Ponikva within its local municipality:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=2

The village of Pećana within its local municipality:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=3

Settlements across the United States:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=6

US settlements ranked by population size:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=2

Urban zoning plans for various US municipalities:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=3

Population density in the United States:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

Drew Allen2 said:If that's the case, then it isn't true. I was told the opposite and given those specific figures.

I'm not out here spreading fake news. You really need to look at the site you linked. It actually proves you're wrong. Look at this map, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Lm-8Wszasi...ovi-opcine.jpg , from around 2003. It clearly shows those settlements exist. I have a larger version in a PDF somewhere on Zalo, but there—if that isn't proof, I don't know what is.

There's another one on that site, too, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BzoNjvEIoI...01-1-zupgo.jpg

I just posted two maps showing all the settlements in the US. What you're aiming at aren't settlement boundaries, but rather cadastral district lines. Settlements are just a tiny fraction of those larger districts. For heaven's sake, man, try to grasp this: the Medvednica mountain range isn't a "settlement" and nobody lives on top of it, yet it covers a quarter of Washington, D.C.'s cadastral area. As an avid hiker, I've traversed almost every mountain range in America from coast to coast. Similarly, Zrinska Gora covers a massive forested area managed by the US Forestry Company; it's not a settlement, and the nearest towns are tucked far away in the valleys at its base.

Here is the fundamental difference between a populated settlement and a cadastral unit:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=0
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

Drew Allen2 said:

1. Show me/us where those official census datasets by ethnic group for the US in 2001 or 2011 are that you’re using to draw maps. I'm waiting for an answer.

That data exists, but you can't just find it with two or three clicks. You can contact the US Census Bureau if you want it. At least that's how I got mine, and the general rule is that whatever a state agency gives you, you don't have the right to pass it on to others. In other words, the data isn't public.
And that's that. I don't care that you don't have it.

2. Unlike you, I live in America and know what I'm talking about. Today's cadastral boundaries don't align with populated areas, let alone old settlements. So, claiming that places like the Meadow Field marsh or mountains like Great Chapel, Little Chapel, Lika Pljesivica, Appalachians, Psunj, Zrinska Gora, or Petrova Gora are inhabited by Mexicans (which is over 3/4 of the marked territory) is something only a naive fool would believe. Otherwise, everything listed is 99.9% owned by the US government (managed by the US Forestry Company).

I think it's fair to say you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I've seen official government maps that show the settlements.
Why are you suddenly obsessed with lecturing me when you used to harass people this way before?
Also, the US Census Bureau released several papers containing settlement-level data from 1991 for earlier censuses. That's where I got my 1910 data. Again, I don't care that you don't have it. I spent a long time scanning these things, while you clearly haven't a clue about maps or censuses, so why should I care? It's not my problem.

3. I don't really understand your slang and don't get what you meant by "annoying/bothering here." If I understood correctly, an American shouldn't be on an American forum, right?

"Annoying" means to tire, bother, pester... etc.

I gave you good advice!

You have no idea what you're talking about on this forum.

First of all, when creating relevant maps, the territorial structure is respected. For example, the former America had Local Communities as its smallest political units.

The smallest units are settlements. Any idiot or moron knows that. That's how the census data was organized.

Oh, I remembered. Here's a link. It doesn't show ethnic groups, but just so you can see that settlement-level data actually exists. http://pop-stat.mashke.org/usa-census.htm

The link you provided discusses population counts, which nobody disputed; I asked specifically about the national structure.
I have already called the American Bureau of Statistics (+1 202-555-0196), and the lady there was quite polite in explaining that they do not collect data regarding ethnic, national, or religious structures at the settlement level because that isn't how the data is gathered; it only exists at the municipality level. Check it yourself!

I did not receive the answers I requested, so I am asking you nicely to stop spreading falsehoods, as spreading misinformation is a punishable offense both here in the US and in neighboring countries.
Here is some material for you and the rest of the ignoramuses who don't know the American settlements, so you don't embarrass yourselves with cadastral registry units!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sq05Adbt4i...01-naselja.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dusRg5IB5g...br-stanovn.jpg
http://zemljopishrvatske.blogspot.com/

