-
-
-
-
It doesn't make sense to take the highest and lowest points because that doesn't take into consideration the "lumpiness" of the terrain. What if a country has a lower spread between highest and lowest points but goes constantly up and down vs another that is constantly flat (let's say in 99% of the surface), but has a highest maximum elevation (in 1% of the surface)?
Surely the latter is more flat, if the average elevation is lower than the former.
Hence, the average is a more significant measure of flatness -
Vaalserberg: 322,4 metres.
Yding Skovhøj: 172,5 metresDenmark avg elevation: 34m
Netherlands avg elevation: 30mAccording to Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_elevation -
-
-
-
-
https://www.strava.com/activities/6818176432
I think you could take little bit of inspiration from this loop I did a while ago.
Really recommend the "duinen" national park. Depending on the time of the day it may be a bit crowded with families going out for a stroll, but the landscape is something to behold -
-
-
only if you take the absolute value (or to the power of 2) of the average gradient, otherwise positive gradients offsets negative and viceversa