Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Forests in Idaho, checkerboard forest photographed from the International Space Station.
Comment A very interesting image, but if is to be of any use as a VI, we need a little more information. Do you have a latitude and longitude so that I can find this location on a map? What is the scale of the image? Is the image aligned north-south? If not, what is it's alignment? Without this information, it is of little educational use. Martinvl (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Could you include that text in the both the image and the VI nomination. Also, if you are going to include "20 degrees clockwise", the correct term is "rotated", not "shifted". (Sorry about being pedantic, but this is one of the topics that I tutor in maths). Martinvl (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info@Koavf: There was no indication of scale, so I amended the text of the image descriptin to include the size of the checkerboard squares. Maybe somebody would like to cross-check my amendment. (I used Google Earth). Martinvl (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Checkerboard forests are common in the western United States, but this is an extremely atypical example of that phenomenon.
Checkerboards usually result from a mixture of public and private ownership, where the privately held parcels were originally granted as alternating square miles to railroad companies, and subsequently purchased by timber companies. Where private land is intermingled with National Forest land, the private land tends to be more heavily logged. Where private and Bureau of Land Management lands are intermingled, the BLM land may be more heavily logged.
In this photo the checkerboard area is entirely owned by the state of Idaho, and the squares are much smaller than normal (1/16 mile instead of 1 mile). Go here and search for "Whitetail Butte Idaho" to see ownership. A more typical example of National Forest/private checkerboarding can be seen just south of "Avery Idaho".
This image would NOT be appropriate for illustrating the topic described at en:Checkerboarding (land). Checkerboarding is a notable subject, and there's plenty of information on the internet about it (e.g. [1][2]). It would be misleading to promote this image when it's likely to be interpreted as example of checkerboarding in land ownership (as happened here, for example). Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: I have to be honest that this is nonsensical to me: the image has merits irrespective of how someone else might misuse or misunderstand it. Especially if the description that we provide is accurate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
