The contour interval is just the sampling density of the more basic data,
the DEM (digital elevation model). Shortening the contour interval
doesn't gain you anything unless the DEM has information at those shorter
spatial frequencies.
I did a little poking around last week to try to find out whether 10 m
interval maps were available, what the inherent resolution of the base
DEMs is (I'm sure it depends on when the maps were made), etc. But in the
time I had, I didn't really find out anything. If someone on this list
has the time or resources to investigate these things, I'd be interested
in knowing the answers.
Bruce
On 2001-07-30 12:26 -0400, Duncan Bath wrote:
> RE: Tirade on 20-m contours.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Purdy, Penelope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 'Duncan Bath' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: July 30, 2001 11:33
> Subject: RE: Tirade on 20-m contours.
>
>
> that would be better than the 20 meter contour, at least. so if the
> choice was 10 or 20 meters, i'd definitely would opt for the 10
> meters.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duncan Bath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 7:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Tirade on 20-m contours.
>
>
>
> Be honest -- how receptive would you be to 10-m contours?
> Duncan
> DT Bath, 861 Kensington Dr., Peterborough ON K9J 6J8
> (705)743-4297
>
>
--
Bruce Raup
National Snow and Ice Data Center Phone: 303-492-8814
University of Colorado, 449 UCB Fax: 303-492-2468
Boulder, CO 80309-0449 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
