Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Why are USGS maps called "quadrangles? (why not rectangles?)

515 views
Skip to first unread message

James Mick

unread,
Nov 21, 2016, 8:46:13 PM11/21/16
to
Why are USGS maps called "quadrangles? (why not rectangles?)

quad·ran·gle: noun Geometry, quadrangle; plural noun: quadrangles
a. a four-sided plane figure, especially a square or rectangle.
b. a square or rectangular space or courtyard enclosed by buildings.
c. the area shown on a standard topographic map sheet of the US Geological
Survey.
synonyms: courtyard, quad, court, cloister, precinct; square, plaza, piazza

The standard USGS map is a 1:24,000 7.5-minute by 7.5-minute "rectangle".
Why do they call it a "quadrangle?"

You can download an extremely detailed example for yourself to see:
1. Go to the USGS map site https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/launch/
2. To download a quadrangle, at the top left, press "Download Maps"
3. This will show in the right pane a map of the United States.
4. Left mouse drag your desired location to the center of that map.
5. Click the + (zoom) 7 times (re-center as needed) to see quadrangles.
6. It's simplest if you zoom until you have only 1 or 2 quadrangles in view.
7. In the left sidebar, click the blue "Find Products" button.
7. In the left sidebar "US Topo Available Products" section, click on the
number of "results".
8. In the left sidebar, scroll until you see the desired quadrangle listed.
9. Once you find the desired quadrangle, right click its "Download" button.
10. Choose to "Save Link As" so as to download the ~30MB PDF quadrangle
file.

Why are the USGS PDF maps called "quadrangles? (why not rectangles?)

Osmium

unread,
Nov 21, 2016, 9:13:13 PM11/21/16
to
"James Mick" wrote:

> Why are USGS maps called "quadrangles? (why not rectangles?)
>
> quad·ran·gle: noun Geometry, quadrangle; plural noun: quadrangles
> a. a four-sided plane figure, especially a square or rectangle.

Just a guess. Note the word *especially*. One degree of latitude is
shorter on the north boundary than it is on the south boundary. (In the USA
for example.) I would call it a trapezoid (which seems wrong, too), but I
don't have a real big vocabulary for plane geometry words. Maybe quadrangle
is a better word to use.

Garrett Wollman

unread,
Nov 21, 2016, 10:22:33 PM11/21/16
to
In article <e9hntl...@mid.individual.net>,
Osmium <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Just a guess. Note the word *especially*. One degree of latitude is
>shorter on the north boundary than it is on the south boundary. (In the USA
>for example.)

The maps in question are always done in the Universal Transverse
Mercator projection (for nagivation with a compass) so they actually
are rectangular as drawn. (That's what a Mercator projection does, by
definition.)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 21, 2016, 11:20:40 PM11/21/16
to
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 8:46:13 PM UTC-5, James Mick wrote:

> Why are USGS maps called "quadrangles? (why not rectangles?)
>
> quad·ran·gle: noun Geometry, quadrangle; plural noun: quadrangles
> a. a four-sided plane figure, especially a square or rectangle.
> b. a square or rectangular space or courtyard enclosed by buildings.
> c. the area shown on a standard topographic map sheet of the US Geological
> Survey.
> synonyms: courtyard, quad, court, cloister, precinct; square, plaza, piazza
>
> The standard USGS map is a 1:24,000 7.5-minute by 7.5-minute "rectangle".
> Why do they call it a "quadrangle?"

7.5 x 7.5 sure sounds square to me. To find out why it doesn't look like
a square, consult a globe. Or a textbook of spherical geometry.

Lewis

unread,
Nov 22, 2016, 9:08:46 AM11/22/16
to
In message <o1080v$6ac$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
James Mick <JamesM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why are USGS maps called "quadrangles? (why not rectangles?)

When you put a rectangle onto a surface like a globe you do not get a
rectangle.

> The standard USGS map is a 1:24,000 7.5-minute by 7.5-minute "rectangle".
> Why do they call it a "quadrangle?"

Because its sides are curved.


--
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 22, 2016, 9:16:13 AM11/22/16
to
On 22/11/16 14:08, Lewis wrote:
> In message <o1080v$6ac$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
> James Mick <JamesM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why are USGS maps called "quadrangles? (why not rectangles?)
>
> When you put a rectangle onto a surface like a globe you do not get a
> rectangle.

Or, to say the same thing a different way, the concept of "rectangle" (a
figure with four angles, all equal) is of limited use when your frame of
reference is a sphere.

>
>> The standard USGS map is a 1:24,000 7.5-minute by 7.5-minute "rectangle".
>> Why do they call it a "quadrangle?"
>
> Because its sides are curved.

