or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A better paper trail map? - Page 3

post #61 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post
The point is that it simply isn't safe to use maps to navigate off-piste terrain. You need local knowledge of the area (guide) or lots of scouting. Any experience skier will agree with this.

I disagree with this as a general statement.  As an experienced skier, I carefully consider the terrain and use my judgement.  In a place like Flaine, for instance, we found it was not a problem to safely navigate the off-piste terrain just using a map.   But in a place like Val d'Isere, by contrast, I used a guide.  Most of it has to do whether you can clearly see your line prior to skiing it, either from the lift on the way up, or looking down from above.  In Flaine, where there are unmarked cliffs, we never skied anything unless we could see the entire line, top to bottom. If the line disappeared from view at some point, that meant trouble.  And we never skied outside of where they did avalanche control.

 

But I would say whether you should use a map or a guide to get where you want to ski is, if we're going to be precise about this, a separate issue from the one I posed as the OP, which is which map style makes it easier to get to where you want to ski.


Edited by chemist - 5/1/13 at 7:04pm
post #62 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post
The point is that it simply isn't safe to use maps to navigate off-piste terrain. You need local knowledge of the area (guide) or lots of scouting. Any experience skier will agree with this.

I disagree with this as a general statement.  As an experienced skier, I carefully consider the terrain and use my judgement.  In a place like Flaine, for instance, we found it was not a problem to safely navigate the off-piste terrain just using a map.   But in a place like Val d'Isere, by contrast, I used a guide.  Most of it has to do whether you can clearly see your line prior to skiing it, either from the lift on the way up, or looking down from above.  In Flaine, where there are unmarked cliffs, we never skied anything unless we could see the entire line, top to bottom. If the line disappeared from view at some point, that meant trouble.  And we never skied outside of where they did avalanche control.

 

But I would say whether you should use a map or a guide to get where you want to ski is, if we're going to be precise about this, a separate issue from the one at hand, which is which map style makes it easier to get to where you want to ski.

Which is what I was referring to as scouting. Your ability to recognized terrain and snow condition is what allows you to look at a spot on the mountain and decide where to go. A map wont help you with that. the only thing it can do is show you how to get to that point if it's an actual run. If it isn't, resorts shouldn't mark it on their maps for liability reasons. (remember ppl sue over anything these days)

post #63 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post

Which is what I was referring to as scouting. Your ability to recognized terrain and snow condition is what allows you to look at a spot on the mountain and decide where to go. A map wont help you with that. the only thing it can do is show you how to get to that point if it's an actual run.

Isn't that exactly the key point? A map will tell you if you can get there, or importantly, get out of there if necessary!

 

You can tell from the (topo) map whether you have to hike 200' back up the hill if your intended lines are unskiable. 

 

Quote:
If you want accurate 3d, you need to use something on your phone and preferably with a GPS.

Last time I checked, MY phone's screen is flat, i.e. 2D not 3D, just like any paper map! th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #64 of 106

Again that is not the function of resort maps!
and again you can see that when scouting the mountain... If you want to venture in back-country big mountain skiing where there's the risk you're going to be stuck in the middle of nowhere you most likely wont be looking at the resort map! same reason why if you go hiking you don't use a street map.
I understand the need to have more information but that information as no place on the resort map!
Topo maps already exists, if you need to use them for detailed elevations, use the resort map and the topo together and you'll have everything you need.
I just don't understand why this info would ever matter to any front-side skier who's going to ski on the "official" trails/runs.

post #65 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post

Topo maps already exists, if you need to use them for detailed elevations, use the resort map and the topo together and you'll have everything you need.
 

 

That was exactly the conclusion the OP had reached some 20 posts earlier! Only he wish to have the trails and lift overlayed on the topo map.

 

Thanks for providing more argument to support it!

post #66 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post

So what's your view?  How many of you would prefer (or not) to use the kind of trail map I describe?  And any idea why the major resorts haven't tried this (other than inertia)?

 

That is what the OP was asking and IMO resort maps are they way they are because that is what works/is need.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post

Topo maps already exists, if you need to use them for detailed elevations, use the resort map and the topo together and you'll have everything you need.
 

