PDA

View Full Version : Full Elevation Profile for the AT



Mr. Parkay
08-25-2008, 20:10
Hello,

I have just created an elevation profile for the AT, which I think some of you will find interesting. It's a continuous, unbroken profile for the entire AT, with about 500 placemarks. However, you'll need to read the notes below before downloading:

Notes:
1. The file is in PDF format, but it doesn't seem to work with the normal "Acrobat Reader" which everyone has on their computer. The reason is because the dimensions of the profile are so outrageous (4 inches X 41 feet). So the only way I know to view the file is with the Foxit Reader (http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php), which is a free download. It's basically the same as the acrobat reader... but without the size limitation.

2. If you try to view the pdf with your browser it probably wont work due to the size limitation mentioned above, so you'll need to save it to your computer and view it with Foxit.

3. Here's a link to the file: LINK (http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/25/2065958/AT_FULL_10.pdf), it's about 2.5 MB.


--Mr. Parkay

Phreak
08-25-2008, 20:34
Nice work!

Kirby
08-25-2008, 21:09
How do I save it to my computer?

Kirby

Mr. Parkay
08-25-2008, 21:20
How do I save it to my computer?

Kirby

There are two options:
1. If you right-click the Link above and select "save link as" and save as pdf.
2. left-click the link above.. which will open up a pdf screen.. but the profile will be blank (because of the size limitation). Go to File--> Save Page As ... and save it as a pdf. Then youll need to view it with foxit so that it's not blank

I wish the file could be viewed with the acrobat reader... since the whole foxit thing is annoying... but It just doesn't seem to be possible for this particular profile. However, I'll probably create smaller profiles sometime in the future.. which won't have the same limitation.

--Mr. Parkay

Rufford
08-26-2008, 19:10
It opens without any problem with Preview (for all those mac people)

Egads
08-26-2008, 19:59
I really good job. It's just what I always wanted.:D

Homer&Marje
08-26-2008, 20:21
It's beautiful. I just did the entire distance in 1:19s holding down the arrow. Beat that Karl:D

rafe
08-26-2008, 20:31
Hmmm.... "Opens" OK in Adobe Reader (7.0, for Windoze) but the document itself appears blank. Any clues?

Kirby
08-26-2008, 20:39
Hmmm.... "Opens" OK in Adobe Reader (7.0, for Windoze) but the document itself appears blank. Any clues?


Hello,

I have just created an elevation profile for the AT, which I think some of you will find interesting. It's a continuous, unbroken profile for the entire AT, with about 500 placemarks. However, you'll need to read the notes below before downloading:

Notes:
1. The file is in PDF format, but it doesn't seem to work with the normal "Acrobat Reader" which everyone has on their computer. The reason is because the dimensions of the profile are so outrageous (4 inches X 41 feet). So the only way I know to view the file is with the Foxit Reader (http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php), which is a free download. It's basically the same as the acrobat reader... but without the size limitation.

2. If you try to view the pdf with your browser it probably wont work due to the size limitation mentioned above, so you'll need to save it to your computer and view it with Foxit.

3. Here's a link to the file: LINK (http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/25/2065958/AT_FULL_10.pdf), it's about 2.5 MB.


--Mr. Parkay

See above, hope that helps.

Kirby

Kirby
08-26-2008, 20:40
By the way, that's absolutely amazing, thanks!

Kirby

rafe
08-26-2008, 20:49
Wow. A PDF that can't be read with Adobe's own reader. Doesn't that beat all.... Download a special client for one file? Maybe. I'll have to think about that.

Mr. Parkay
08-26-2008, 22:52
Hello Again,

I have just finished a set of printer friendly profiles for the AT. I have wanted to create these for a while so it's nice to finally have them somewhat completed.

The profiles are similar to the big profile that I posted earlier... but I have made a lot of adjustments and corrections. These profiles can be viewed, downloaded and printed using the regular Adobe Acrobat Viewer.

Here are the links:
Georgia (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5126037/AT-Profiles-GA): 2 pages
Tennessee & North Carolina (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5126079/AT-Elevation-Profiles-TNNC): 7 pages
Virginia & West Virginia (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5126150/AT-Profiles-VAWVA): 10 pages
Maryland & Pennsylvania (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5126119/AT-Profiles-MDPA): 5 pages
New Jersey & New York (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5126136/AT-Profiles-NJNY): 4 pages
Connecticut & Mass (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5126114/AT-Profiles-CTMA): 3 pages
Vermont (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5126155/AT-Profiles-VT): 3 pages
New Hampshire (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5126130/AT-Profiles-NH): 3 pages
Maine (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5126126/AT-Profiles-ME): 5 pages

The Full Set (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5125936/Appalachian-Trail-Elevation-Profiles): 42 pages, 5.6 MB

Notes:
1. This is the first version of these profiles, so they are not perfect. A lot of important landmarks have been left out, and some are probably incorrectly labeled. But, over time I'll try to correct the mistakes and improve the profiles to make them more useful.

