New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A better paper trail map? - Page 4

post #91 of 106
Do you have an example of that? Not sure what you are saying. Although we have one main peak here, the bowls and ridges extending out from there don't really lend themselves to a pie shaped split, if I'm following you. Just going straight down from above is quite an irregular shape. Wedges would be all different sizes and, like I said, the main, front side aspect or wedge would be so large as to just be a mass of spaghetti. Which is why I ended up splitting things up more on my website, to make it easier to understand that portion of the resort. Chemist is looking for one overall view, which is why he is looking straight down like out of an airplane, but I think you lose valuable data. The artist's version issued by the resort is in three pieces, but that still to me was hiding things around bends so to speak. Which is why I divided things up even more when I started using Google Earth. I thought maybe almost straight down then break up into quadrants might be the next thing to try.. But things are so sprawling here. Not on my PC right now, but will play later.
post #92 of 106

I haven't read every post, but thought I should add my 2c.

I would prefer a true to scale plan map.  When I look at the map I want to easily see where I am, and where I'm going represented with accurate distances so I can figure out the best way to get there.  I'm happy enough with the green to black trail markings and lifts differentiated from down hill slopes.  Adding more just makes the map more cluttered, well maybe a direction arrow in some rare cases, so you can tell if a trail takes you to a lift that takes you to a trail that takes you to your car without having to climb uphill.  It would be nice, I admit, if trail names were a little more correct; "mogul alley" shouldn't be called mogul alley if it's groomed flat.

post #93 of 106

Spent some more time playing with what I thought was meant by "cones".  Really couldn't come up with less than four cones and frankly, my whole reaction was that the more you cut down on the number of map sections, the more information is totally lost in the process.  There are too many different aspects to use the satellite images.  Flattening it down creates areas that look like the slope runs 180 degrees the other way (up and down is totally flipped visually).  The advantage to an artist doing it is they can sort of ignore "reality" in order to produce something you can read easily.  As you tilt the satellite images around, something is inevitably made minuscule that in fact is not.  

 

But if anyone wants to work on this FOR ME to 1) keep Chemist happy, and 2) improve the Locals' Guide for me, please do!!!   biggrin.gif

post #94 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

I would prefer a true to scale plan map.  When I look at the map I want to easily see where I am, and where I'm going represented with accurate distances so I can figure out the best way to get there.

Yes, a minimization in distortion of scale, as well a compass direction, is my preference as well.

post #95 of 106

I'm coming to the conclusion that there's no pleasing the average bear. smile.gif

post #96 of 106
Thread Starter 

What about something like this as an example of a starting point, which I've taken from the website of summitmaps.com (http://www.summitmaps.com/Departments/MOUNTAINEERING-and-SKI-MAPS.aspx)?  While it's just a low-res picture of a 3D-relief model they sell of Park City, I would think with a bit of clever shading (and maybe arrows on the lift lines or color-coding of the lift tops),  which way is up should be reasonably evident.  Park City's own map shown for comparison.

 

 


Edited by chemist - 5/3/13 at 6:21pm
post #97 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

I'm coming to the conclusion that there's no pleasing the average bear. smile.gif

Of course you meant that humorously, but it's perhaps worth reiterating that this not about finding a single map that will please everyone, but exploring whether there are alternative presentations that might offer significant advantages over current maps that might be useful for at least some skiers.   We don't expect everyone to drive the same type of car, etc.

 

More broadly, what we're wrestling with here is how to best present a 3D object in 2D, so of course there's going to be controversy, since there is no perfect way to do this -- something has to give.  Consider how contentious a different a 3D->2D conversion problem, namely how best to project a map of the earth onto a flat sheet of paper, has been.  Here's a useful quote from the Wikipedia article on map projection that applies equally well to ski resort mapping:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection:

"The mathematics of projection do not permit any particular map projection to be 'best' for everything. Something will always get distorted [emphasis mine]. Therefore a diversity of projections exists to service the many uses of maps and their vast range of scales"

 

To get a sense of the diversity of approaches used for the above, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections


Edited by chemist - 5/3/13 at 7:40pm
post #98 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Spent some more time playing with what I thought was meant by "cones".  Really couldn't come up with less than four cones and frankly, my whole reaction was that the more you cut down on the number of map sections, the more information is totally lost in the process.  There are too many different aspects to use the satellite images.  Flattening it down creates areas that look like the slope runs 180 degrees the other way (up and down is totally flipped visually).  The advantage to an artist doing it is they can sort of ignore "reality" in order to produce something you can read easily.  As you tilt the satellite images around, something is inevitably made minuscule that in fact is not.  

