Datasource: CGIAR SRTM From DivaGIS and ESRI Landcover 2024 from EarthMap
It’s interesting data, but the elevation shading for mountain ranges makes it difficult to interpret the landcover in western states. For example, the rangeland values look darker brown and the forest cover green becomes almost black.
It’s visually interesting but I think that the attempt to integrate the elevation in 3D obfuscates the underlying data. In particular it’s really hard to tell what’s going on in the mountains as it all just kind of turns dark.
Much of the Pacific northwest is black, but there is no black color in the legend. Is this because of the wildfires?
It’s amazing how one country can have so many different land covers, yet still have distinct regions of each.
It would be cool to see how these regions have changed over the last century, probably quite a bit, but also not much
I’m kind of surprised the amount of built up area is so low. What is the minimum amount of buildings in an area to be considered built up for this map?
You’ll need an additional color in the not so distant future – one for Flooded Built Area to replace that red in Floriduh.
what the heck is rangeland?
This Great Lakes Erasure will not stand.
J/k
Finally, some legit beautiful data.
Wow nicely done. Is there a higher quality link?
I’ve driven both ways on Route 10 across the country a few times, and it always amazes me how quickly Texas goes from really dry to really wet, and stifling humidity, all in about an hour.
People from outside Ohio seem to think Ohio is flat farmland. But I’m over here living on the eastern half of Ohio thinking it’s all hilly woods! Turns out Ohio is half and half (thanks, glaciers!)
If you’re just going to Cedar Point then yeah it’s all flat farmland.
This is a GREAT map OP.
Above all else, I think this most accurately describes the region of the Midwest. You can clearly see the point of crop cover that defines it.
You can see exactly in Missouri they call themselves “the south”.
You can see how far deep it goes into Kansas, but the cutoff for high plains in Nebraska and South Dakota.
You can see the Great Lakes region in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, but also see why parts of those states identify more with a “Midwest” classification than a “Great Lakes” one.
I would love to see this with other large countries like china & russia
I love that, can we also have this for Europe or specific European countries e.g. Germany?
It’s really interesting how you can see exactly why the Erie Canal took the path it did across NY.
Thank you for this. It doesn’t appear to include roads. Are roads just too skinny to be included at this scale?
Northeast continues winning
Could add Canada and mexico but thanks for such a nice map
The Mississippi River alluvial plain is very clear. You can even see the historical path it took to exit into the Gulf of Mexico before it routed further east under New Orleans.
Why is the top left so burnt?
What’s with the darker yellow/orangeish color on the map but not in the legend?
Absolutely unacceptable that the Great Lakes aren’t included in this data
Great map! Not many lakes in this vast continent, tho
This really brings to life how relatively dry the Rocky Mountain area is. I always thought it was mostly forested from the pictures I had seen before I moved to the area.
Nice map, OP. Really well done
most of the mojave isn’t rangeland. i live here. there are no cattle in 90%+ of the mojave. a fairly large part of the sonoran is the same. probably most of the great basin and colorado plateau are rangeland though.
Thank you for sharing, I just love maps and land use data – this is fascinating and very very well done. Have you got anymore? Other countries perhaps?
![[OC]U.S Landcover Map for Year 2024](https://www.europesays.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/1753388291_pcyd479rdvef1-1920x1024.png)
28 comments
Tools: Blender and QGIS
Datasource: CGIAR SRTM From DivaGIS and ESRI Landcover 2024 from EarthMap
It’s interesting data, but the elevation shading for mountain ranges makes it difficult to interpret the landcover in western states. For example, the rangeland values look darker brown and the forest cover green becomes almost black.
It’s visually interesting but I think that the attempt to integrate the elevation in 3D obfuscates the underlying data. In particular it’s really hard to tell what’s going on in the mountains as it all just kind of turns dark.
Much of the Pacific northwest is black, but there is no black color in the legend. Is this because of the wildfires?
It’s amazing how one country can have so many different land covers, yet still have distinct regions of each.
It would be cool to see how these regions have changed over the last century, probably quite a bit, but also not much
I’m kind of surprised the amount of built up area is so low. What is the minimum amount of buildings in an area to be considered built up for this map?
You’ll need an additional color in the not so distant future – one for Flooded Built Area to replace that red in Floriduh.
what the heck is rangeland?
This Great Lakes Erasure will not stand.
J/k
Finally, some legit beautiful data.
Wow nicely done. Is there a higher quality link?
I’ve driven both ways on Route 10 across the country a few times, and it always amazes me how quickly Texas goes from really dry to really wet, and stifling humidity, all in about an hour.
People from outside Ohio seem to think Ohio is flat farmland. But I’m over here living on the eastern half of Ohio thinking it’s all hilly woods! Turns out Ohio is half and half (thanks, glaciers!)
If you’re just going to Cedar Point then yeah it’s all flat farmland.
This is a GREAT map OP.
Above all else, I think this most accurately describes the region of the Midwest. You can clearly see the point of crop cover that defines it.
You can see exactly in Missouri they call themselves “the south”.
You can see how far deep it goes into Kansas, but the cutoff for high plains in Nebraska and South Dakota.
You can see the Great Lakes region in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, but also see why parts of those states identify more with a “Midwest” classification than a “Great Lakes” one.
I would love to see this with other large countries like china & russia
I love that, can we also have this for Europe or specific European countries e.g. Germany?
It’s really interesting how you can see exactly why the Erie Canal took the path it did across NY.
Thank you for this. It doesn’t appear to include roads. Are roads just too skinny to be included at this scale?
Northeast continues winning
Could add Canada and mexico but thanks for such a nice map
The Mississippi River alluvial plain is very clear. You can even see the historical path it took to exit into the Gulf of Mexico before it routed further east under New Orleans.
Why is the top left so burnt?
What’s with the darker yellow/orangeish color on the map but not in the legend?
Absolutely unacceptable that the Great Lakes aren’t included in this data
Great map! Not many lakes in this vast continent, tho
This really brings to life how relatively dry the Rocky Mountain area is. I always thought it was mostly forested from the pictures I had seen before I moved to the area.
Nice map, OP. Really well done
most of the mojave isn’t rangeland. i live here. there are no cattle in 90%+ of the mojave. a fairly large part of the sonoran is the same. probably most of the great basin and colorado plateau are rangeland though.
Thank you for sharing, I just love maps and land use data – this is fascinating and very very well done. Have you got anymore? Other countries perhaps?
Comments are closed.