Yes, but they straighten out nicely when you map the quad onto a sphere
(because "straight" means something slightly different on a sphere).

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

John Varela

unread,
Nov 22, 2016, 11:06:02 AM11/22/16
to
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 01:46:08 UTC, James Mick
<JamesM...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why are USGS maps called "quadrangles? (why not rectangles?)
>
> quadÀranÀgle: noun Geometry, quadrangle; plural noun: quadrangles
Because they have four straight sides, as defined on a sphere.

--
John Varela

Whiskers

unread,
Nov 22, 2016, 12:00:17 PM11/22/16
to
On 2016-11-22, James Mick <JamesM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why are USGS maps called "quadrangles? (why not rectangles?)
>
> quad·ran·gle: noun Geometry, quadrangle; plural noun: quadrangles
> a. a four-sided plane figure, especially a square or rectangle.
> b. a square or rectangular space or courtyard enclosed by buildings.
> c. the area shown on a standard topographic map sheet of the US Geological
> Survey.
> synonyms: courtyard, quad, court, cloister, precinct; square, plaza, piazza
>
> The standard USGS map is a 1:24,000 7.5-minute by 7.5-minute "rectangle".
> Why do they call it a "quadrangle?"

[...]

Probably because it isn't a square world. Any attempt at representing
the surface of the globe on a flat sheet will introduce distortions;
if you try to make compass bearings appear as straight lines (which is a
good start for a map used for getting from point A to point B) then some
of the distances are going to be incorrect - by how much, and
whereabouts on the map the errors are worst, is part of the art of
map-making. Compare Antarctica's appearance on different flat maps and
globes to see how extreme the distortions can be.

The USGS maps represent areas of the Earth's surface defined by their
latitude and longitude. As the USA is entirely within the northern
hemisphere, all those maps will have a northern edge that covers fewer
miles in width than the southern edge does; so the area represented
cannot be a 'rectangle' but it is a 'quadrangle' (although the maps
almost certainly are rectangles).

The UK Ordnance Survey takes a different approach (and has to deal with
a much smaller area too, which changes the challenge) and uses a grid of
1km squares onto which the lines of longitude can be projected as curves.

Both arrangements are designed to ensure that people can use compass
and map to get close enough to their destination to find it visually on
arrival, and identify their position with similar accuracy. The
distortions will be different, but tolerable within the scope of normal
use.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Anders D. Nygaard

unread,
Nov 27, 2016, 5:19:03 PM11/27/16
to
No, the north and south sides are not straight lines on a sphere.

/Anders, Denmark.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 27, 2016, 6:09:09 PM11/27/16
to
Segments of parallels of latitude are straight lines on a sphere just as
much as segments of meridians of longitude are. They're just not segments
of great circles (with one exception).

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 27, 2016, 6:29:27 PM11/27/16
to
One of them can be, if it lies along the Equator.

Richard Tobin

unread,
Nov 28, 2016, 7:00:03 AM11/28/16
to
In article <363d1807-1c0c-4102...@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>Segments of parallels of latitude are straight lines on a sphere just as
>much as segments of meridians of longitude are.

No they're not. If you start walking north and continue in a straight
line you will follow a meridian. If you start walking east and
continue in a straight line you will not follow a parallel.

-- Richard

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 28, 2016, 7:42:45 AM11/28/16
to
Define "straight line on a sphere," then. If you define "straight
line on a sphere" as 'segment of a great circle', then you have
performed your typical distortion of what I wrote by omitting half of it.

Richard Tobin

unread,
Nov 28, 2016, 8:05:02 AM11/28/16
to
In article <edfdbf7c-929a-4ef1...@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> >Segments of parallels of latitude are straight lines on a sphere just as
>> >much as segments of meridians of longitude are.

>> No they're not. If you start walking north and continue in a straight
>> line you will follow a meridian. If you start walking east and
>> continue in a straight line you will not follow a parallel.

>Define "straight line on a sphere," then.

What you get by walking without turning to the left or the right.

-- Richard

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 28, 2016, 8:08:44 AM11/28/16
to
That is, unless you are at 0 deg lat.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 28, 2016, 9:03:57 AM11/28/16
to
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 8:08:44 AM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 28/11/16 11:58, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <363d1807-1c0c-4102...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Segments of parallels of latitude are straight lines on a sphere just as
> >> much as segments of meridians of longitude are.
> >
> > No they're not. If you start walking north and continue in a straight
> > line you will follow a meridian. If you start walking east and
> > continue in a straight line you will not follow a parallel.
>
> That is, unless you are at 0 deg lat.

