On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> For a climbing route it's normally the distance of assent that is of
> interest is it not and I guess for most traditional climbing routes this is
> known? Much easier to state the length of the route than the top and bottom
> elevations? Accepted that you might want to converge on an elevation for the
> start of the route as accuracy of the position is improved with time.
Yes. There is a climbing:length tag in my proposal, but this is not the
same as top_elevation-bottom_elevation since the elevations are purely
a vertical component whereas the length is the total length from top to
bottom of the (possibly not entirely vertical) route. For example, some
multi-pitch routes have scrambles in the middle, but would still be
considered a single route so the length would include the scrambles (which
are nowhere near vertical).
At the moment I don't think we have enough data to be able to render a 3D
map. Adding SRTM3 data wouldn't help a great deal for this purpose
because it isn't nearly high enough resolution to represent a cliff
properly. Whilst having good elevation data would be a nice thing to
have, the equipment is a bit too specialist for now.
Does anyone happen to know how well Gallileo is expected to perform in
terms of vertical accuracy?
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