 

That was exactly the conclusion the OP had reached some 20 posts earlier! Only he wish to have the trails and lift overlayed on the topo map.

 

Thanks for providing more argument to support it!

Overlaying lifts is not that hard, if you have all the reference points it'll take you less than 15min and you have the freedom to do it as it pleases you.

post #67 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post

I just don't understand why this info would ever matter to any front-side skier who's going to ski on the "official" trails/runs.

I already tried explaining this, but let me try again.  There's two reasons.

 

1)  I'm someone who always likes to learn.  If I'm going to invest the time to ski at a big area, I actually want to learn about it.  That means developing an accurate mental picture of where everything is relative to everything else, particularly with regard to the relative compass directions of the various parts of the area.  The larger and more complex the area, the more satisfying this is.  If I navigate it using a distorted trail map, I can still develop that mental picture, but it takes extra work. On the other hand, if I use a satellite photo that accurately shows where all the trails and lifts are in relationship to each other, that accurate mental picture develops much more readily. Yes, one loses relative elevation information with a bird's-eye satellite photo, but I find that fills in automatically as I ski an area.  [Plus I suspect simply marking the various peaks, and adding arrow directions to the lifts (or just giving the elevations at the top and bottom of each lift, which would be cool anyways), would take care of much of this.]  And a compass-accurate mental picture makes following (or avoiding, depending on the circumstances) the sun that much easier.  That's my personal experience.

 

2)  Yes, I certainly am capable of navigating with a conventional trail map.  And yet, even on-piste, I find something that provides an actual picture of where I am, and that preserves accurate compass directions, makes navigation a bit easier.  Plus there's a bit of satisfaction in finding where you are on a satellite photo between a distinct clump of trees and a large rock formation, as you are seeing those same features in front of you.  That's my personal preference.

 

YMMV.


Edited by chemist - 5/1/13 at 8:42pm
post #68 of 106

chemist, I understand your needs.
I don't see the rest of the skiers out there having the same issues. Simple as that.

post #69 of 106
Thread Starter 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jzamp View Post

chemist, I understand your needs.
I don't see the rest of the skiers out there having the same issues. Simple as that.

Well, that may be; I don't mind being an iconoclast.biggrin.gif

 

And thank you for understanding my needs.wink.gif


Edited by chemist - 5/1/13 at 9:07pm
post #70 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post

 

Last time I checked, MY phone's screen is flat, i.e. 2D not 3D, just like any paper map! th_dunno-1%5B1%5D.gif

Yes, a phone screen is 2D but unlike  a paper map you can interact with that screen, so you can have a pseudo-3D image that you can rotate and see from different angles.  I am sure you understand what I am talking about, if not, look at the difference between Google Maps and Google Earth. 

post #71 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post

 

That was exactly the conclusion the OP had reached some 20 posts earlier! Only he wish to have the trails and lift overlayed on the topo map.

Actually, I never said I wanted the lifts and trails overlaid onto a topo map -- I'm still wedded to the idea of trails and lifts overlaid on a satellite photo, as I showed in my initial example.  I'm concerned an overlay onto a topo map might be too busy plus, as I mentioned above, I like seeing the correspondence between the terrain features on the photo and in real life.   I did use the example of hikers with topo maps in post #1, but that was only to illustrate the value of accurate compass directions.

 

As I said in post #19, in response to the overlay of the Killington trail map onto a topo map, that mdf was kind enough to post:  "I like the vertical perspective and terrain fidelity, but to maximize correspondence to what you are actually seeing on the ground, I would prefer an actual satellite picture with an overlay of trail and lift markings (and maybe a bit of shading to add some 3D)."  

 

[I may have mentioned the possibility of adding some contour lines to the satellite photo + overlay, but I'm on the fence about that and, in any case, that's of course very different from an overlay onto a topo map.]

