Talk:Raised-relief map

Question about links and images
We manufacture these raised-relief maps using the above process. Is it OK to post a link to hubbardscientific.com? I could also post pictures of the actual process of vacuum forming the maps over a form if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artjunky (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 November 2006‎

3d-printing as source for raised-relief maps
The decreasing cost and increasing access to 3D printers is opening up the technology to 3d-printed raised-relief maps. Two notable creators are terrainator.com and tinymtn.com - both sites that do their final sales through Shapeways. The maps have more detail than the generally-larger-scale maps produced by vacuum-forming, but can cover less area, and are more expensive. In the interests of disclosure, I started tinymtn.com as a hobby a few months ago to raise the awareness (no pun intended) of 3D printing of maps. I think a subsection on the same level as "Vacuum formed models" called "3D printed models" should be created, listing the pros and cons of the technology, linking to the larger "3D printing" page, and (I would hope) also linking to the several vendors of 3D printed maps. Markstock (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise your companies or your projects. But thank you for raising "Vacuum formed models", because I can see it is clearly an advert cited to the American Educational Products LLC website - I'll remove it. Sionk (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's appropriate to at least list "vacuum forming", "3d printing", and "CNC milling" in the "Construction methods" section? If one read only this page, it would not be obvious that there existed construction methods other than assembling individually-cut layers. Markstock (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have a good point there. That paragraph has been there since the article was created and, like you say, only gives one very specific example of how terrain models are made. The Scotland Map mentioned further down is made from bricks and concrete! Sionk (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced a much-tweaked version of the paragraph, before noticing this talkpage discussion further up my watchlist. Hopefully the sentence I left in the article, can at least be a start for whatever comes later. A good ref would be handy, but this is not a field I'm familiar with (just interested/curious) so am not sure where to start looking. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Okay, I was a bit over zealous. Like you say, some sort of authoritative, non-commercial reference would be good. I've made layered terrain models before, but just using my common sense, never came across an instruction manual! Sionk (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The most authoritative guide that I've found for construction methods is from the terrainmodels site: http://www.terrainmodels.com/techniques.html Markstock (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like a good one. Seems to have links to several academic departments. Sionk (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it is a good. That is why I added the whole of their site at the top of External Links back in 2008  - it is still there.  I notice that my edit also added the reference to the American Educational Products site.  I am not sure, but I probably thought it provided a useful reference for the technology.  Now I agree that www.terrainmodels.com/techniques.html or www.terrainmodels.com/thermoplastic.html would be better.  By the way, the same company have put a video on YouTube  which would make an interesting link if there is consensus.  On the other hand, if you are concerned about commercial material, look at the end of the External Links section.  (N.B. I have absolutely no connection with any of these organisations.) JonH (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Common vertical exaggeration
Since we're both here, it's probably important to note this sentence from the first paragraph: "When representing terrain, the elevation dimension is usually exaggerated by a factor between five and ten; this facilitates the visual recognition of terrain features." While this is true for most vacuum-formed maps, it is obviously not true for many hand-made and almost all architectural and small-scale maps, notably the one pictured at the top of the page itself. A more-helpful sentence might state that "the elevation dimension is commonly exaggerated..." Maybe I'm being nit-picky, but I am seeing them more often now than the exaggerated variety. Markstock (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raised-relief map. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010072006/http://cartome.org/reliefmap.htm to http://cartome.org/reliefmap.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Velocity?
Special:Diff/813218720 changed the passage in the lead section saying that exaggerating the vertical dimension of a raised-relief map "facilitates the visual recognition of terrain features" to say that it "facilitates the visual recognition of terrain features and velocity" (emphasis added), in which state the passage remains. Is this correct? I'm no expert on raised-relief maps, but I shouldn't think that they tend to encode velocity, except perhaps in "Non-terrain applications". I suppose the editor could have meant the derivative of height with respect to horizontal distance? — 2d37 (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm tagging "and velocity" as dubious now. — 2d37 (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The IP address who added "and velocity" made two other edits total, which were obvious vandalism of Climate of India. Given this, I've rvv'd "and velocity". — 2d37 (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)