109
A cool guide to the most and least dangerous U.S. national parks. (i.imgur.com)
submitted 5 months ago by partybot@lemmy.ca to c/coolguides@lemmy.ca
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That chart kinda confuses me.

For one thing, I feel like cars shouldn't be included because that's people being idiots in cars. I guess if the park is designed in such a way that cars can be a real hazard (like trails that cross roads), then it would make the park more dangerous, but idk; seems weird to include them when people get run over all the time, regardless of whether they're in a national park or not.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not a hazard unique to the area, so unless the park is poorly designed in a way that notibly amplifies the danger of vehicles, it probably shouldn't be included.

(Edit: I just realized it's also counting suicides as well, which again, people can commit suicide anywhere, why is it being counted against the park?)

Another is that there are multiple "dangerous" parks that have few or no fatalities, and very few SAR operations. I know it's based on per million visitors, but when you have less than 5~10 of each, then to me that's a fluke. The park could be extremely safe and had a visitor group or family that did something dumbfoundingly stupid and got themselves lost or killed.

If I understand the chart, it looks like the SAR is per million in 2023, while the fatalities is per million is over the 2007-2023 period. The former is more reasonable when considering that the listed visitor count is for 2023, but fatalities per million is going to get fucky when you have less than a million visitors and it's over a 16yr period. It'd be more reasonable to either list fatalities per million for 2023, or use the average visitor count and SAR incidents per million over the 2007-2023 period.

It's an interesting chart, but I think the methodology might be flawed. I'm curious if anyone else feels the same way.

[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

I'm also a bit confused about the fact that good cell service seems to add points, and having dangerous animals also adds points?

That being said, a TREMENDOUS amount of work went into this and I love the infographic. Very well done!

this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
109 points (92.2% liked)

Cool Guides

4660 readers
2 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
JCSpark@lemmy.ca