Heathfield perpetuates Tobin's fraud.

John Varela

unread,
Nov 28, 2016, 9:16:16 PM11/28/16
to
Touche.

The north and south sides are straight on a Mercator projection. The
map at your step 3 above is clearly a Mercator.

I haven't bothered to go beyond that to see what projection is used
in the quadrangle maps, but I'll bet that, given the size of a
quadrangle, the north and south sides are close enough to being
straight as to make no never-mind.

I think a better question would be: Why are they called quadrangles
when some of them have more than four sides, or sides that aren't
straight?

--
John Varela

John Varela

unread,
Nov 28, 2016, 9:22:35 PM11/28/16
to
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:01:41 UTC, ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard
Tobin) wrote:

> In article <edfdbf7c-929a-4ef1...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Segments of parallels of latitude are straight lines on a sphere just as
> >> >much as segments of meridians of longitude are.
>
> >> No they're not. If you start walking north and continue in a straight
> >> line you will follow a meridian. If you start walking east and
> >> continue in a straight line you will not follow a parallel.
>
> >Define "straight line on a sphere," then.

A great circle, which is the shortest distance between two points.

Parallels other than the equator aren't great circles, but for short
distances at middle latitudes there's no significant difference for
most purposes.

> What you get by walking without turning to the left or the right.

Or driving a car on an east-west highway, but not when flying an
airplane.

--
John Varela

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 28, 2016, 11:35:40 PM11/28/16
to
On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 9:22:35 PM UTC-5, John Varela wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:01:41 UTC, ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard
> Tobin) wrote:
>
> > In article <edfdbf7c-929a-4ef1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> >Segments of parallels of latitude are straight lines on a sphere just as
> > >> >much as segments of meridians of longitude are.
> >
> > >> No they're not. If you start walking north and continue in a straight
> > >> line you will follow a meridian. If you start walking east and
> > >> continue in a straight line you will not follow a parallel.
> >
> > >Define "straight line on a sphere," then.
>
> A great circle, which is the shortest distance between two points.

You see? Tobin's fraudulent semi-copying has misled Varela.

Richard Tobin

unread,
Nov 29, 2016, 5:15:02 AM11/29/16
to
In article <55d9148c-8c86-4395...@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>You see? Tobin's fraudulent semi-copying has misled Varela.

You are a very silly man.

-- Richard

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 29, 2016, 7:34:34 AM11/29/16
to
You are a very dishonest man.

Anders D. Nygaard

unread,
Nov 30, 2016, 6:27:46 PM11/30/16
to
The natural and usual definition of straight line is a geodesic, or
curve which is the shortest distance between any two of its points
(barring some technicalities).
In the case of a sphere, straight lines are precisely the great circles.

/Anders, Denmark.

Anders D. Nygaard

unread,
Nov 30, 2016, 6:29:59 PM11/30/16
to
Den 28-11-2016 kl. 14:08 skrev Richard Heathfield:
> On 28/11/16 11:58, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <363d1807-1c0c-4102...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Segments of parallels of latitude are straight lines on a sphere just as
>>> much as segments of meridians of longitude are.
>>
>> No they're not. If you start walking north and continue in a straight
>> line you will follow a meridian. If you start walking east and
>> continue in a straight line you will not follow a parallel.
>
> That is, unless you are at 0 deg lat.

I believe that we were discussing map elements for the US, which afaik
does not include any area close to Equator.

ObAUE: Or should that be "close to the Equator"?

/Anders, Denmark

Richard Heathfield

unread,
Nov 30, 2016, 6:51:01 PM11/30/16
to
Well, we're discussing USGS maps. Whether my nitpick is topical depends
on whether USGS only provides maps for the USA, or whether it covers
other parts of the world as well. To find out which it is, I went to the
USGS site, but it wasn't obvious whether they covered non-USA areas or
not, so I thought the best way forward was to go to their online shop,
to find out what maps they sell.

Rather touchingly, the online shop was closed. For stock-taking, maybe?

Anyway, if they don't do non-USA maps then you are correct --- the
Equator would not be relevant to the discussion.

> ObAUE: Or should that be "close to the Equator"?

