Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by elevation

Elevation difference per area

This may border on WP:OR, but it seems to me that an elevation difference is of pretty limited use - especially now that the table is sortable and one can make comparisons from state to state. Rather than simply showing the elevation "span", wouldn't it be more useful to show a measure of its "hilliness" (or rather "flatness") by dividing the span by the state's area? Of course California is going to have a greater elevation span than Hawaii since it's over ten times as big. But if you compare their "Elevation difference per square mile" you'll see that Hawaii (1.26) is much more hilly than California (.09). (I may simply be driven by my curiosity about what the flattest state is.) Hoof Hearted 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was never fully comfortable with us doing the math (the tables don't print entirely as it is now anyway). I would be o.k. with nuking the difference columns but we might wait to see if anybody else weighs in. There's lots of other ways the data could be cut and interpreted. I think we should Keep It Simple Stupid. Americasroof 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hoof Hearted that what he proposes borders on original research. But if one were to do such a thing, one wouldn't want to divide by the area, since the units are wrong. Instead one should divide by something with the same units as the elevation difference, such as the square root of the area or some measure of diameter, to get a dimensionless quantity. If you divide by area, then small states get a tremendous advantage. To take it to an extreme, imagine doing counties, or census tracts: as the areas go down quadratically, the height difference will roughly go down linearly, and the quotient will blow up.

As to what should be in the article, I think the listing by difference is interesting and understandable, even if it is weighted towards large states. So I would vote to keep it as is. -- Spireguy 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like even the topographists disagree on the best way to measure a state's flatness. This article sites Florida as the smallest elevation difference (it also has the smallest difference per square mile and difference per linear mile, as Spireguy suggested). However, it says Delaware is flattest if you measure actual changes in elevation along 1-km sections - which is probably a closer approximation of the true slope. Then of course there's the whole "Kansas is flatter than a pancake" paradigm. Given all the debate, difficulty with units, and lack or sources I agree with you that my proposal should be left out. The difference in elevation columns are good enough. Hoof Hearted 18:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Top 10 flattest states: http://www.disruptivegeo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FlatMap_GeographicalReview_DobsonCampbell_2013Nov.pdf

• 1) Florida,
• 2) Illinois,
• 3) North Dakota,
• 4) Louisiana,
• 5) Minnesota,
• 6) Delaware,
• 7) Kansas,
• 8) Texas,
• 9) Nevada,
• 10) Indiana. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Lowest Point in Louisiana

Contrary to what is given on the table in the "List of U.S. states by elevation" article, the lowest point in Louisiana is not New Orleans. Instead, it is the Winn Rock Inc. crushed stone quarry near Winnfield, Winn Parish, Louisiana, which is 68 feet below sea level. The location of this quarry is 31 degrees 54' 51.3527" N, -92 degrees, 42' 58.9673". This quarry is 4.6 miles west of Winnfield on U.S. Highway 84. It might be argued that since it is an artificial low point, it does not qualify a valid. However, the New Orleans lowpoint is equally artificial because the only reason that this lowpoint is not underwater is because of manmade levees and continued pumping of water. Paul H. (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A significant area of present day New Orleans was below sea level long before the city was settled due to natural silting, subsidence, and evaporation. Yours aye,  Buaidh  02:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim that "A significant area of present day New Orleans was below sea level long before the city was settled due to natural silting, subsidence, and evaporation" is absolutely false and physically impossible. Prior to settlement it was either underwater, at sea level, or above it. This claim is soundly refuted by historic maps such as the L.W. Brown's 1895 topographic map of New Orleans and the 1816 flood map of New Orleans. Without an artificial levee, anything that sank below sea level as the result of subsidence would have immediately become submerged beneath either either a lake, bay, swamp, or marsh. Also, "silting" builds up land and "evaporation" has absolutely no effect on land elevation. Paul H. (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Evaporation does have an effect on land elevation. That's why Death Valley, the shores of the Dead Sea, the shores of the Caspian Sea (and for that matter, the nearby Karagiye Depression), and Laguna del Carbon in Argentina are all far below sea level. They are all in an area where evaporation far exceeds precipitation and where evaporation exceeds precipitation for their respective watersheds. At the same time, Lake Baikal, Great Slave Lake, Lake Superior, Lake Malawi, and Lake Tanganyika, despite having their maximum depths far, far below sea level, have surface elevations above sea level. That's because they are in areas of relatively low evaporation compared to total rainfall.

I understand the point you are refuting about most of NOLA being below sea level before settlement. Likely, there was very little dry land that was below sea level. However, the same could be said for the near-coast areas below sea level of France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Japan, etc. These are all in wet regions and it's unlikely that any of these areas were below sea level before man's intervention. However, most of Wikipedia editors and most readers would consider these areas to be natural areas below sea level but not consider mines, quarries, basements, underground bunkers, or any place where man actively excavated to count as a natural place below sea level. In the 7 countries I mentioned above (and in NOLA), dikes were simply erected and the sinking of the land occurred naturally from that point forward. All of the void spaces which were filled with water became filled with air, leading to soil which collapsed under its own weight. Aside from the NOLA CBD and a few other construction projects, there's very little area that was dug below sea level in that city — including even the cemeteries.

