Cartography

[wjhall]

It's interesting how important shading orientation can be. .... ... It seems to be very personal.

Interesting, both northern orientations look equally realistic to me, but there is something not right about the two with southerly illumination.

[CJ]

I have done a fair bit of mountaineering and long distance trekking in the Alps, those Alpine maps are often (always?) shaded. I never really thought it offered that much advantage over close study of contour lines.

I think the advantage of shading is that "close study" is seldom required.

I've often studied the contours of an OS Landranger or Explorer map very closely, just to determine whether my path led down a ridge or up a valley. For especially in chalk or limestone country, one cannot rely upon valleys to have a stream in the bottom. A little light shading makes all the difference in those situations and my favourite map for quickly scoping local rides is my old Peak District Tourist - complete with contours, shading and hipsometric colouring!

Nevertheless, I think the French IGN are much too heavy-handed with their shading.

[50sbiker]

On terrain maps, why are the shadows on the south side of hills?

As you observe, it is very wrong.

Wrong, but irrelevant.

The only people who are entitled to complain about it not being the way they are used to seeing mountains are pilots and astronauts.

And Airline passengers and parachutists

[mattheus]

What a fascinating thread! I don't often use shaded maps, so I hadn't given this issue much thought before.
____________________________________

I was just looking at Google Earth and here, of course, the shadows are on the correct side.

Aha! I've always struggled a little with Google Earth in the hills, and this explains why. I shall try again with this knowledge, next time I'm planning fantasy trips across Europe's great mountain ranges ...

[mattheus]

I have done a fair bit of mountaineering and long distance trekking in the Alps, those Alpine maps are often (always?) shaded. I never really thought it offered that much advantage over close study of contour lines.

I think the advantage of shading is that "close study" is seldom required.

I've often studied the contours of an OS Landranger or Explorer map very closely, just to determine whether my path led down a ridge or up a valley.

Yes exactly. I'm usually not entirely sure until I've read the actual numbers on the contours.

With shading you get an immediate rough impression of the shape of an area.

[it's kind of obvious really - a 3D terrain map on your table will almost always be easier to interpret than a flat one with contours marked on.]

[Slowtwitch]

I have done a fair bit of mountaineering and long distance trekking in the Alps, those Alpine maps are often (always?) shaded. I never really thought it offered that much advantage over close study of contour lines.

I think the advantage of shading is that "close study" is seldom required.

I've often studied the contours of an OS Landranger or Explorer map very closely, just to determine whether my path led down a ridge or up a valley.

Yes exactly. I'm usually not entirely sure until I've read the actual numbers on the contours.

With shading you get an immediate rough impression of the shape of an area.

[it's kind of obvious really - a 3D terrain map on your table will almost always be easier to interpret than a flat one with contours marked on.]

I think the idea is: this stuff very tough and steep, this stuff not so much. I love 3d maps but they seem to be a thing of yesteryear.

[RickH]

I have done a fair bit of mountaineering and long distance trekking in the Alps, those Alpine maps are often (always?) shaded. I never really thought it offered that much advantage over close study of contour lines.

I think the advantage of shading is that "close study" is seldom required.

I've often studied the contours of an OS Landranger or Explorer map very closely, just to determine whether my path led down a ridge or up a valley.

Yes exactly. I'm usually not entirely sure until I've read the actual numbers on the contours.

With shading you get an immediate rough impression of the shape of an area.

[it's kind of obvious really - a 3D terrain map on your table will almost always be easier to interpret than a flat one with contours marked on.]

Streams can be a big help as they are usually along valley bottoms also feature names that suggest something high or low (such as "Tor Hill" in my example below) can often be quicker than seeking the contour heights.

OS 1:25,000 example

[mattheus]

...

With shading you get an immediate rough impression of the shape of an area.

[it's kind of obvious really - a 3D terrain map on your table will almost always be easier to interpret than a flat one with contours marked on.]

Streams can be a big help as they are usually along valley bottoms also feature names that suggest something high or low (such as "Tor Hill" in my example below) can often be quicker than seeking the contour heights.

Screenshot_20220228_173003_com.anquet.omn3.jpg

Yes, but often they are not. 3d features would give you the information immediately - even to those unfamilar with such techniques.