On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:26:42 GMT, [email hidden] (RJ
Webb) said:I dont care about heights... Just show me what the place
looks like and how hard it fights back..
no makey sense, iydmmss; if I want to get from where I am to
another place and its obvious to make that journey its place
is going to "fight back" then its usually because the place
I'm wanting to get to is [much] higher than the place I'm
in. So, re-reading the first sentence its should be that
"absolute" heights are waht's not cared about.
But going back to part of the original point being made; how
useful would it be if contours were drawn at, say, 1m
intervals? You would still get the topographic information
required showing the relative lay of the land. The absolute
height would be shown. Would it show "how hard it fights
back? If the steepness of the terrain is the principal
contributory factor in such a measure then I'd suggest not;
it would, ultimately be shown but in such a confusing manner
that it would be self defeating, ergo I'd suggest that the
idea that the countour interval is fundamentally is of no
consequence is flawed. So it would seem to me that it would
be daft to space the contours at such a frequency, similarly
a 15m interval moves away from being useful into the realms
of quirkyness.
It seems to be that a compromise / middle-ground is so
obviously required and it happens that the 10m interval
fultills this criteria [better than any other option]. A 15m
interval is loopy, especially when 10m is so well
established, and reeks simply of a company wanting to find
some way of differentiating itself from the competition, in
this instance to the detriment of its users?
SteveO
NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
thenmc.org.ukindex.phpOpen ↗
NMC website: thenmc.org.ukthenmc.org.ukOpen ↗