A topological map is a type of diagram that has been simplified so that only vital information, such as borders, remains and unnecessary detail, such as size and shape, has been removed.
Fill in this map of Europe by correctly guessing each highlighted country.
Does not include island nations
The black areas represent large bodies of water
If two countries have the exact same borders (e.g., Norway and Finland), make your decision based on general geography (following the coast of the Baltic Sea from Estonia, you hit Finland first and then Norway)
Thanks! Addressing the Norway/Finland confusion, if you go from Latvia to Estonia to Russia along the coast of the Baltic Sea, you then hit Finland first before reaching Norway, which is why Finland is on the left side on this map, despite its actual geographic location. Hope that makes sense :)
Topologicaly speaking both Finland and Norway are interchangeable since they surround and are surrounded by the same countries, the same happens with Vatican and San Marino. Both should be accepted in either case as they are in the topological world where size, distance or proximity do not matter.
Also it avoids pendantics like me going to the commentary section.
I got Finland and Norway the wrong way round, I read the rules and saw general geography so I assumed that Norway would be the one on the left as it is further west, guess that goes to show you should always read the rules properly and not read half of it and assume you've got it
Even with the caveat, I still got Norway and Finland switched. The "general geography" comment made me think that, by general geographic reason reasoning, Norway is more western than Finland, and should therefore be the more western country (especially after getting San Marino and Vatican city correct by reasoning which is the more southern). It seems like this is confusing more people than it's helping, let's just put the countries where they belong
I completely agree : Finland is indeed closer to Baltic countries, but it is eastern than Norway : "general geography" could lead to either of the positions.
I think that San Marino and Vatican City should be correct either way around. You could argue that San Marino should be on top since it's further north, Portugal is in the north-west corner of this map so that logic isn't used.
Fantastic. Even if you don't 100% get it at the start you get to recognise the patterns pretty quickly and it's all the more satisfying for that. Kicking myself for not recognising Scandinavia!
BTW I'm not convinced that the explanation for Norway/Finland makes sense. Why would east/west be "unnecessary detail", but "following the coastline from Estonia" be "vital information"? Since they're there on their own why does it assume that there's any sort of path that's being followed? Would it just be better to admit that either could be either?
I did read the previous explanation, still not convinced, but very happy to be shown to be wrong!
Am I the only person to observe that "following the coastline from Estonia" the sequence is Russia, then Finland, then Sweden? Norway is not on the Baltic at all.
That’s what’s shown as well; if you look closely, you’ll see Sweden is still between Norway and Finland. The order of answers simply happens to loop back to Sweden.
Noted that two pairs of answers were ambiguous, and that the caveat didn't necessarily help in those instances. I say make the caveat be one way or the other- not both, since having two caveats that give different answers and not stating clearly which caveat trumps the other is just unclear. Otherwise, awesome quiz!
At first I was confused how to start, but then I saw Italy with it's 2 enclaves and was like "maybe start with Italy, the Vatican and San Marino, dummy!"
Also it avoids pendantics like me going to the commentary section.
Makes sense.
norway and finland shouldnt be that way
BTW I'm not convinced that the explanation for Norway/Finland makes sense. Why would east/west be "unnecessary detail", but "following the coastline from Estonia" be "vital information"? Since they're there on their own why does it assume that there's any sort of path that's being followed? Would it just be better to admit that either could be either?
I did read the previous explanation, still not convinced, but very happy to be shown to be wrong!