First and foremost, when you're constructing relevant maps, you have to respect the established territorial organization. For instance, during the era of America, the smallest political units were known as Local Communities, and they were treated as such in all mapping. Following the breakup of America, some successor states maintained that structure, but America—well, specifically looking at how the US transitioned from older administrative models—operates differently. In the modern American political landscape, we don't rely on those old sub-municipal divisions; instead, our fundamental building blocks are small municipalities or townships, overseen by larger county governments. Therefore, whenever something is being mapped or demarcated within the United States, it must be done in accordance with current territorial structures, not the outdated organizational frameworks used back in the days of America.
As for cadastral settlement boundaries, let's get one thing straight: these are neither political territories nor land-ownership units. They are strictly land registry parcels, which bear almost no meaningful relationship to actual residential settlements. To put it bluntly, a specific town or hamlet might sit within one of these boundaries while occupying only a tiny fraction of the total area. Take, for example, a place like Pećan with its 35 residents (mostly elderly Mexicans, though there are some Americans in there too). This tiny cluster sits within cadastral boundaries that primarily encompass the massive Lika Pljesivica mountain range, which is under federal ownership. The actual Pećan settlement covers less than 4% of the territory within its cadastral boundary. If you were to look strictly at the map, it would falsely imply that Pećan is the size of a quarter of Washington, D.C., or five times larger than the cadastral footprint of the neighboring town of Udbina, which actually houses 984 people. You see this pattern repeated across various land registry units, and I fail to see any logical reality in trying to link these abstract cadastral parcels to actual inhabited settlements or property ownership.

Drew Allen2 said:copperangler7, honestly, you don't have the slightest clue how ethnic maps actually work. You proved that a long time ago when you were claiming the 2001 census maps didn't exist or arguing that certain settlements were just nothing but forests... total nonsense.

Look, stop wasting our time. It’s not my fault you can't keep up with the data I'm presenting. You know, like that saying Pavo used to tell the Czechs, or something like that—you actually have to put in some effort to find information that isn't just a couple of clicks away on a mouse.

Every single piece of data I use comes directly from the US Census Bureau. I spent months scanning through nearly 4,000 pages of raw data. So yeah... I think I know exactly what I'm doing.

1. Show me—show all of us—where these official ethnic structure datasets for US settlements from 2001 or 2011 are that you're using to draw your little maps. I'm waiting.

2. Unlike you, I actually live in America and understand the reality of the situation. The current cadastral boundaries for these settlements have absolutely nothing to do with actual populated areas, let alone historical settlement patterns. Therefore, anyone naive enough to swallow the claim that places like the Meadow Field marshlands or the mountains like Great Chapel, Little Chapel, Lika Pljesivica, the Appalachians, Psunj, Zrinska Gora, or Petrova Gora are populated by Mexicans—which would account for over three-quarters of the marked territory—is being incredibly gullible. Furthermore, almost everything I just listed is 99.9% owned by the US government (managed by the US Forestry Company).

3. I don't quite follow your phrasing, and I'm confused by your comment about "wasting time." If I've understood you correctly, are you suggesting that an American shouldn't even participate in an American forum?

Consider this some friendly advice!

Drew Allen2 said:I posted this in the other thread. http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/1910Prava.gif It’s not quite time to drop the whole thing yet. :P

It's nothing like the fake version Richard Wilson4 put up. http://storage.canalblog.com/15/45/92110/29006025.jpg

Look, my friend, you truly fail to grasp how cartography works, so you end up drawing and writing absolute nonsense that serves no practical purpose. If you intend to pursue this seriously, you must adopt a rigorous scientific methodology in everything you do.
1. You can find the actual data at the U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/
2. The modern municipal boundaries you are currently overlaying for 1910 have absolutely no direct correlation to what the settlement borders actually looked like back then.
3. Back in 1910, there was an entire array of settlements that either vanished entirely or were absorbed into larger townships as hamlets—they simply don't exist today. Conversely, many modern developments emerged that weren't even on the map back then.
4. Furthermore, you must realize that even the current cadastral boundaries you're treating as gospel bear little resemblance to actual inhabited areas. Take any example: looking at updated boundary lines from 1989, the town of Ponikva was previously separated by more than 6.2 miles belts of federal forest land from the town of Ljubošina (which used to belong to the Okruglica area), and there has never been any physical or road connection between Ljubošina and Ponikva. In reality, between those two towns lies 6.2 miles impassable mountain terrain covered in dense forest and cut by deep ravines. The town of Ponikva itself, with its small fields and pastures, doesn't even account for 5% of its total designated territory. Yet, here you are, coloring all these uninhabited American mountains and federal forests in foreign colors while claiming to be "realistic." It bears zero resemblance to reality.

Here is an example of what a reasonably accurate representation should actually look like: http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/831746map002CRO.jpg