--Mr. Parkay

Bulldawg
08-27-2008, 00:04
Nice work Mr Parkay.

Homer&Marje
08-27-2008, 07:24
Hmmm.... "Opens" OK in Adobe Reader (7.0, for Windoze) but the document itself appears blank. Any clues?

The Foxit download was really easy, just got to bump it up to a couple hundred percent on the viewing size in order to see it proper.

minnesotasmith
08-27-2008, 07:40
Any word on making a printer-friendly version of your Pinhoti elevation profiles, or of splitting the triple-size map of the first 34 miles of the Pinhoti in Alabama into 3 normally printable ones?

jersey joe
08-27-2008, 08:18
Good job Mr. Parkay.
I always thought a profile of the whole trail would be a great resource. I used profiles on my thru hike much more than the actual maps.

Christus Cowboy
08-27-2008, 09:11
Mr. Parkay,

I just got done with the downloads and took a look.... excellent job!... Thank you for sharing this with the hiking community.

Mr. Parkay
08-27-2008, 09:18
Any word on making a printer-friendly version of your Pinhoti elevation profiles, or of splitting the triple-size map of the first 34 miles of the Pinhoti in Alabama into 3 normally printable ones?

Hey MS, I'm going to make printer friendly profiles for the Pinhoti pretty soon. In fact, I might make them now... since it will probably only take a couple of hours since I've already done most of the work by creating the big profile. Also, I'll try to make the printer friendly maps for the first 34 miles soon... but unfortunately my map-making skills are not as good as my profiling skills, which is why I've been focusing on profiles recently... I've tried to update my pinhoti maps several times now... but I keep getting frustrated since there are a lot of technical problems that I haven't been able to solve yet. Hopefully, I'll be able to bring the maps up the same standard as the profiles at some point.. but I'm definitely not there yet.

Mr. Parkay
08-27-2008, 09:27
Mr. Parkay,

I just got done with the downloads and took a look.... excellent job!... Thank you for sharing this with the hiking community.

No problem.... thanks for the nice comments everyone. I've always thought there should be freely available profiles for the whole AT... so it's nice to finally get them out there.

Here's a couple more notes about the profiles:

1. I think most of the major peaks are labeled correctly and are at the correct mile marker... but if somethings seems wrong let me know.

2. The labels which are most likely to be in the wrong place are for shelters... since it is hard to correctly position things on a profile unless they are a peak or a gap... so let me know if you think the label should be adjusted.

Blissful
08-27-2008, 10:05
Thanks, Mr. Parkay. Saw you last year while we were on the trail in early March, taking a break by a road, I believe. My son and I were slacking back to Woody Gap from Neels.

refreeman
08-27-2008, 14:21
Mr. Parkay, beautiful work. Your Full Elevation Profile for the AT fills a gap in my AT data.

BigCat
08-27-2008, 15:09
Neat project, Mr. Parkay! I do have one question for you though: What is the vertical exaggeration ratio?

Mr. Parkay
08-27-2008, 19:59
Neat project, Mr. Parkay! I do have one question for you though: What is the vertical exaggeration ratio?

Hello, the vertical exaggeration is different on the Big AT Profile.. as compared to the printable profiles:

Big AT Profile: VE = 6.06
Printable Profiles: VE = 7.63

I only have one of the ATC map/profiles... which has a VE of 5.8.

I'll include this with the profiles next time I update them

BigCat
08-28-2008, 00:11
Big AT Profile: VE = 6.06
Printable Profiles: VE = 7.63

Cool. Just as some friendly input, I've had several people with extensive work creating topographical maps tell me that a VE of 5.00 is optimal for simulating a walker's experience with elevation changes.

Mr. Parkay
08-28-2008, 11:21
Cool thanks for the info.

Frosty
08-28-2008, 11:41
Cool. Just as some friendly input, I've had several people with extensive work creating topographical maps tell me that a VE of 5.00 is optimal for simulating a walker's experience with elevation changes.I'd rather have more exaggeration to better see the how it changes.

Frosty
08-28-2008, 11:43
Just looked over the AT profiles. Totally awesome, Mr. Parkay. Thanks for doing this. It must take a lot of time and we are fully appreciative.