 

And in post #38, when I mentioned I thought your idea was excellent, I was referring to resorts making alternative maps available online for us to print out, not to your topo map example specifically.  Not that I'm opposed to an overlay onto a topo map -- it's just not the preference I have in mind.

post #72 of 106
So, if you come to Whitefish, you'll prepare by using my Locals' Guide, which has lot of those.
Like this one: http://www.wmr-guide.com/lowermtnarea.html

biggrin.gif
post #73 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

So, if you come to Whitefish, you'll prepare by using my Locals' Guide, which has lot of those.
Like this one: http://www.wmr-guide.com/lowermtnarea.html

biggrin.gif

Absolutely -- very nice work!  But to address my fundamental goal, I would need a single terrain-faithful map that shows the entire area, so I can see everything in relationship to everything else. 

 

EDIT:  Oops, just realized your comment was likely directed to alexzn, not me!  


Edited by chemist - 5/1/13 at 9:48pm
post #74 of 106
No, it was directed to you.

I don't think you'd get much out of a single map looking straight down on the whole resort. Too much terrain info would be lost.
post #75 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post

I should add I bought my Atomics 13 years ago, when all-mountain skis were nowhere near as good as they are now.  So while I think my SL skis were (for me) the best general-use skis available at that time (and they did indeed work well), that may no longer be the case -- that's why I've looked into demoing non-race ski as potential candidates to replace them.  Though it would also be nice to demo some modern race skis, if I could find a place that has such demos....

A lot of things changes in 13 years in ski design... heck, a lot of things changed in the last 3 years... You may be in for a few pleasant surprises....  

 

As for the satellite maps overlay- well, maybe your Ph.D. brain thinks best that way, but that's not how most people think, and for them the artistic pseudo-3D representation is what works.   You are re-inventing the bicycle smile.gif.  I believe Google Earth started adding some ski maps to some of the the resort imagery.  You may check that out. 

post #76 of 106
I think he's looking for a solar powered recumbent with faring. smile.gif. (No offense intended to recumbent riders out there!)
post #77 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

I think he's looking for a solar powered recumbent with faring. smile.gif. (No offense intended to recumbent riders out there!)

Not quite. smile.gif  Here's the bike I came closest to upgrading to back when I was doing triathlons: the Look KG196.  I got to take it on a 40 mile test-ride -- the combination of responsiveness (accelerated like a rocket when you stomped on the pedals) and comfort was amazing.  But but ultimately I couldn't get the geometry to work for me:  

http://d4nuk0dd6nrma.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ct_botb_look_kg_196_o-nev7985.jpg

post #78 of 106
Back to the future with funky stems and down tube shifters.
post #79 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post

Actually, I never said I wanted the lifts and trails overlaid onto a topo map -- I'm still wedded to the idea of trails and lifts overlaid on a satellite photo, as I showed in my initial example.  I'm concerned an overlay onto a topo map might be too busy plus, as I mentioned above, I like seeing the correspondence between the terrain features on the photo and in real life.  

...

 

And in post #38, when I mentioned I thought your idea was excellent, I was referring to resorts making alternative maps available online for us to print out, not to your topo map example specifically.  Not that I'm opposed to an overlay onto a topo map -- it's just not the preference I have in mind.

 

The concern about overlaying lift/trails onto topo map being "too busy" is only true if you use an off-the-shelf topo map made for hiking.

 

It's quite easy to make custom topo maps print out from software "map-set", picking and choosing the density of contour lines to make the print out "less busy". That was what I had in mind when I suggest (half-heartedly) resort made those maps available.  

post #80 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post

chemist, I understand your needs.
I don't see the rest of the skiers out there having the same issues. Simple as that.

 

Not so fast. 

 

There maybe a substantial fraction of skiers want his version, how do you know there aren't? 

 

Resort maps has been the way it is and most people eventually learn how to use it. Whether that's actually the best map, or even that's how "most" want it, I'm in no position to judge. But you seem quite sure of that. And I like to know based on what information? 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

 

As for the satellite maps overlay- well, maybe your Ph.D. brain thinks best that way, but that's not how most people think, and for them the artistic pseudo-3D representation is what works.   You are re-inventing the bicycle smile.gif.  I believe Google Earth started adding some ski maps to some of the the resort imagery.  You may check that out. 

 

While I don't share the OP's preference on satellite image map, I can say I'm another one who find resort map left quite a bit to be desired. I personally prefer maps with contour lines so I know which way is up and which way is down. And I can translate those in my head to form a 3D image which I can then rotate at will. No need for cell phones.

