- Beiträge
Please can we have the Hiking 10m contours appear at the same zoom level as Mountain Bike and Cycling (about right)?
At the moment you must zoom in quite a long way before the 10m contours appear in Hiking. Not so good…
Please have a look at this thread (maybe use a translator site) to see why in hiking this was changed.
Actually I wanted to change this for MTB too, but it would make the theme code even more complicated.Please keep in mind: hiking map style is for mountain hiking, and ZL 13/14 are equivalent to paper maps 1:70.000/1:35.000. The best maps for the Alps (Alpenvereinskarten) are in 1:25.000 and have 20m contour lines, so not even 10m at larger scale! Having 10m contour lines at smaller scales is not very helpful in steep terrain, as the contour lines will blend together and details get obscured – see the attached screenshots of MTB and Hiking in the same areas.
For me 20m contour lines were fine and would have been enough for mountain hiking; I see the point of 10m for cycling (not MTB) in hill areas, and hiking in really high zoom levels (which aren’t available in paper maps), but at zoom levels 13/14 10m is simply too much.
What really would help here would be different categories of contour lines. At the moment we have: 500m, 50m, 10m for some maps, 500m, 100m, 20m for others; it might make sense to change the first set to 500m, 100m, 20m, 10m to make it more compatible and allow more differentiation.
Developer of Elevate mapstyle
1 Teilnehmer(n) gefällt dieser Beitrag
Unfortunately the best contour interval depends on the actual topography of the locality, so it’s not easy to come to a solution that suits everyone and everywhere. What is best for the Alps is useless in Holland!
Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org
Unfortunately the best contour interval depends on the actual topography of the locality, so it’s not easy to come to a solution that suits everyone and everywhere. What is best for the Alps is useless in Holland!
Of course, that’s why I wrote above and also in the map key:
I developed Elevate for mountain hiking in the alps.
I don’t really have a clue if 10m of ups and downs that might be invisible at ZL14 instead of 15 make a big difference by foot at other locations, although when we don’t hike in the mountains but go for a walk in flatter areas this is not relevant for me.
Developer of Elevate mapstyle
Tobias,
We may just have different preferences. I still prefer the contour behaviour on Mountain Bike & Cycling.
Thanks for your answer. I read through the thread you linked to and understand the points made.
I’ve also looked at the two images you shared above. I like the 10m interval better and how obvious it makes the steeper sections. I spend quite a bit of time in mountains which is what I want the detailed contours for. Crag markings aren’t brilliant with vector mapping and I think detailed contours help highlight those steep sections.Have you already had feedback from other mountain hikers?
Anyway…thanks for all your hard work on Elevate 🙂
OK, so your using it more like hillshading
I’ve also looked at the two images you shared above. I like the 10m interval better and how obvious it makes the steeper sections..
It’s more obvious, but I’m used to looking at the distances between contour lines to get steepness, and if they are overlapping too soon one can’t differentiate between some steepness levels anymore. And it’s very hard to see cliffs and other details in the 10m screenshot.
I spend quite a bit of time in mountains which is what I want the detailed contours for. Crag markings aren’t brilliant with vector mapping and I think detailed contours help highlight those steep sections.
Are you using hillshading? I’m using it in ZL12-15 to get a quick impression for steep sections, and contour lines for more exact information when needed.
I think it would be best if Christian could give the 10m lines a special tagging, then 20m might be a good compromise and those ZLs as they used to be.
Have you already had feedback from other mountain hikers?
Not much, mostly positive (something like ZL13/14 gets usable again) you’re the first who wants 10m back for hiking. But ZL13/14 are not what I use while hiking (more for planning), and that’s when I look at contour line details most of the time. Maybe that’s the same usage for others, too.
Developer of Elevate mapstyle
I use hillshading too. I prefer more contours. We all have different preferences 🙂
I also use OsmAnd and configure the contours to be like Elevate – Mountain Bike/Cycling (see image).
Left – Elevate Hiking, Centre – OsmAnd with my preferred contour density, Right – Elevate Mountain Bike.But you’re the man doing all the work 🙂
Thanks for your time.
I forgot to say….hillshading models the terrain well but steep ground on the ’sunny‘ side isn’t obvious. Only contours tell the full story. More contours provide more guide to elevation too.
I note that the height of the contours is marked much less often with the ‚Hiking‘ theme. That’s useful information on a hilly walk. See the right hand image in the image attached to my previous post. On the steep slope in the middle of the picture the contours have their elevation labelled all the way up. That information is absent with the Hiking theme (left).
I also use OsmAnd and configure the contours to be like Elevate – Mountain Bike/Cycling (see image).
Left – Elevate Hiking, Centre – OsmAnd with my preferred contour density, Right – Elevate Mountain Bike.If you compare it to my example, it’s pretty obvious that what John wrote above is probably the main point – we have different use cases because of different terrains. What’s a mountain in England would probably be a hill in the alps. There are no overlapping contour lines, there’s enough space that you can count them and all cliffs are easily to distinguish from contour lines in your example. All this isn’t the case in my example. So maybe I should add „alpine“ to „mountain hiking“, but I always thought that’s the same :-).
You have to make some design goals, and for me Elevate should be usable in the more extreme terrains, so having 10m contours in alpine areas at this scale is not a good options – see the paper maps comparisons above. Paper maps with 1:50.000 or less do actually often have 50m.
It also makes sense in looking how Elevate is designed: ZL13/14 are meant to be less detailed/coarse in many ways to get a better overview especially in bad lightning conditions, and if your want to know more you can zoom in. That’s the advantage of digital maps 🙂I forgot to say….hillshading models the terrain well but steep ground on the ’sunny‘ side isn’t obvious. Only contours tell the full story..
That’s true 🙂
I note that the height of the contours is marked much less often with the ‚Hiking‘ theme. That’s useful information on a hilly walk. See the right hand image in the image attached to my previous post. On the steep slope in the middle of the picture the contours have their elevation labeled all the way up. That information is absent with the Hiking theme (left).
It’s now the same contour details as lower zoom levels, only the ZL when it switches to more details has changed. Personally I think every 50m are too many captions at this level. Right now we have three levels of contour lines, elevation_minor, elevation_medium, elevation_major; those used to be 20m/100m/500m (and are still current for most maps); this was also usable for alpine terrain at those ZLs we’re talking about, and captions every 100m are much better than every 50m or 500m. I agree that every 500m is pretty coarse, so neither is really good.
I’ll talk to Christian if we can get a fourth category so we have some intermediate solution for the mid level zooms. It wouldn’t be more data, just better to be differentiated.Developer of Elevate mapstyle
I just prefer the close contours. Even in the Alps. I know the Matterhorn region pretty well as I’ve climbed quite a few of the 4000m peaks round there and there’s plenty of steep ground there. However I can always switch to ‚Mountain Bike’….thanks for showing interest and your hard work!
I think it would be best if Christian could give the 10m lines a special tagging, then 20m might be a good compromise and those ZLs as they used to be.
Sorry, the tagging of the countour lines is done by phyghtmap (the tool that converts hgt-data to OSM) and there is no option for a (eg) elevation_micro for 10m lines.
Sorry, the tagging of the countour lines is done by phyghtmap (the tool that converts hgt-data to OSM) and there is no option for a (eg) elevation_micro for 10m lines.
That’s too bad, seems like there’s no easy solution for one theme for 20m and 10m maps 🙁
Developer of Elevate mapstyle
- Sie müssen angemeldet sein, um zu diesem Thema eine Antwort verfassen zu können.