It's fun looking at them and remembering, "Oof, I remember that section!"

Tom Murphy
08-28-2008, 13:13
Great job.

Can you publish the dataset [miles vs elevation]?

I would like to see the y-axis [elevation] be a consistent scale for all the graphs; say 7000. feet.

I think you tweaked those scales in order to add the labeling in.

Great Job !

BigCat
08-28-2008, 14:58
I'd rather have more exaggeration to better see the how it changes.

Absolutely, but a lot of that has to do with the number of contour points. I'd say with this amount of data anything between 5 and 7 would be good. Once you get much higher than that the slopes become steeper than what a hiker actually experiences.



Can you publish the dataset [miles vs elevation]?
I would like to see the y-axis [elevation] be a consistent scale for all the graphs; say 7000. feet.

I'd be curious to see the raw data as well, did you pull it from the Companion charts?

Mr. Parkay
08-28-2008, 16:35
Hey Guys,

I've made some adjustments to the Big AT profile... so here's the new Link:

Big AT Profile New Link (http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/25/2065958/AT_FULL_11.pdf)

unfortunately the old link died when I updated the file.... so I'm sorry for any confusion. Eventually I'll create a web site for all of these map creations which I suppose will make the problem obsolete.

The changes are relatively small... I just added some more placemarks and corrected some mistakes. For example, Dragons Tooth and Mt. Lincoln were incorrectly labeled in the original version.

10-K
08-28-2008, 17:31
I'd rather have more exaggeration to better see the how it changes.


Help me out here... Exactly what is a layman's definition of "vertical exaggeration"?

Mr. Parkay
08-28-2008, 17:37
Absolutely, but a lot of that has to do with the number of contour points. I'd say with this amount of data anything between 5 and 7 would be good. Once you get much higher than that the slopes become steeper than what a hiker actually experiences.

I'd be curious to see the raw data as well, did you pull it from the Companion charts?

I'd be happy to post the "raw data" used to create the profiles. Although I'll need to explain some things first... since there are different levels of raw data depending on how much processing it has gone through. Here's an explanation about some of the data processing used:


1. The GPS track that I use is a modified version of the ATC's AT shape file .. which I have altered and processed in a whole bunch of ways to make the data more useful for my purposes. (I need to put a note about this on the profiles)

2. After modifying the GPS track I ended up with 104329 lat/lon points.

3. I used "Wissenbach Map" to add elevation to all 104329 data points.

4. Next I had to calculate the distance between each of the lat/lon points. For this I borrowed some python code, which uses Vincenty's formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenty%27s_formulae) to calculate the "flat land" distance between points... This worked out to about 2017 miles.

5. I wasn't satisfied with the "flat land" distance, so I wrote some code which takes into account the "3d distance" added by mountains & such. It ended up adding about 15 miles, but I'm not a mathamatician, so my calculation could be off. This gives a total distance of 2032.7 miles, which is a lot different than the accepted 2174 miles that most of the guide books use. I'm not sure why the difference is so large, but I'm assuming that the 2174 number is a lot more accurate since it was probably calculated with a measuring wheel.

6. When I was creating the profiles I wanted the miles on the x-axis to match up with the distances that guide books use... since it would be confusing otherwise. To achieve this I wrote some python code which essentially warps the data points around "control points" that I have placed throughout the profile. I have about 100 control points, which seem to do a good job at altering the profile.

7. Then I use matplotlib (http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/) to plot the data and create the nice looking pdf files.

The data in steps 4, 5 and 6 would all create slightly different profiles if they were plotted... although I prefer #6. Anyow, I'll generate some text files with this data and post it pretty soon. Perhaps it will be usefule if someone else wants to make some cool profiles!

Mr. Parkay
08-28-2008, 18:20
Here's a link to a zip file containing the x/y coordinates used to create the profiles. The zip contains 3 text files, which correspond to the 3 levels of processing described above. So one file has "2d" data points, which gives a length of 2017 miles, another is the "3d" data points, which gives a length of 2032 miles, and finally the "warped" data points, giving a distance of 2174 miles, which is what I used to create the actual profiles.

Zip File (http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/25/2065958/profile%20data.zip)

Here a link to a different version of the profile... as suggested by Tom Murphy Earlier. It doesn't have any labels, but the x-axis only goes up to 7000 feet, so the profile fills most of the chart. Unfortunately I can't increase the resolution much more because of software limitations... so it's the same resolution as the original AT profile that I posted.

profile without lables... different x-axis (http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/25/2065958/AT_FULL_NoLabels.pdf)

Mr. Parkay
08-28-2008, 18:26
Help me out here... Exactly what is a layman's definition of "vertical exaggeration"?