 

Lots of hikers, whether they have PhD or not, also acquire that same skill to relate contour map to terrain. 

 

The fact google map has multiple options is a good proof "the bicycle" isn't perfect and is being reinvented!  

post #81 of 106
NOTE: Exaggeration and over-simplification are used intentionally below to clarify a point, not to be contentious. Please consider this before flaming. smile.gif
 
Seems to me that what we're really seeing here is the disconnect between two personality types and their default world views. On the one hand, we have people like chemist (and me, and maybe at_nyc), who are inclined to be auto-didacts. We tend to trust things in print more than things that are spoken, and feel the need to do our own independent and deliberative research ahead of time, before going into a new situation. We like to mull stuff over before talking about it with anyone or encountering it in person. We abstract things, and then enjoy correlating the abstraction to the real and finding the correspondences and gaps. (Some call this "debugging.") A map is a highly useful abstraction, after all. We'd prefer to get other people's input in distilled, well-vetted form, representing the synthesis of contributions from multiple authors. Having to interact with people socially and in real time for the purpose of collecting  "information," knowing that much of it is likely to turn out to be chaff, is anathema to us.  Finally and most importantly, we just like maps and will study them for hours for the simple pleasure of it. When we start thinking about going to a new place, the very first thing we do - before telling our friends or looking up the best restaurants or pricing plane tickets - is go get some maps. Because we're invested in maps, because we believe in maps, it matters a lot to us when they fall short.
 
On the other hand, we have people who focus more on the concrete and the immediate. These folks just show up for the adventure and experience it as it happens, relying heavily on their network of friends to help understand and react to things on a just-in-time and only-as-needed basis. If they're on the front side, they may not know or care what the back side looks like at that moment. They value what trusted people tell them in person and face-to-face much more than they value what they read. To the extent that they think hard about the day's skiing ahead of time, they may be anticipating interpersonal events more than they are anticipating seeing what such-and-such a canyon looks like or how steep that famous bump run really is, let alone whether it lines up with what the map told them to expect. These are people for whom maps may play only a very small role in their experience of the world, and therefore they don't care deeply how complete or accurate they are.
 
Now obviously we ALL operate in BOTH of these modes all the time, and in every blend of them in between. I am a map person, but am very much aware of maps' limitations. I benefitted hugely from the guiding donated by Bears at the Gathering last month, not to mention being grateful for the good cheer and camaraderie they brought along. I wouldn't have had anywhere close to the quality of experience I had without that first-hand in-person help. And even the most people-centric skier sometimes finds himself alone with a map and really needs it to be correct so he can get back to the correct parking lot or whatever.
post #82 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

No, it was directed to you.
I don't think you'd get much out of a single map looking straight down on the whole resort. Too much terrain info would be lost.

Well, it's really a trade-off, isn't it?  In my posts, above, I've already acknowledged the loss of elevation info. (what you call terrain info.) with the top-down perspective (and explained why it's not a strong issue for me).  But your approach (and again, you've done beautiful work) also loses info., just of a different sort: the relative locations and orientations of the different sections of the mountain, which can't be determined when you've got each section in a separate map (this is of course necessitated by the approach you've taken).  It's not a matter of better or worse, it's a matter of what works best for you.

 

I should add that what works best is partly determined by how you're skiing the mountain; if you're criss-crossing back and forth between different sections (as I typically do at Mammoth), not having a single big-picture map (which I prefer) is more of a problem than if you're spending most of the day in a single section.  Maybe I'd try to combine the best of both worlds and carry both your very nice individual maps along with a big-picture map for when I'm moving back and forth across the mountain.  I'll let you know the next time I'm in Whitefish :).

post #83 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post

 

Not so fast. 

 

There maybe a substantial fraction of skiers want his version, how do you know there aren't? 

 

Resort maps has been the way it is and most people eventually learn how to use it. Whether that's actually the best map, or even that's how "most" want it, I'm in no position to judge. But you seem quite sure of that. And I like to know based on what information? 

 

 

 

While I don't share the OP's preference on satellite image map, I can say I'm another one who find resort map left quite a bit to be desired. I personally prefer maps with contour lines so I know which way is up and which way is down. And I can translate those in my head to form a 3D image which I can then rotate at will. No need for cell phones.

 

Lots of hikers, whether they have PhD or not, also acquire that same skill to relate contour map to terrain. 

 

The fact google map has multiple options is a good proof "the bicycle" isn't perfect and is being reinvented!  

Exactly -- that's why I'd like to see ski areas explore alternative map designs, and let each individual decide what he or she prefers.


Edited by chemist - 5/2/13 at 3:18pm
post #84 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

NOTE: Exaggeration and over-simplification are used intentionally below to clarify a point, not to be contentious. Please consider this before flaming. smile.gif
 
 

 

Let me see, where did I put that kindling....

It's really too bad they don't have an icon that shows someone roasting something over an open pit.smile.gif

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 
Seems to me that what we're really seeing here is the disconnect between two personality types and their default world views. On the one hand, we have people like chemist (and me, and maybe at_nyc), who are inclined to be auto-didacts. We tend to trust things in print more than things that are spoken, and feel the need to do our own independent and deliberative research ahead of time, before going into a new situation. We like to mull stuff over before talking about it with anyone or encountering it in person. We abstract things, and then enjoy correlating the abstraction to the real and finding the correspondences and gaps. (Some call this "debugging.") A map is a highly useful abstraction, after all. We'd prefer to get other people's input in distilled, well-vetted form, representing the synthesis of contributions from multiple authors. Having to interact with people socially and in real time for the purpose of collecting  "information," knowing that much of it is likely to turn out to be chaff, is anathema to us.  Finally and most importantly, we just like maps and will study them for hours for the simple pleasure of it. When we start thinking about going to a new place, the very first thing we do - before telling our friends or looking up the best restaurants or pricing plane tickets - is go get some maps. Because we're invested in maps, because we believe in maps, it matters a lot to us when they fall short.
 
On the other hand, we have people who focus more on the concrete and the immediate. These folks just show up for the adventure and experience it as it happens, relying heavily on their network of friends to help understand and react to things on a just-in-time and only-as-needed basis. If they're on the front side, they may not know or care what the back side looks like at that moment. They value what trusted people tell them in person and face-to-face much more than they value what they read. To the extent that they think hard about the day's skiing ahead of time, they may be anticipating interpersonal events more than they are anticipating seeing what such-and-such a canyon looks like or how steep that famous bump run really is, let alone whether it lines up with what the map told them to expect. These are people for whom maps may play only a very small role in their experience of the world, and therefore they don't care deeply how complete or accurate they are.
 
Now obviously we ALL operate in BOTH of these modes all the time, and in every blend of them in between. I am a map person, but am very much aware of maps' limitations. I benefitted hugely from the guiding donated by Bears at the Gathering last month, not to mention being grateful for the good cheer and camaraderie they brought along. I wouldn't have had anywhere close to the quality of experience I had without that first-hand in-person help. And even the most people-centric skier sometimes finds himself alone with a map and really needs it to be correct so he can get back to the correct parking lot or whatever.
 

 

Broadly speaking, I don't see why anyone would disagree with what you've said -- different approaches => different needs: à chacun son goût 

 

As for me personally, while you've made a worthy attempt to characterize my preferences (particularly given that we've never met), and there are elements you've accurately captured (I do like abstraction -- I'm a theoretical chemist, after all), my motivations are a bit different. For me it's less about my preferred style of learning, and more about wanting to see the big picture -- having a nice mental framework for what the overall area looks like, so wherever I am I can position myself within that frame. And the bottom line for me is that the distortions inherent to essentially all resort maps interfere with the creation of such a frame.  

 

Indeed, as far as learning styles go, I really do enjoy skiing with an expert local guide -- its one potential downside, however, is that after a few days of skiing all over the mtn. with him or her, if I've not consulted an accurate (read: not a typical resort) map, I find I don't have as good a sense as I'd like of where we've actually been.  So that's what motivates the kind of map I prefer.  Also, maps are work for me to use, so if I'm going to do that work I want to learn something from it.  And as I've mentioned above, I find I learn most from a map that is non-distorted.

