One reason Alaska should not be left off of maps of the US, besides being an actual US state since 1959, is because we are 1/5 the size of the lower 48. Alaska is 586,400 square miles, over twice the size of Texas. When you post a map of only the lower 48 you are essentially leaving off a huge land mass. If you want to exclude Alaska and Hawaii because of lack of data, then accurately label it “the Lower 48” or “the Continental US”
Posted by Accurate-Neck6933
11 Comments
Is alaska technically part of the continental US?
Can someone explain why did Russian Empire sell Alaska? Even if it was just snowy terrain with nothing on or in it, why not just keep it since it’s so big? Was it hard for them to control it, or are there other reasons?
I see you NC, trying to squeeze in at the top.
I never realized Indiana was vertical Montana.
A big chunk of Alaska is peninsulas of peninsulas. It’s like Europe. The interior is more comparable to other large western states. Especially considering too that much of the interior is big ass mountains.
This isn’t really accurate though, because of map projections? Right? I mean, Alaska is big, but it’s not as big as it tends to look on a map, compared to the Lower 48, because the projection skews it.
My gut instinct looking at that was PA was clearly too small because no way GA, AL, & MS are bigger but they actually are! [I had no idea PA was ranked all the way down at 33rd in area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_area). All those surrounding small NE states just make it look so big on maps.
Alaska is 641.7 about Rhode Islands
As a Vermonter, I’m offended that this map includes both Vermont and New Hampshire but separates them. We may disagree about many things, and New Hampshire may just be an upside down Vermont (geographically and culturally), but we belong together.
Cut Texas in half and make it the third largest state!
As a Canadian we consider Alaska the only large state. They have a couple medium ones though like Texas and California.