The vertical exaggeration means that the y-axis has been stretched so that the climbs look steeper than they actually are. Otherwise the profiles would look flat on paper.... which wouldn't match up with our perceptions while hiking. That's my understanding anyway:)

thirdeye66
10-14-2008, 19:54
Thanks a ton Mr. Parkay.

I met you and your mother this year, not too long ago, at "the place" in Damascus. I purchased a bottle of Mr. Parkay shortly thereafter.

be well buddy.

-third eye

Mr. Parkay
03-04-2009, 10:26
Just a quick note:

I've recently created some more profiles for the AT... they are basically just smaller state-size profiles... probably more convenient for online viewing than the Huge Profile... Here's the link:

State Size profiles (http://parkaymaps.110mb.com/AT_CDT_new.html)

if the above link dies... the profiles will probably be located on the main page of my website here (http://parkaymaps.110mb.com/).

4eyedbuzzard
03-04-2009, 10:56
Wow. A lot of time and hard work went into all that. Great resource for those of us who don't own full sets of maps. Nice of you to put it out there for all to use.

JAK
03-04-2009, 11:15
Just opened it with Foxit and it looks great. Thanks.

Petr
03-05-2009, 21:03
I'd be happy to post the "raw data" used to create the profiles. Although I'll need to explain some things first... since there are different levels of raw data depending on how much processing it has gone through. Here's an explanation about some of the data processing used:


1. The GPS track that I use is a modified version of the ATC's AT shape file .. which I have altered and processed in a whole bunch of ways to make the data more useful for my purposes. (I need to put a note about this on the profiles)

2. After modifying the GPS track I ended up with 104329 lat/lon points.

3. I used "Wissenbach Map" to add elevation to all 104329 data points.

4. Next I had to calculate the distance between each of the lat/lon points. For this I borrowed some python code, which uses Vincenty's formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenty%27s_formulae) to calculate the "flat land" distance between points... This worked out to about 2017 miles.

5. I wasn't satisfied with the "flat land" distance, so I wrote some code which takes into account the "3d distance" added by mountains & such. It ended up adding about 15 miles, but I'm not a mathamatician, so my calculation could be off. This gives a total distance of 2032.7 miles, which is a lot different than the accepted 2174 miles that most of the guide books use. I'm not sure why the difference is so large, but I'm assuming that the 2174 number is a lot more accurate since it was probably calculated with a measuring wheel.

6. When I was creating the profiles I wanted the miles on the x-axis to match up with the distances that guide books use... since it would be confusing otherwise. To achieve this I wrote some python code which essentially warps the data points around "control points" that I have placed throughout the profile. I have about 100 control points, which seem to do a good job at altering the profile.

7. Then I use matplotlib (http://matplotlib.sourceforge.net/) to plot the data and create the nice looking pdf files.

The data in steps 4, 5 and 6 would all create slightly different profiles if they were plotted... although I prefer #6. Anyow, I'll generate some text files with this data and post it pretty soon. Perhaps it will be usefule if someone else wants to make some cool profiles!

Ummm...I am a mathematician (well, I majored in math in undergrad anyway), and I don't know what the ***** this guy is talking about. Anyway, very cool project, Mr. Parkay. Is this just a hobby or is this kind of work relevant to your profession?

Peter

Petr
03-05-2009, 21:06
Damnit, I should preview my posts. If there is any confusion, I meant my "don't know what he's talking about" statement to convey admiration and it was not intended to cast aspersions at this young gentleman's fine work. It seems like some could read my comment as questioning the validity of his methodology.

4eyedbuzzard
03-05-2009, 23:34
Damnit, I should preview my posts. If there is any confusion, I meant my "don't know what he's talking about" statement to convey admiration and it was not intended to cast aspersions at this young gentleman's fine work. It seems like some could read my comment as questioning the validity of his methodology.
Just FWIW, the impression I got from your post was one of admiration from someone who has a degree in a mathematics field. I have a rough overall idea of what he is talking about, but it took me a while to digest it, and needless to say the work is way beyond my ability level.

Mr. Parkay
03-05-2009, 23:59
Ummm...I am a mathematician (well, I majored in math in undergrad anyway), and I don't know what the ***** this guy is talking about. Anyway, very cool project, Mr. Parkay. Is this just a hobby or is this kind of work relevant to your profession?

Peter

the profiles are just a hobby... created after a bunch of trial & error. I barely understand half of what I'm talking about... so the post about how I created the profiles probably didn't make any sense anyway :D