1. ## Scale Ratio

A map has a scale of 1:1000.
(i) What distance on the ground (in meters) is represented on the map as
(a) 2 cm (b) 7.6 cm

(ii) What distance on the map represents
(a) 100 m (b) 2.6 km

------------------
Can anyone help me to find the answer step by step, please?

2. ## Re: Scale Ratio

Originally Posted by joshuaa
A map has a scale of 1:1000.
(i) What distance on the ground (in meters) is represented on the map as
(a) 2 cm (b) 7.6 cm

(ii) What distance on the map represents
(a) 100 m (b) 2.6 km

------------------
Can anyone help me to find the answer step by step, please?
Normally the scale 1:1000 represents 1 cm : 1000 metres, now do the math...

dokrbb

3. ## Re: Scale Ratio

Let me try (i)
(a) 2 cm = 2000 m
(b) 7.6 = 7600 m

4. ## Re: Scale Ratio

Originally Posted by joshuaa
Let me try (i)
(a) 2 cm = 2000 m
(b) 7.6 = 7600 m

seems to be

Are you OK with the next part of the problem? How would you proceed?

5. ## Re: Scale Ratio

Since 1 cm on the map corresponds to 1000 cm of land, you are multiplying by 1000 to go from map to land. To go the opposite way, you have to do the opposite. What is the opposite of "multiply by 1000"?

6. ## Re: Scale Ratio

Originally Posted by joshuaa
Let me try (i)
(a) 2 cm = 2000 m
(b) 7.6 = 7600 m

You want to be careful with your units. The ratio 1:1000 is consistent with the fact that 1 cm on the paper is equivalent to 1000 cm on the ground. It's not a conversion factor, so 2 cm corresponds to 2000 cm. Unless the information says 1 cm = 1000 m (as the scaling ratio), I think it's a stretch to assume otherwise.

What does everyone else think of this?

7. ## Re: Scale Ratio

Originally Posted by Lambin
You want to be careful with your units. The ratio 1:1000 is consistent with the fact that 1 cm on the paper is equivalent to 1000 cm on the ground. It's not a conversion factor, so 2 cm corresponds to 2000 cm.
I suppose you meant metres, not cm

8. ## Re: Scale Ratio

Originally Posted by Lambin
You want to be careful with your units. The ratio 1:1000 is consistent with the fact that 1 cm on the paper is equivalent to 1000 cm on the ground. It's not a conversion factor, so 2 cm corresponds to 2000 cm. Unless the information says 1 cm = 1000 m (as the scaling ratio), I think it's a stretch to assume otherwise.

What does everyone else think of this?
Originally Posted by dokrbb
I suppose you meant metres, not cm
No, I do mean centimeters. Because I could also say that 1:1000 implies 1 cm = 1000 km under the same assumption. The point is, only the map-creator would know what the conversion is exactly. So, with a ratio as 1:1000, the only safe assumption that can be made is that whatever measuring device you are using, the physical distance would be multiplied by 1000. Therefore, if it is 2 cm then it would 2000 cm. If it is 0.02 m then it would be 20 m. Both results would be consistent with each other because 2000 cm = 20 m and 2 cm = 0.02 m which is the same physical distance. Here, I'm illustrating that it doesn't matter what units we choose because the ratio is unitless.

Disclaimer: I don't have much experience with maps, but to me, if we needed to know that 1:1000 is 1 cm = 1000 m, then you would need to know information beyond the text to be able to solve this problem.

9. ## Re: Scale Ratio

Originally Posted by Lambin
No, I do mean centimeters. Because I could also say that 1:1000 implies 1 cm = 1000 km under the same assumption. The point is, only the map-creator would know what the conversion is exactly. So, with a ratio as 1:1000, the only safe assumption that can be made is that whatever measuring device you are using, the physical distance would be multiplied by 1000. Therefore, if it is 2 cm then it would 2000 cm. If it is 0.02 m then it would be 20 m. Both results would be consistent with each other because 2000 cm = 20 m and 2 cm = 0.02 m which is the same physical distance. Here, I'm illustrating that it doesn't matter what units we choose because the ratio is unitless.

Disclaimer: I don't have much experience with maps, but to me, if we needed to know that 1:1000 is 1 cm = 1000 m, then you would need to know information beyond the text to be able to solve this problem.
for me is pretty obvious that 1:1000 couldn't be reffered to cm:cm since the real-life example "map" is given, and it's hard to imagine a practical usefullness of a map with a scale of 1 cm : 1000 cm,

the second part of the problem also suggests to consider something else than cm in this ratio, and if this is not sufficiently convincing we can always consult http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_scale ,

dokrbb

10. ## Re: Scale Ratio

Originally Posted by dokrbb
for me is pretty obvious that 1:1000 couldn't be reffered to cm:cm since the real-life example "map" is given, and it's hard to imagine a practical usefullness of a map with a scale of 1 cm : 1000 cm,

the second part of the problem also suggests to consider something else than cm in this ratio, and if this is not sufficiently convincing we can always consult http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_scale ,

dokrbb
I think that's a fair point, and it wouldn't be practical if it was a world map! But imagine if it was a museum map, then 1 cm : 1000 cm is plausible.

11. ## Re: Scale Ratio

Thanks to everyone who did give a useful information. I have really got the idea of how to solve the problem either Units where 1 cm : 1000 cm OR 1 cm : 1000 m.

,

,

,

,

### 1:1000 Scale on a map . What does it mean

Click on a term to search for related topics.