Well, that's how I would normally say it, yes.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Nov 30, 2016, 11:30:49 PM11/30/16
to
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 6:51:01 PM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 30/11/16 23:30, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> > Den 28-11-2016 kl. 14:08 skrev Richard Heathfield:
> >> On 28/11/16 11:58, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >>> In article <363d1807-1c0c-4102...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Segments of parallels of latitude are straight lines on a sphere
> >>>> just as
> >>>> much as segments of meridians of longitude are.
> >>>
> >>> No they're not. If you start walking north and continue in a straight
> >>> line you will follow a meridian. If you start walking east and
> >>> continue in a straight line you will not follow a parallel.
> >>
> >> That is, unless you are at 0 deg lat.
> >
> > I believe that we were discussing map elements for the US, which afaik
> > does not include any area close to Equator.
>
> Well, we're discussing USGS maps. Whether my nitpick is topical depends
> on whether USGS only provides maps for the USA, or whether it covers
> other parts of the world as well. To find out which it is, I went to the
> USGS site, but it wasn't obvious whether they covered non-USA areas or
> not, so I thought the best way forward was to go to their online shop,
> to find out what maps they sell.
>
> Rather touchingly, the online shop was closed. For stock-taking, maybe?

Do they still even offer printed maps? Ca. 1965 I bought the whole
series of quadrangles between our apartment in northern Manhattan
and my mother's summer cottage near Monroe, NY (at 50c each). I could
spread them out on the lawn to make a huge map of the routes between
the places. They hadn't been revised in several decades. The entire
country wasn't yet covered even by 15'x15' quadrangles.

When I tried to retrieve them from the cellar years later, the whole
roll of them were gone. No one knew what had happened to them.

I miss contour lines.

> Anyway, if they don't do non-USA maps then you are correct --- the
> Equator would not be relevant to the discussion.

They didn't.

They did cooperate on the world-wide project to do the entire land
surface of Earth in consistent size and style, but that project too
is now obsolete.

Snidely

unread,
Dec 2, 2016, 5:20:12 AM12/2/16
to
Richard Tobin suggested that ...
Maybe you got a rhumb deal.

/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Dec 2, 2016, 11:26:45 AM12/2/16
to
What else is new?


--
athel

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Dec 2, 2016, 11:32:02 AM12/2/16
to
Unless you count Howland, Baker and Jarvis
>
> ObAUE: Or should that be "close to the Equator"?

Yes

--
athel

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Dec 2, 2016, 5:00:44 PM12/2/16
to
What would Ethel know about it? He doesn't know what I wrote that Tobin suppressed.

Dingbat

unread,
Dec 2, 2016, 7:49:48 PM12/2/16
to
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 7:16:13 AM UTC+5:30, James Mick wrote:
> Why are USGS maps called "quadrangles? (why not rectangles?)
>
... because lines of longitude are not parallel. Rectangles have two pairs of parallel lines.

Anders D. Nygaard

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 2:11:01 PM12/4/16
to
Thank you.

/Anders, Denmark.

micky

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 1:37:51 AM12/6/16
to
In alt.usage.english, on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 04:42:43 -0800 (PST), "Peter
T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 7:00:03 AM UTC-5, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <363d1807-1c0c-4102...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >Segments of parallels of latitude are straight lines on a sphere just as
>> >much as segments of meridians of longitude are.
>>
>> No they're not. If you start walking north and continue in a straight
>> line you will follow a meridian. If you start walking east and
>> continue in a straight line you will not follow a parallel.
>
>Define "straight line on a sphere," then. If you define "straight
>line on a sphere" as 'segment of a great circle', then you have
>performed your typical distortion of what I wrote

He's not distorting what you said. He's contradicting it. He doesn't
claim to be reprising what you said. You can tell that by the first 3
words. "No they're not".

> by omitting half of it.

>>They're just not segments of great circles (with one exception).

He did omit this, but not to distort what you said. He did it so as to
not argue with 2 things, only one, OR not to argue with your version of
logic, and to only argue with your conclusion. I thought the omission
was an act of politeness, and I find it strange that you jumped to the
worst possible interpretation.

It's hard to keep in a straight line when most landmarks follow east and
west, but if you were to put out a laser line for example that pointed
east, if you follow that line, that straight line, you won't be going
straight east for long.

--
Please say where you live, or what
area's English you are asking about.
So your question or answer makes sense.
. .
I have lived all my life in the USA,
Western Pa. Indianapolis, Chicago,
Brooklyn, Baltimore.

micky

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 1:44:04 AM12/6/16
to
In alt.usage.english, on 29 Nov 2016 02:16:14 GMT, "John Varela"
Maybe despite some dictionary definitions it doesn't matter if the sides
are straight, but only if there are 4 corners. Since the north and
south borders are not the same length, that would mean that some or all
angels are not right angles, so I think that means they couldn't be
called rectangles or squares. You have to give those early
cartographers extra points for good English.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 7:42:22 AM12/6/16
to
The question was: Why are USGS maps called "quadrangles" and not "rectangles"?

My answer was and remains: Because they are 7'30" on each of their four sides.
0 new messages