That's why I removed the reference to the quarry. Other states have such areas below sea level, but they are not counted. For instance, a quarry between Dedham and West Roxbury in Massachusetts reaches 130 feet below sea level, but it, for good reason, is not counted on this list. Ufwuct (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the published source for the depth of the Winnrock Quarry, Winn Parish, Louisiana, is;

Kyle, R. J., and M. R. Ulrich, 1993, A Tour of Salt Dome Cap Rock Features, Winnrock Quarry, Winn Parish, Louisiana: Fossil Analog of Modern Petroleum Seeps Associated with Salt Structures in the Offshort Gulf, New Orleans Geological Society, New Orleans, Louisiana. Paul H. (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Does the reference explicitly claim this is the lowest point in Louisiana? Or does it just give the depth without the claim?
2. I think this way lies madness. Is the top of the Willis Tower the highest point in Illinois? I think we need reliable geographic organizations to tell us the extreme points of a state. —hike395 (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Vermont dot missing in map

Note that an indication for the low point of Vermont is missing, even though it has neither a coastline nor a Great Lake. Comment left in article by 96.32.129.220 (talk) —hike395 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Lake Champlain is large enough to hold its own. Yours aye,  Buaidh  02:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The lowest point in Vermont is likely the Richelieu River that drains Lake Champlain. Vermont has a short distance of the river, and at the international border it is probably a small height (millimeters?) lower than the lake. C2equalA2plusB2 (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Low points, below sea level, not in article

The USGS lists "Sea-level" as the lowest points in these states. USGS maps show below sea-level places in those states. This information was entered into the article, but someone removed it.

• AK Nunavakanuk Lake, at N62.06273 W164.66858, below sea-level.
• TX An oxbow lake beside the lower Rio Grande River, at N25.96105 W97.19008, below sea-level. Texas also has some man-made features, such as a sandpit at N29.32861 W94.99341, that are below sea-level.
• WA Levee protected bottomland, Snohomish River near Everett, WA, at N48.01344 W122.15981, below sea-level.

In addition, VT has a portion of the Richelieu River which drains Lake Champlain. The river, at the International Border, will be a small bit lower in elevation than the lake.

All this can be verified at on-line maps sites such as www.topoquest.com . C2equalA2plusB2 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Lowest elevation of Wyoming

The point at which the Belle Fourche River flows out of Wyoming and into South Dakota is the lowest elevation point in the state of Wyoming. Multiple reputable sources give this elevation as 3,099 feet (945 m) (U.S. Geological Survey) or 3,101 feet (945 m) (unreferenced figure on this list) or 3,125 feet (952 m) (Wyoming Department of Transportation, Historical Society, and University of Wyoming Climate Center). The original text of the article cited only the USGS, and I had added other Wyoming sources that claimed 3,125 feet as the lowest elevation point. But on further reflection, the USGS is the agency that does the actual measurement, while the Wyoming DOT, Historical Society, and Climate people aren't measuring elevation themselves. Runner1928 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this. The table's data originally came from the same USGS table that you cited, below. (The link in the article was broken, so I used a WebCitation archive link). But, back in October 29, 2011, User:Buaidh did the massive task of converting all of the elevations from the NGVD29 vertical datum to the NAVD88 vertical datum, to have all of the table elements be consistent and up-to-date. Fundamentally, the earth's shape is not spherical, nor even a perfect oblate spheroid. If you want elevations to be accurate to the nearest foot, you need a precise definition of what "sea level" is across the country. In 1988, NAVD88 updated what "sea level" means from what was known in 1929. There's a calculator at the National Geodetic Survey which converts from NGVD29 to NAVD88. I believe Buaidh used this calculator to convert the lowest elevation of Wyoming. I just reran the calculator, and found that it added 0.486 meters (1.59 feet) to the old elevation, which when rounded, yields the table value of 3101 feet.

Hopefully this clears up your question. —hike395 (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Fort Reno elevation

