Discussion: 3D Map Reading

I have heard that some people see contours 3-Dimensionally. This would be very helpful to alot of people, especially me, I was wondering if anyone who knows they can do this can teach it some how?

I think it's a matter of practice and mental visualization. If you've ever seen a stereoscopic picture, you could use the feel of 3 dimensions it gives you to imagine the same kind of thing when reading a map. I don't do it most of the time since it takes me more concentration than I'm usually willing to slow down for and perhaps for that reason I haven't valued it as much. Instead I just try to have a different understanding of what's up and down in my immediate vicinity. I think reading 3-D might be more valuable when selecting routes for a long leg.

One can probably get very adept at seeing 3-D from 2-D contours just like doing anything else. Remember when riding a bicycle, reading text, or speaking a different language took a lot of concentration? How about moving your feet through the woods without having to watch every step. The more you do it, the easier it will be for you to see it when you want to. It's practice.

Recently I've used Google Maps new "Terrain" button to help show people 3D terrain. At certain zoom settings, you can see the contour lines. It's not great, but it helps. I think it's called "false shading", and it represents light from the NW, if I remember correctly. (Here in the Northern Hemisphere, we get a lot of light from the NW.)

Mt Rainier

Grand Canyon South Rim

Clingman's Dome area of the Great Smoky Mountains Park (the dashed line is the state border between TN and NC. It's also a divide.)

Vasquez Rocks, near Agua Dulce, CA (The terrain is much sharper than shown here.)

Hamilton, ON, showing the escarpment and the gently rising terrain to the NW

Fundy National Park, site of the 2008 Canadian Orienteering Championships a few weeks ago.

You can start indoors, with an O map in hand, ideally a map of simple terrain. Choose the most simple contour feature you can find on the map, perhaps a large round hill, or a big valley with a stream at the bottom, then from the shape of the contours, imagine or visualize what the shape of the land should be. Then pick another feature, and another.

Next time you are in terrain with a map, try this again, and compare it to what you see. At first, the real feature might be a little different than you imagined, but with practice, you will be able to create a better picture of the terrain that that lies ahead of you, eventually even in complex terrain. It just takes time and practice to make this part of your normal O technique.

to address the question-
I don't think there are people who necessarily 'see' contours as 3d, rather people have become accustomed to interpreting contours as '3d' spatial models.

The buzz words tend to be 'spatial intelligence' when explaining the ability to interpret maps to students. I guess this comes down to what you're going to accept as a 'psychological categorisation'.

I would say it just comes down to experience and practice as stated by the posts above me. In Australia, especially Victoria, we are graced with spur/gully (continental) terrain which makes it easy to focus on (or rather it's a common occurence) visualising contour details as real features; because the contour features are so big. Which I've always thought is the reason why Australian orienteers generally tend to overanalyse glacial terrain, rather than interpret individual features as point features; but I can't comment on this as I have never ran overseas- except Tasmania. haha.

At one event put on by Southern Navigators the map was converted into 3 D representation in the direction of the individual legs. It was ran as part of a 3 day weekend including one of the first sprint Os in UK and a mass start long race.

I have heard from general sources that people with dyslexia can resolve 2-D images into 3-D mental pictures better than the general populace.

On another note: Stereolithography techniques could be used to transfer the 2-D map contours (and other features) into a 3-D model. Although with current technology, stereolithography could not be used during a race. Maybe, holographic projections could be used if ....

My ordinary view of the world (when driving, say) transitions gradually from a 3-D view of what I can see now to a map memory view a few miles ahead (with whatever details I remember). Think Escher for how that transition works. It comes from armchair staring at road maps a lot.

The reverse happens too - I'm very aware of the angles of upcoming road or path junctions. For topography, I can only do it right along my path, crests and valleys. It would be wonderful to envision stuff around me, but I can't.

You can practice this (if you want to be burdened with such a world outlook) by really studying your neighborhood or your route to work, visualizing all the angles and curves and hills and how they look on a map. I don't really know how much one can improve beyond when that intuition first really clicks.

I think mapping helps a lot. Taking the time to carefully evaluate exactly where a contour should be placed leaves a far greater mental impression than the quick glances one gets during a run. Also, when you map, you learn the limitations of contour mapping. Obviously, you can't put every bump on the map. Learning to consistently apply your own mapping standard makes it easier to interpret someone else's.

I agree that mapping helps and is great practice for interpreting contours to what you really see in the terrain.

If you have access to them, some software tools can help too. National Geographic Topo! and DeLorme Topo tools (and many others) let one view 2-D contour maps (often USGS Quads), then switch modes into 3-D views or shadow views similar to the links provided by cedarcreek. By going back and forth, you can train your eye to visualize similar change on other maps.

The main problem with those tools is that they necessarily exaggerate the vertical scale. Rendering in actual scale makes everything look pretty flat from an overhead view (just look out the window of an airplane to confirm). However, when running through the woods, you aren't above the terrain, you're in it. I don't think there's any substitute for actually looking at size of a real reentrant, looking at the shape on the map, and reconciling the two.

The main problem with those tools is that they necessarily exaggerate the vertical scale.

Yeah, but so does orienteering! Take oxygen debt, lactate build-up, and a little dehydration and a 10% grade can easily look like 30%!!!

The main problem with those tools......you aren't above the terrain, you're in it.

There's always Catching Features.....

Fair enough!

Before I go over a hill I imagine what it will look like on the other side. You will get better with a little practice. Now I know I am lost while I can still easily relocate.