Relief/Hillshading

[noisyriver]

Hello,



my relief/hillshading looks like http://rauschenbach.com.de/public/Screenshot_20160628-130015.png">this.



- It's ok with Zoomlevel 14 and smaller, 15 is acceptable but 16 and more is not nice.

- I use the standard .hgt files from viewfinderpanoramas

- No matter which relief resolution I select, it's always more or less the same



Other apps look like http://rauschenbach.com.de/public/Screenshot_20160628-133036.png">this. So I think it's not the data. Have I done something else wrong? Is there any chance for an improvement?





Thanks a lot.





The screenshot from Orux:



http://rauschenbach.com.de/public/Screenshot_20160628-130015.png">

[eartrumpet]

+1



I agree that integrated hill shading could be better. You can adjust it a bit with the setting for the relief map, but the visible tile borders at higher zoom levels remain.

I use composite maps of mapsforge maps and hillshading (generated with maperative) at the moment, but this is less flexible.

[noisyriver]

I would be happy if it would be without seems to zoom 16 or 17 and than hillshading would be turned off completely. This is what Locus was doing for example in ealier versions. But Locus has a higher battery consumption and I also love the Orux interface more... If only those seems wouldn't be there.

[noisyriver]

+1

I use composite maps of mapsforge maps and hillshading (generated with maperative) at the moment, but this is less flexible.

Is there a tutorial to do this somewhere?

[eartrumpet]

+1

I use composite maps of mapsforge maps and hillshading (generated with maperative) at the moment, but this is less flexible.

Is there a tutorial to do this somewhere?

I don't know.



For Maperitive, check the documentation:

http://maperitive.net/docs/default.html">http://maperitive.net/docs/default.html

It's important that the area can't be too large as OruxMaps has some problems then. After selecting the the area via geometry bounds in Maperative, I use these commands, for documentation of these see above:

Code Select Expand

set-dem-source name=VF.Alps
(which DEM files to use)

Code Select Expand

generate-relief-igor intensity=1.0
(sometimes higher intensity, depends on the region - more mountains, less intensity)

Code Select Expand

generate-mbtiles minzoom=12 maxzoom=15 resolution=2 bitmap-type=jpg file=D:hillshade.mbtiles
(also zoom min-max depending on the size of the region, resolution=2 for 512px tiles as OruxMaps uses the same size for mapsforge maps).





Then try page 19 of the OruxMaps manual for composite maps (those work now offline, too), I'm using multiply effect so transparency setting is irrelevant.

[noisyriver]

+1

I use composite maps of mapsforge maps and hillshading (generated with maperative) at the moment, but this is less flexible.

Is there a tutorial to do this somewhere?

I don't know.



For Maperative, check the documentation:

http://maperitive.net/docs/default.html">http://maperitive.net/docs/default.html

It's important that the area can't be too large as OruxMaps has some problems then. After selecting the the area via geometry bounds in Maperative, I use these commands, for documentation of these see above:

Code Select Expand

set-dem-source name=VF.Alps
(which DEM files to use)

Code Select Expand

generate-relief-igor intensity=1.0
(sometimes higher intensity, depends on the region - more mountains, less intensity)

Code Select Expand

generate-mbtiles minzoom=12 maxzoom=15 resolution=2 bitmap-type=jpg file=D:hillshade.mbtiles
(also zoom min-max depending on the size of the region, resolution=2 for 512px tiles as OruxMaps uses the same size for mapsforge maps).





Then try page 19 of the OruxMaps manual for composite maps (those work now offline, too), I'm using multiply effect so transparency setting is irrelevant.

Thank you, I will try this. What does it mean, the geometry can't be too large? Is it 10 km x 10 km, 100 km x 100 km or rather 1000 km x 1000 km?

[eartrumpet]

Thank you, I will try this. What does it mean, the geometry can't be too large? Is it 10 km x 10 km, 100 km x 100 km or rather 1000 km x 1000 km?

I don't know the reasons and the limit, so I just used trial and error. I use regional parts which make sense to me, the largest one is 80kmx40km with ZL12-15.

One thing that would make also a lot of sense for this would be to use digital zoom if there's no adequate ZL for the raster part of composite maps while still use normal zoom for vector maps. I think I proposed this once.

[noisyriver]

Ok, I tried the hillshade/relief via Maperitive and mbtiles but this is no alternative so far. I was able to make hillshade map for whole Switzerland which is only 300 MB (by setting resolution to 1) but this map is really slowwwww. Smaller maps are better but still slow and no option for me. I don't understand why it is that slow because sqlite maps  work really fast even with more than 1 GB size.



So my first question stays or I could change it a little:



It would be really nice to have a usable hillshading, either via .hgt without kinks or a much faster .mbtiles rendering.

[eartrumpet]

I was able to make hillshade map for whole Switzerland which is only 300 MB (by setting resolution to 1) but this map is really slowwwww.

That was probably why I only use small maps. Thanks for helping me remember ;-)

For me with small mbtiles maps speed is OK, slower than just mapsforge but it's mainly mapsforge rendering that slows down with small maps.



But as said above, I agree with your findings, and support it.