Hey all - there's a bit of a discrepancy with Fort Reno's elevation. A 1993 NGS survey listed the highest elevation at 490 feet. Meanwhile, the most recent news on it reports 409 feet, and that is what the 2007 designation plaque in Fort Reno states, in association with the D.C. Association of Land Surveyors. I can't find the survey itself, if anyone else has information on it. Which elevation should we list in the article? I'd imagine the most recent survey data, but I'm not sure if that trumps the NGS. Pinging @Hike395: from edit reversion ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, Super. The discrepancy of 81 feet is a huge one, given modern surveying techniques. One possible source of the discrepancy can be found in the Washington Post article -- the Highpointers Club think that the Fort Reno summit "doesn't count", because its elevation was altered by human activity. The NGS does not describe the USGS criteria for placing a benchmark (AFAIK), they just report the elevation. All of the other entries in the table are based on USGS benchmarks (or elevations): in my opinion, we should stick with the 490 foot elevation, for internal consistency. —hike395 (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(Later) On the other hand, the original USGS table that this list article used shows that Fort Reno at 410 feet. This undercuts my argument, above: a 1-foot discrepancy is much more sensible. Now I'm puzzled about where the 490 foot value came from. Looking at Google maps, there are some prominent towers at the benchmark location: could it be that 490 is on top of the towers? I wouldn't use that elevation, if so. Will investigate further. —hike395 (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(Later) Looks like User:Buaidh changed the elevation to 490 back in October 2011. Perhaps he can shed some light on the discrepancy? —hike395 (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(Later: enlightenment!) Carefully reading through the NGS benchmark description: it is on the roof of the tower!

“ THIS FIRST-ORDER STATION IS LOCATED ON THE ROOF OF THE OLD MUNICIPAL STANDPIPE, WHICH CAN BE REACHED BY GOING OUT EITHER WISCONSIN ORCONNECTICUT AVENUES TO POINTS OPPOSITE THE NEW STANDPIPE WHICH IS VISIBLE FROM POINTS ALONG EITHER AVENUE. THE OLD STANDPIPE IS CLOSE TO THE NEW ONE.

STATION MARK IS AN 8- BY 8-INCH CONCRETE BLOCK SET ON THE ROOF (TILE) AND PROJECTING ABOUT 3 INCHES. IT IS STAMPED RENO 1917 1933, IN STANDARD DISK.

”

I think the 490 elevation should not be used. It's one thing to argue about human activity adding dirt: it's a whole 'nother thing to measure on top of a tower. —hike395 (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice investigating hike395, thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Nominator withdrew after unanimous opposition. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

---

List of U.S. states and territories by elevation → List of U.S. elevation extremes by state – I believe this Featured List should be renamed List of U.S. elevation extremes by state to be consistent with List of elevation extremes by country and List of elevation extremes by region.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 20:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Close: I can make this move if no one objects. Please close this request by September 8, 2022. Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 08:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is consistent with the other U.S. state lists linked from {{USStateLists}} with the format "List of U.S. states and territories by X", e.g. List of U.S. states and territories by area. That said, redirects could/should be created from likely variants. I think a better version of the proposed title would be List of elevation extremes by U.S. state. These alternative titles also leave out territories, which is another drawback relative to the current title. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mdewman6. Also, the list isn't just about "extremes" but also presents the range, median, and mean for each state. ╠╣uw [talk] 08:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per both reasons, above. — hike395 (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Question: @Mdewman6, Huwmanbeing, and Hike395: The states in this list are not listed by elevation as the title indicates. It seems that either (1.) this list should be reordered by either maximum or mean elevation, or (2.) the title should be changed to List of U.S. elevations by state, List of elevations by U.S. state, or List of elevations by U.S. state, district, or territory (all of these are good redirects). Which of these alternatives do you prefer? Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

True, the states are listed alphabetically rather than by highest or lowest point, but the list is sortable by the various elevation data given, depending on which metric the reader is interested. I don't think any of the suggested alternative titles are an improvement over the current title. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

How about List of U.S. states, district, and territories by elevation instead, like List of U.S. state, district, and territorial language status. Regrettably, I don't think Washington, D.C. will be getting statehood anytime soon. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The following lists all contain District of Columbia (there may be more than this):

• List of U.S. states and territories by population
• List of U.S. states and territories by African-American population
• List of U.S. states and territories by area
• List of U.S. states and territories by birth and death rates
• List of U.S. states and territories by carbon dioxide emissions
• List of U.S. states and territories by economic growth rate
• List of U.S. states and territories by educational attainment
• List of U.S. states and territories by exports and imports
• List of U.S. states and territories by fertility rate
• List of U.S. states and territories by GDP
• List of U.S. states and territories by income inequality
• List of U.S. states and territories by Human Development Index
• List of U.S. states and territories by intentional homicide rate
• List of U.S. states and territories by violent crime rate
• List of U.S. states and territories by immigrant population
• List of U.S. states and territories by incarceration and correctional supervision rate
• List of U.S. states and territories by income
• List of U.S. states and territories by infant mortality rates
• List of U.S. states and territories by life expectancy
• List of U.S. states and territories by median age

There is a very strong parallel structure in Wikipedia for these list title, per WP:CONSIST. If you want to change the title of this list, I think you're going to need to propose to change all of them. — hike395 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm convinced. Let's keep this article where it is. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 19:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lowest points listed?

The map at the top nicely shows the high and low points in each state.

The gallery is nice… and basically lists the highest points, each with a photo.

Am I missing the list of lowest places? They need not have a photo but could.

Thanks, Mike VVFamEdits (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)