 

Finally, if I were to try to characterize the competing perspectives in this thread, I would use this paraphrase (favored by my mentor) of a quote attributed to Einstein:  'Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not too simple.'  So one could say that much of what is being seen in this thread is merely competing views of what constitutes "too simple."


Edited by chemist - 5/2/13 at 3:31pm
post #85 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

 
I don't think you'd get much out of a single map looking straight down on the whole resort. Too much terrain info would be lost.

Well, it's really a trade-off, isn't it?  In my posts, above, I've already acknowledged the loss of elevation info. (what you call terrain info.) with the top-down perspective (and explained why it's not a strong issue for me).  But your approach (and again, you've done beautiful work) also loses info., just of a different sort: the relative locations and orientations of the different sections of the mountain, which can't be determined when you've got each section in a separate map (this is of course necessitated by the approach you've taken).  It's not a matter of better or worse, it's a matter of what works best for you.

Well, of course, the maps I have were intended for a website, not your pocket.  

 

But, by terrain info, I don't mean elevation specifically, I mean folds of terrain like ravines and chutes.  I think a 3/4 or something like that view works far better than straight down.  For each resort, the angle that would show it best would be a bit different and you might not be able to do "front/back", but something like that (here I would think three would be needed) would be better than just straight down like I'm some bird.  Maybe it's something I'll work on this summer.  

post #86 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Well, of course, the maps I have were intended for a website, not your pocket.   

Sorry, I don't understand -- doesn't my comment about the loss of relative position and orientation information when you have each section in a separate map apply equally well irrespective of whether you're viewing them on a website (as I've done) or printed them out? 

post #87 of 106

The resort provides an all over view of the resort via their trail map.  The website is meant to tell you about each trail or area in a more detailed fashion, not to supplant the resort's map.  It is not meant for navigating the area.  It is meant to tell you what type of trails there are, the conditions, the standard approaches to areas, etc.  More like a dessert tray than directions to the restaurant.  If you've spent any time on the site, you'll know that clicking on the map tells you about the area you've clicked on.  The goal was to describe the skiing, not navigation.  

post #88 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

The resort provides an all over view of the resort via their trail map.  The website is meant to tell you about each trail or area in a more detailed fashion, not to supplant the resort's map.  It is not meant for navigating the area.  It is meant to tell you what type of trails there are, the conditions, the standard approaches to areas, etc.  More like a dessert tray than directions to the restaurant.  If you've spent any time on the site, you'll know that clicking on the map tells you about the area you've clicked on.  The goal was to describe the skiing, not navigation.  

OK, got it.  Thanks.

post #89 of 106
I spent some time trying to spin Google Earth around to figure out a direction and tilt to provide visual depth while including as much as possible of the resort, preparatory to adding trail info. VERY TOUGH. Came up with three aspects, but the main aspect is going to be a mess of spaghetti. Will play with it more tomorrow. Would definitely be unusable with a single view, most of the trails would be left off because just labeling them would hide others. One aspect, the easiest in theory because it has areas more so than trails, requires either that you get rid of tilt because a ridge blocks the view of a whole bowl, or that you lose all sense of depth along with up and down. Might have to go with four maps.
post #90 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I spent some time trying to spin Google Earth around to figure out a direction and tilt to provide visual depth while including as much as possible of the resort, preparatory to adding trail info. VERY TOUGH. Came up with three aspects, but the main aspect is going to be a mess of spaghetti. Will play with it more tomorrow. Would definitely be unusable with a single view, most of the trails would be left off because just labeling them would hide others. One aspect, the easiest in theory because it has areas more so than trails, requires either that you get rid of tilt because a ridge blocks the view of a whole bowl, or that you lose all sense of depth along with up and down. Might have to go with four maps.

 

This was part of my point earlier. 

Instead of trying to map from a single aspect, have you thought of mapping each aspect to a partial cone and then assembling 3-4 unrolled cones onto the flat sheet?  Ideally, each cone tip would correspond to an actual resort peak, which would give you both vertical representation and reasonably accurate relative angles on each cone.

 

Yes, it's a ton of work but it gives you a pseudo top-down overview, best visibility per aspect, and you only lose conformal mapping at the edges of the cones.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Resorts, Conditions & Travel