Please can someone who worked on this map before look into the color problem. The color of Mauritania, Tunisia and other nations is not in the key! This was mentioned by several other people before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.231.149.155 (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

this is a really hard to read map. you should take a class on GIS or cartography or something. that is a horrible color gradient.

More seriously, there appears to be a colour used on Mauritania, Tanzania & Tunisia that isn't in the key, a green-turquoise that would fit between the 30-34 and 35-39 ranges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.176.163.106 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For humans it is almost impossible to distinguish the coulours of .05-.54 and .55-.59 :-( --drylexx (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This map should be replaced with an SVG one with sane colours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.52.138 (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There seem to have been some efforts to improve the colors. I'm not sure whether it has been improved, but the current map (and versions since 08:35, 11 November 2009) suffer from two colors which are hard to distinguish (for a non-color-blind person, at least on some monitors): .40-.44 and .45-.49 are too similar. Everything else is fine.

I'm not a chart or cartography specialist, but aren't there simply known, established sets of colors which can be used to optimize readability for N colors? There shouldn't be a need to reinvent the wheel with every chart... --Ericjs (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The map is still difficult to read, the map on 2008 seemed better in terms of colors. Plus Bosnia is now orange (that shade is not even in the key, BiH should be somewhere in the green/blue range (see the list). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There need be only six colors, five using the spectrum chosen here, and grey for no data. Countries shown can be ranked, divided into fifths, and each fifth identified with the Gini Coefficient spread related to each fifth. That would show comparative distributions of land ownership across nation-states.

The legend as given is complex, more than needed in most applications. If decimal scores are chosen apriori for the legend, they may not relate subject characteristics in the study. Generally, a characteristic is not evenly distributed among subjects in tenths of a chosen measure. The categories should picture the distribution across countries, not distribution by zeros and fives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The color used for Tanzania, Malawi, Tunisia, Morocco, Mauritania, Uzbekistan, Guinea and possibly a few other countries does not seem to correspond to any color in the legend. Elostirion (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume the intent may be for it to be the color for .35-.39, as at a certain tilt of my screen the two appear very similar, but they are certainly different. Elostirion (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The map has wrong colours assigned for the ranges especified. For instance in the source table https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html Colombia appears in place 9 of the most inequal countries regarding family income, with a calculated GINI index of 58.5%. In the map, Colombia is coloured in dark blue, meaning it is in the range of 40-44%. It is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.146.245.89 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Color for Belarus seems to be wrong as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.20.3.6 (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Color for venezuela is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.137.167.221 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've travelled thousands of kilometres in both countries. Honestly, where do the stats on this map come from? Provocateur (talk)

the colour scheme here is awful; three of the colours are too similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.48.3 (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)