3dSkiMap™ of Jackson Hole, WY

**dmgreer** · 01-22-2007, 12:42 AM

http://3dskimaps.com/index.php?path=jacksonhole

I'm not ignoring all the other suggestions, I had Jackson Hole in the queue anyway, and several requests for Jackson Hole. I also added an RSS feed, so you can see an updated list of maps without having to check the site.

This is a very preliminary map, kind of sketchy, there were a lot of places where I couldn't tell very well where people would be skiing. The aerial photos I'm using are all taken in the summer time, so they have no snow.

I try to go by the official trail map and figure out where things are on the model, but that's not always clear. Sometimes I'm inclined to just make everyplace where there are no trees into a skiable area, but that doesn't alway work either.

I think the best solution would be to get GPS tracks from expert skiers who cover every trail on the mountain. Until I can manage something like that, I think every map I make will have some kind of inaccuracies.

If anyone sees anything blatantly wrong with this Jackson Hole map, feel free to let me know about it.

**MeatPuppet** · 01-22-2007, 12:51 AM

Very cool!

I don't know if this has any relevant information you could use, but I thought of it after seeing the map of Jackson.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...google+jackson

**bbirtle** · 01-22-2007, 04:09 AM

Nice little toy to play with.

Originally Posted by dmgreer

...sometimes I'm inclined to just make everyplace where there are no trees into a skiable area...

Well I don't know Jackson firsthand, but I think the whole place is pretty much 'skiable area,' especially to people on this forum!

How about providing an alternative one with the whole mountain color-coded maybe with the marked trails/runs/pistes just as a dotted line or something?

That way when some gaper talks about a 50 degree 'yellow' sickter tree run they found it's easy to see they're more like cyan or GREEN.

**rideit** · 01-22-2007, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by bbirtle

Well I don't know Jackson firsthand, but I think the whole place is pretty much 'skiable area,' especially to people on this forum!

.

Especially all of the massive cliff bands.....

**dmgreer** · 01-22-2007, 12:57 PM

Yeah, I was hoping I could get away with not actually marking trails, but if a place has a lot of clear area it looks kind of naked and chaotic without something showing a trail (even if the skiing is actually free form).

As a JONG myself (I believe that's what you call it), I'm looking at the aerial photos and seeing things that look like huge boulders and trying to figure out if people really ski over that stuff or not. Some areas are marked out of bounds on the traditional map, and in other places trails are shown but they'll paint in the rocks so you'll know what's up there.

That's why I'm fading the aerial photo a little to let the underlying slope colors show through, so that you'll still see the character of the terrain even if I haven't made it show through all the way.

The good thing about it is that when there's continual improvement there's continual interest. I think I need to redo my logo and put a little "beta" on it.

**bullhorn** · 01-22-2007, 02:54 PM

dmgreer,
You should assume that unless it specifically states "closed area" on the trail map that it will be skied. Whether it be cliff areas, trees etc.. To answer your other question, in my opinion marking trails is not necessary. Showing major lifts is probably useful though.

**dmgreer** · 01-24-2007, 01:15 AM

jonpierre,

I've tried it on Google Earth but the overlays are just too big. Well, they're okay one at a time, but more than three really starts bogging down the machine, or my machine anyway. GE 4 now has Level of Detail, so if I could figure out how to make that work for me it might make things perform better. Even better would be to get my own GE Enterprise Server and put my data directly in there, but I haven't been able to get those folks to understand what I want to do.

hubie,

The catwalks are a problem because the data just isn't good enough to show them. Data points are 10 meters apart, so catwalks are just blurred out. This is why I've changed my logo by adding a "beta".

For now the maps will mostly give a general idea of the steepness of trails and areas on a mountain, and won't be able to give fine detail.

**rideit** · 01-24-2007, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by dmgreer

The catwalks are a problem because the data just isn't good enough to show them. Data points are 10 meters apart, so catwalks are just blurred out. This is why I've changed my logo by adding a "beta".

For now the maps will mostly give a general idea of the steepness of trails and areas on a mountain, and won't be able to give fine detail.

ahh...perfect market positioning to release a 'version 2.0', with "enhanced detail, and more interactive features!!'

**bio-smear** · 01-24-2007, 01:27 AM

The fact that these exist probably means you can overlay the trail tracks on your map. I'm not sure exactly how the conversion would work, since these might be save in some sort of proprietary Garmin format.

**hairy** · 01-24-2007, 02:17 AM

make a geo tiff and refrence it to your dem data and overlay it...it may strech out but it will scale to the right spot...if you get blurring, move the line slightly on the geo tiff and redraw...tweak the geo tiff with differing thicknesses of line to fit the model and keep it simple and you will get a better result...anyone remember VRML?