 

But if anyone wants to work on this FOR ME to 1) keep Chemist happy, and 2) improve the Locals' Guide for me, please do!!!   biggrin.gif

Ah, please don't do any extra work on my account!!  We're just talking here smile.gif.

 

Come to think of it, I suspect professional cartographers have already done some work on this specific type of problem.  Perhaps I should email the National Geographic Society a link to this thread and ask them for their thoughts.


Edited by chemist - 5/3/13 at 6:23pm
post #99 of 106

My big complaint is about navigating, not skiing.  Often to get from one base to another involves going through a complicated junction where several trails and/or lifts come together, and you can't tell if it really connects.  The official map will just have the ends of the lines drawn sort of near each other and leave which are uphill of each other vague.

post #100 of 106
You're within a short handful of years when mapping is going to be in the new generation of 'smart' heads up display goggles. It's only a matter of $$$. There's most certainly a market for this. You can keep track of friends on the hill in real time, and eventually, this is going to be integrated into GPS/avy search and broadcast information. Imagine a tap to your headstrap and starting your beacon search with an in goggle display. Imagine just skiing with mapping info fed as needed (or not) and overlayed onto the slope you're skiing.

Now is this good? Yes and no of course, but it is coming and I'll predict be as common as helmets in a decade. Not only ski area mapping, but BC stuff as well.
post #101 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post

My big complaint is about navigating, not skiing.  Often to get from one base to another involves going through a complicated junction where several trails and/or lifts come together, and you can't tell if it really connects.  The official map will just have the ends of the lines drawn sort of near each other and leave which are uphill of each other vague.

Yes, that's something I've found as well.

post #102 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

You're within a short handful of years when mapping is going to be in the new generation of 'smart' heads up display goggles. It's only a matter of $$$. There's most certainly a market for this. You can keep track of friends on the hill in real time, and eventually, this is going to be integrated into GPS/avy search and broadcast information. Imagine a tap to your headstrap and starting your beacon search with an in goggle display. Imagine just skiing with mapping info fed as needed (or not) and overlayed onto the slope you're skiing.

Now is this good? Yes and no of course, but it is coming and I'll predict be as common as helmets in a decade. Not only ski area mapping, but BC stuff as well.

With a goggles's heads-up display, don't you need to be able to focus on something ~2" away from your eyes?  I wear contacts when I ski, which preclude that.

 

At some point, of course, we'll all have implantable chips whose memories we can access directly.  

 

I was going to add a smiley face at the end of that last statement, except that it's probably actually true...

post #103 of 106
The last thing I need when I'm skiing is more distraction. And given I can't read text messages on my phone without digging out my reading glasses, I can't imagine being able to see stuff on the inside of my goggles.

Of course, I didn't think an electronic viewfinder would work and it does. But then again it's got some kind of wheel you spin that acts like a diopter.
post #104 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post

With a goggles's heads-up display, don't you need to be able to focus on something ~2" away from your eyes?  I wear contacts when I ski, which preclude that.

 

No, I'm pretty sure they're made to "appear" focus at a normal distance. 

post #105 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post

 

No, I'm pretty sure they're made to "appear" focus at a normal distance. 

 

Exactly... I'm sure you'll be able to 'adjust' focus to meet individual needs... in the analogue world, think binoculars. Distractions? Yep. I'm sure military pilots said the same thing in the beginning. I'm I going to buy any? Nope, though I can certainly see how in very poor visibility how they would help a great deal.

post #106 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

 

Exactly... I'm sure you'll be able to 'adjust' focus to meet individual needs... in the analogue world, think binoculars. Distractions? Yep. I'm sure military pilots said the same thing in the beginning. I'm I going to buy any? Nope, though I can certainly see how in very poor visibility how they would help a great deal.

and maybe a terrahertz imager to see through the fog or snowcool.gif

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