3D maps by using SRTM files

smsa001 shared this idea 5 years ago
Collecting votes

Now that SRTM files are supported, it would be great if offline maps could be converted to 3D maps, by using height data from SRTM files, something like Ozi3D.

Files: url.jpg

Comments (45)

photo
1

...or at least get some nice 2,5D shading.

photo
0

There are some similar ideas in getsetisfaction for hillshading or contour lines. I support this idea.

photo
0

Any news regarding this topic?


AFAIK, there`s already a beta version supporting it.

photo
0

news? I was playing few days with OpenGL, but because it`s completely new topic for me, and because huge number of requests and issues forced me back to raw locus, it`s again frozen for a while. OpenGL support is planned, probably also something with 3D (even if this is not so much needed), but I cannot promise now nothing specific, because there is many much more interesting and wanted ideas to do ...

photo
0

I think it`s needed for example for hikers who like to see and know the hills or mountain names surrounding them with help of the 3D map. This is implemented in Google maps and is helpful, especially when map is centered to my position and looking around rotates map. I would use AR plugin for that, but it`s very imprecise so I can`t rely on it. It would be great if 3D maps or AR plugin were implemented or fixed.

photo
0

Apemap now supports 3D and it is really really great. So good that I`m thinking about buying one of the extensive licenses.

photo
0

Sometimes this could be very handy!

photo
0

I like hiking, the mountains contours of desperately i need in 3d, hopefully this can happen ..


thx


This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled


<a class="notranslate" href="http://getsatisfaction.com/locus/topics/i_craved_locus_could_3d/changes"; rel="nofollow" target="_blank">I craved locus could 3D...</a>.

photo
0

Hello,


Until the challenges with OpenGL API are solved, we should look into different manner to visualise altitude changes on a map.


There`s a big difference between what looks nice and what we actually need. I love 3D views but what I am missing is a way for my brain to know what are peaks and what are valleys in maps and specially orthophotos . There are different ways to achieve that result, static methods and dynamic methods.


1. Would it be a solution to generate some hillshade on top of the view? This is a static method. The depth information is communicated with a single picture.


Hillshade maps already exist but what could be even more useful is a user defined hillshade where it is possible to define the coming direction of the light.

One needs to define one 3D vector v1 from the chosen position of the sun to say the center of the map.

A field of ground normal vectors of ad-hoc density must also be calculated. Each ground vector v2ij is the surface normal vector pointing upward at point ij

The angle Aij is the angle between v1 and v2ij. If |Aij| is between 90° and 0° then the shading is on at point ij . The shading intensity is then inversely proportional to |Aij|.


2. Generating altitude contour lines could also help to produce a sensation of depth. The distance between curves (delta altitude), color should be user defined.


3. Finally, the most interesting concept.

It is possible to give a real 3D depth to a top view. This is a dynamic method. The depth information is communicated by displaying a succession of pictures by panning the view. Try panning a top view in Google earth at reasonable altitude. It will give you a good idea of what I am talking about.

When panning the view, pixels at higher altitude translate more than at lower altitude. The translation is inversely proportional to the distance between the eye and the terrain. This is of course function of the altitude of the terrain.

This technique can be applied together to any data in Locus: maps, overlays and wms to indifferently map data to the the topography. Used separately on different data sources could create some interesting 3D layering effects.

The question is if the transformation made on the screen pixel grid can be calculated in real time or does it slow down the screen refresh rate?


What do you think of these suggestions?


Cheers


This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled


<a class="notranslate" href="http://getsatisfaction.com/locus/topics/ideas_to_implement_a_pseudo_3d_visualisation_while_waiting_for_a_full_3d_locus/changes"; rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ideas to implement a pseudo 3D visualisation while waiting for a full 3D-Locus</a>.

photo
3

I would definitely like to see this in Locus.


One of few functions I found present or better implemented in OruxMaps missing in Locus.

photo
0

Hello, I find the interesting points raised noutters, especially point 2.


I think it would be very helpful to have contour lines (elevation) generated from DEM files, so you can take them over any map.


Greetings.

photo
1

"Status changed to Under consideration"

This is indeed a good sign :D

photo
2

Yes, from 'planned' :). There was set too much ideas to 'Planned' so I change them all back to "Under consideration". Now will be chance to reconsider what is possible and what isn't and mark only these really "planned" to "planned" :)

photo
2

jtkorken wrote:

...or at least get some nice 2,5D shading.
3D is impractical, it's only for effect. But shading overlay as on paper maps - that is good.

photo
1

nothing easier then vote down onelook ;). Anyway hope you know, that shading is already implemented in Locus (menu > settings > maps - advanced)

photo
2

Thanks for reply. Yes, I know it. I try it, but it's too relative bland for flat areas. Can I set intensity of this overlay (set whitepoint and blackpoint height)? On first screenshot is overlay on classic map. Second image is manualy edited if image editor (contrast, ...) - it's perfect for me. It's look as 3D, but it's 2D.

photo
1

No, unfortunately shading has no public settings. I tried to find some compromise between intensity and usage. And this is result

photo
4

I believe that this is an exhaustive feature to implement. CPU intensive, takes lot of time to implement properly and error prone while not being that useful. Hands down it looks cool, but not that useful.

photo
1
photo
2

Shadding from SRTM data generated by Locus:


46Screenshot_2014_05_11_


Color semitransparent overlay custom map (darken mode):


92Screenshot_2014_05_11_


On first map you can see where is hill and where is lowland. When you plan trip, this information helps.

photo
2

onelook wrote:

...you can see where is hill and where is lowland. When you plan trip, this information helps.
looks good...

photo
1

I want to support smsa001 and onelook and Bálint Szebenyi - well working 3d will consume a lot of development resources whereas improvements of 2d (hill shading with adjustable intensity or the like) and of augmented reality (simply "really working") will consume considerably less resources and would satisfy most "3d use cases". And if I really need 3d, well, I simply use Google Earth for 5 minutes.

photo
1

Hello mark,


thanks for links. Anyway problem here are not an elevation data. Locus already have access to completely all data needed for 3D (as you may notice on offline hillshading). Problem here is simple - my technological skills. I'm total nubie in work with 3D, so it should take a long time to learn and do it. That's why it's still not yet "completed" ...

photo
2

Can't understand the hype about "3D"-maps.

I have tested this now in Orucks - nice - but not really usable in most situations.

So i vote -1

:P


Color semitransparent overlay custom map (darken mode)

like screenshot from user onelook are just fine...

photo
5

gynta:


3D maps are easier to read (if done right) when you plan to pass a difficult terrain. Especially un-experienced users who have not that well trained imagination of translating contours into terrain will benefit from it.


Hillshading helps, but 3D goes further. Most people will have much better understanding from 3D than flat map (imagine it even without hill-shading):3d_topo_lg_rotate


Sometimes it is hard (slow) to learn from the map if contours go up or down. You must watch for peaks or lakes to find what is up or down. One look into 3D explains all.


1) So the non-experienced users would typically overview the 2D map with hillshading and when he wants to understand the slopes, he will switch to 3D for a particular view.


2) Or (even experienced users) want to see difficult parts of the track from 3D view before they go there to pre-imagine how it will go, remember and find the path better and avoid dangerous areas.

photo
1

> "3D maps are easier to read (if done right) when you plan"


when.. - thats the point.

I will never plan a tour on a smartphone...

It's more a "nice to have" but if 3D works better than in Orucks - i will take a second look on it :)

photo
1

What kind of tours?


I use this frequently, it's helpful in a variety of situation - especially ski touring, photography and trekking and flying. But also for biking, hiking, climbing.

A good example is if you have a hillslope map/overlay and can view it in 3D (avalanches, etc).


So - just because you cannot make sense of it does not mean others do so as well.

photo
2

+1


>I will never plan a tour on a smartphone...


I mostly plan my (cycling) tours on a smartphone, each night before the next days ride, from the tent. No luxury of data connection, no PC or large screen, no web site for easy online track creation. So everyone is different, and so Locus track creation is important to me, and recent improvements (track editing/ TCX features/ track gradient coloring) are helping a lot. @myneur - those side-by-side maps make a very impressive comparison. The track style (color by altitude or gradient) are working really nice now, but having a button on the Quick Settings panel to quickly toggle between 2 & 3D could allow avoidance of embarrassing track plan decisions like I have done in the past when I misinterpreted the contours.

photo
2

If Locus is in the process of upgrading to 3D terrain support, It should not be constraint to SRTM. Because high resolution SRTM is not available for certain areas(In my case India). I have got my own DEM files . of-course there are many GIS tools to convert any format into any required format. For entry level users it is very difficult to understand conversion techniques .

photo
1

That's right - there are high resolution shape files for Austria but I have no idea how to convert them :)

photo
1

Is there any progress with 3D maps?

photo
1

Good day Nicolai,

unfortunately no progress and no plans for now.

photo
1

Any new plans for 3D maps, like e.g. in apemap since 4 years?

photo
1

Good day, no plans for now, sorry.

photo
1

ThomasSc do you have a better reference or more search details to this "apemap" app? I can't find any reference on Google Play store.

photo
1

Probably this

photo
1

or here.

photo
1

Thanks both of you. Those screen caps on the play store page look great. Is the app just in German?

photo
1

I was able to sideload it via download link in PlayStore description.. English menus

photo
1

I would really like to see a 3D-feature within locus maps! Personally,

some kind of "Picture" would be enough. I wouldn't need a live 3D

option. Something like "Create 3D Picture of current view" Would be

enough.

photo
1

Many people would like to have an 3D feature. I too, but the developers are doing nothing. I think with almost 100 votes they have to do somerhing to develop an 3D feature.

photo
1

They do not have to anything, it is not a country election nor referendum.

As a general developer rule, the feature request has to fit well these criteria :

  • Enough users interested in feature
  • Enough added value
  • Not too demanding in implementation
  • And last, but not least, if the developers like the idea.


Personally, I am very fine with hill shading. More useful than 3D view would be IMHO the perspective "Eagle view"providing both close details and long range overview at the same time.

photo
3

Thanks Libor,

end of discussion guys, please.


Developers (still only one, heh), do not have enough knowledge and time to make this feature and because it is not essential "must have", it still have to wait. I'm well aware of it and I really would like to make rendering done fully over OpenGL and not mix of hardware/software rendering as is now, but still no one wants to give me half of year of free time for this ... surprising.


When there will be some news, I'll inform here. Dot.

Comments have been locked on this page!