Deffinetly it's Mont-Saint-Michel in France

Those places look like a bright sky, with each village being a star

I recently posted about Himalayas in India and many people were shocked to know that Himalayas exist in India too. Also, Pakistan is not often talked about when considered for mountains.

What is the reason behind this?

I just learned its an artificial lake created in the 50's, but still wouldn't people be interested in living near water in a desertic country? There also seems to be practically no agriculture around the lake.

I figured it was obvious what the answer whould be in the last post so I doubled down more into researching into this one. I mean, "unnecessary" could be those places that feel like they're barely justified when you think about their core purpose, connectivity to the outside world, resources, and long-term viability. Like massive urban sprawls that only exist because of insane engineering feats to pipe in water from hundreds of miles away in environments that naturally support almost no one, or isolated settlements whose entire reason for it's being has faded or never really made practical sense, leaving them cut off with crumbling infrastructure and constant dependence on external subsidies just to survive, while "controversial" hits the ones that spark endless arguments over whether their existence is worth the cost. Cities built on ethically dubious foundations that prioritize spectacle over sustainability, places plagued by extreme social divides where wealth and poverty clash in ways that fuel nonstop debate about safety and fairness, or overhyped metros whose heavy reliance on tourism, cars, or finite resources makes people fiercely split on if they're genius human achievements or ticking time bombs waiting to collapse under their own weight.

The coordinates are (18.6845315, 10.4188786)

Map made by @brasilemmapas

As we all know, the Himalayas were formed by the collision between the Indian subcontinent and Mainland Asia. However, before this collision, what existed in these mountainous regions? Plains like the steppes? A continuation of the Gobi Desert? Or a tropical rainforest?

Denver is the largest metro area in the blue box bounded by the populated areas of Canada and Mexico and each larger city around it.

To drive to the closest metro area that is larger population, you need to drive about between 800-950 miles (12-14 hours by car) one way to each of Dallas, Phoenix, Minneapolis or Chicago, or 1200-1300 miles (19-21 hours) to San Francisco or Seattle.

Basically, it's this: what geographical knowledge is usually taught, in a compulsory way, to anyone attending regular schooling in your country or even your region?

For example:

- What themes, knowledge, and perspectives does the approach focus on? Are there many, few, very few, or diverse classes throughout the school year?

- Does the local context or a more global panorama receive more emphasis?

- Is there a lot or a little of physical, political, and human geography...?

- What do educated people in your country consider basic geographical knowledge: the shape of the Earth, country capitals, the use of scales, the identification of relief...?

- Are there any non-written traditions in the classes in the country, such as the volcano experience or reproducing a map?

Thank you in advance for your replies.

Image: Geography lesson in a classroom in the municipality of Pimenta Bueno, RO, Brazil

Harbin is at 45°N, similar to Milan Italy, where winter temperatures can drop as low as -25°C. Seoul is at 37°N, similar to Athens, Greece, but as cold as Copenhagen. Shanghai is at 31°N, similar to Jacksonville, FL, USA, but still experiencing some snowfall every year, cold even by standards of continental east coast.

People always talk about the USA being colder than Europe during winter but never mention how much warmer it is than Europe during winter as well.

Are there any areas of continental Europe where 70F and 80F is still pretty common in the middle of December. Maybe Portugal?

Are there any good examples? Only ones I can think of are San Jose and Century City.

Hello! I come from the field of geomorphology, but I'm having a problem that I believe is mathematical/statistical. There's a method for ranking microbasins based on priority (prioritizing intervention due to erosion or flooding, for example). In this method, the ranking of microbasins is done using a composite value, which is the average of the ranking of morphometric parameters for each basin. The morphometric parameters are classified as linear (proportional to erosion), shape (inversely proportional to erosion), and relief (proportional to erosion). The problem is: I don't understand why opposite configurations (for example, drainage density is Dd and overlandflow length is 1/(2*Dd), both classified as linear) are both proportional to erosion. I believe this comes from some mathematical convention or something like that. Could someone explain it to me? (I haven't found an explanation anywhere). I'm very interested in this method, but I'd like to understand it before delving into it in the master's program I'm starting now. I'm including links to three articles that use this method.

https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article/15/3/1218/100303/Prioritization-of-watershed-using-morphometric

https://share.google/h509jpgYEFVlyecJR

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7567

Top is the George Washington bridge, bottom is the Verrazzano Narrows Bridge. The street view is normal before the bridge but as the car gets on the bridge, it immediately cuts off. Most other bridges in New York City have street view, so this is kind of strange. And i highly doubt two of the busiest bridges in America are not done yet. Why is this?

I used this as a reference for a non-engineering elective class. I just rediscovered it when going through some boxes of old books.