The AEQD projection radiates from the anchor right? Is that what you mean by polar coordinates? This was my first foray into optimising projections so if you have any insight I'd love to learn.
I just mean that you only need it evaluated at the points along the azimuths you consider, but maybe that doesn't make sense computationally and it's faster to interpolate from a grid anyway.
I might create an issue after I conceptualize what it might look like more!
I see, thanks. So my thinking is that overly dark areas to the North are caused by _relatively_ low visibility. The heatmap is actually dynamically generated for every viewport. So I agree that there has to be some amazing view from those North faces, it's just that they are drowned out by the sheer enormity of the views on the South face.
If were to use absolute global values for the heatmap, then the Himalayas would just appear as pure, washed-out white.
1) So you're expecting to click and see a line of sight that you've seen in real life? Is it just that each point only every records the _longest_, which not be the best or most notable view?
2) As in, in a good way?
No. I'm saying that clicking near a peak was sometimes giving me views that would have required standing elsewhere. The mapping of whether I could see north or south (or neither--most of the trail on that ridgeline does not give views to the north or south) does not accurately correspond to the terrain in any fashion I can discern.
And the second part was simply noting that just because there is a theoretical line of sight doesn't mean you can actually see. The southern view I know goes to haze long before what it's showing me, the northern view is such I didn't even realize there were mountains there beyond the big one close by.
I was looking around Mt. Charleston/Griffith Peak, southeastern Nevada. I've been on Griffith many times, Charleston twice. I was comparing what it showed me vs my experience. Your map actually shows the trail, most of that trail has little in the way of views to the other side of the respective peak--the peaks blot out a big chunk.
where <range> is the "distance from camera to target point".
Apparently the tricky part is placing a pin, which belongs to an encoded /data= parameter, and from what I gather nobody's discovered how to set that data.
It seems that it might be possible to dynamically generate a KML file which defines everything (including pins) using markup, but it's not clear if there's a way to pass that or encode it in a single link to Google Earth (as opposed to the user having to manually load it once in Google Earth). Google Maps is basically the same as Google Earth in the web interface, so there might be a way to do these things there.
So it's definitely possible to do something, but figuring out exactly how far you can go might take some experimentation.
Oh wow, yes, very curious. I believe that is caused by the cleaning of the original NASA data by the creator of https://viewfinderpanoramas.org/dem3.html So whilst they improved the data, it still isn't perfect.
Ultimately we plan to mix in higher resolution data from different more recent surveys.
Oye, fui a Colombia un par de veces! Y mi profesora Español era Colombiana.
So you're saying a better title for the Colombian line of sight could be "Pico Lagos del Congo to Pico Cristóbal Colón"? We can definitely change that.
Thought I'm not sure what you mean about the coordinates being wrong? Are you saying that you should be able to see further from Pico Lagos del Congo?
Yes! I think that might be a more exact title. This is what I mean:
First point:
- Mountain: Cerro Lago del Congo (The GPS coords refer to the peak)
- Locality: Liborina
- State: Antioquia
Second point:
- Mountain: Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (The GPS coords refer to the peak, called Pico Cristóbal Colón)
- Locality: Santa Marta
- State: Magdalena
Pd. Hope you enjoyed your visit! I think Colombia is beautiful (But hey! I am biased)
reply