3 ms·

I get that this is something I need to learn to read, and that there is the potential for it to be extremely useful once I have learned how to read it. It's ha

I get that this is something I need to learn to read, and that there is the potential for it to be extremely useful once I have learned how to read it. It's hard to learn, though, without quick feedback on whether I'm reading it correctly. It would be a big help to show the elevation wherever I'm pointing — either with a miniature scale or a number or both — so I can get direct feedback on whether it's increasing or decreasing and by how much, and to help me recognize the sequence of hues. I'm also really curious to see what this looks like if the lightness is always increasing, with a sawtooth discontinuity where it wraps around after hitting 100%. Yes, this would produce really hard edges in arbitrary places, but that might be worth it in exchange for the hugely helpful certainty of always knowing which way is up.

chrisan 5y ago
I'm having troubles too. I picked Mts Rainier, Adams, and St Helen as my test area and can't help but prefer the conventional. Is there a good area that makes this design really shine vs conventional?
- thehappypm 5y ago
  I think that those scenarios, where it’s just big pointy cylindrical mountains, are very well served by contour plots. I also struggle with this approach, but it does show a lot of interesting detail for things like river valleys and smaller mountains.
- phire 5y ago
  There doesn't seem to be an advantage in mountainous regions. I think it might actually be detrimental. But try looking at reasonably flat areas that show up as almost a single color on traditional terrain maps. The whole Mississippi river catchment area; Florida; England (especially in contrast to Scotland and Wales); Australia.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    What you gain in definition of some of England's smaller hills, you lose in definition of coastlines. The low lying areas only a few metres above sea level are indistinguishable from sea!
bradrn 5y ago
> It would be a big help to show the elevation wherever I'm pointing — either with a miniature scale or a number or both It’s not obvious, but I just discovered that there’s a scale on the very right of the screen. Not quite as good as an interactive tooltip (especially since I’m colourblind), but useful nonetheless.

chrisan 5y ago

I'm having troubles too. I picked Mts Rainier, Adams, and St Helen as my test area and can't help but prefer the conventional. Is there a good area that makes this design really shine vs conventional?

thehappypm 5y ago
I think that those scenarios, where it’s just big pointy cylindrical mountains, are very well served by contour plots. I also struggle with this approach, but it does show a lot of interesting detail for things like river valleys and smaller mountains.
phire 5y ago
There doesn't seem to be an advantage in mountainous regions. I think it might actually be detrimental. But try looking at reasonably flat areas that show up as almost a single color on traditional terrain maps. The whole Mississippi river catchment area; Florida; England (especially in contrast to Scotland and Wales); Australia.
- notahacker 5y ago
  What you gain in definition of some of England's smaller hills, you lose in definition of coastlines. The low lying areas only a few metres above sea level are indistinguishable from sea!

bradrn 5y ago

> It would be a big help to show the elevation wherever I'm pointing — either with a miniature scale or a number or both It’s not obvious, but I just discovered that there’s a scale on the very right of the screen. Not quite as good as an interactive tooltip (especially since I’m colourblind), but useful nonetheless.