Talk:Topographic map
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
Contents |
[edit] better redirect
a better redirect for contour map would be to contour line, which is a much broader article. Anlace 07:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] do not merge cartographic relief depiction
Please don't merge Cartographic Relief Depiction. Topographic maps are a particular genre of map publication, and relief depiction is used on more than just this species of map. I believe it is useful to separate technique discussions which have wider usage, from discussion of map publications which also use non-relief cartographic techniques.--Natcase 13:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Don't merge the articles. The current version of Cartographic Relief Depiction needs a lot of work, but it should remain a separate article. Some of the relief depiction methods are not commonly used on Topo maps anymore, and it would be a little off-topic to address something like Hachures when there are no topographic maps being produced with hachures anymore.
- I second Nat's comment. It's about a technique used in map production, rather than a type of map.
Hans van der Maarel 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would support merging all of the relief-depiction techniques into a single article. That might bring the topic to greater attention. - Justin 18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think this makes good sense. The only problem I see potentially is so many other articles refer to one specific mode of relief depiction... we could make all the old mode articles into redirects, I suppose. Would that work, do you think?--Natcase 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That should work. Make Hachures, Shaded Relief, and any other relief-depiction articles redirect to sections within the Cartographic Relief Depiction article. I'm not sure how to handle Contour line. It's the only article of any significant length so far. Any merge or redirect of that article into Cartographic Relief Depiction will need to be discussed. - Justin 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Justin, as you say, Contour line should stay where it is, given its mixture of cartographic and non-cartographic application. I'm working on a merge from various "iso-" stubs, so that article should shortly fill out even further. That said, a "see main article" here with specific isohypse discussion merged here instead of into contour line might make sense. Also, I can see eventual re-breakouts, especially of shaded relief, but maybe we wait until someone is inspired to do a whole big article on it. For now, let's bring those puppies back into the fold. --Natcase 06:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The Contour line and Cartographic relief depiction articles are going to have to overlap a bit, but that can be sorted out later. Since contour lines are used for more than relief depiction, maybe all of the other uses could be addressed in the Contour line article with a quick description of relief depiction and a "see also" link to the Cartographic relief depiction article, where it could be addressed more in-depth. I'll see what sources I can mine for information on the various methods. - Justin (Authalic) 07:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
I think the articles should be merged. This is a peculiar article, with a lot of good information about particular maps but not a very good discussion of the methods of relief depiction. I believe it should be merged with the small article on cartographic relief, which does a better job of discussing issues like hypsometric tint (which is not even mentioned in this article).
Information about relief maps and cartography has become Balkanized into many tiny rather-poor articles. A fascinating subject, it is not very well presented to the researcher who looks on wikipedia now. DonPMitchell 18:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] removing merge header
I'm going ahead and removing the merge headers. --Natcase 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definition
I think I prefer our friendly NPOV definition to that of our rival, which states that topographic maps show both natural and man-made features including "relief, which is sometimes mistakenly understood to be the sole feature characterizing a topographic map" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition (2005), volume 11, page 848). JonH 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some good external links
There are a few wonderful websites that discuss relief shading, and I haven't seen them appear in these articles. This site is maintained by the US Park Service, the Zurich Institute of Cartography and others:
Also there is Tom Patterson's website, from the US National Park Service:
