[saltcured]

What I'd like to see is comparison and motivation relative to contour line maps, which are what I would consider the conventional way to show topography. I find these plots somewhat bizarre in comparison.

Are these joy plots more accessible to novice viewers somehow? To me, contour lines provide a very clear understanding of terrain but I admit I am pretty fluent in reading them. They bunch up to show steep slopes and cliffs, but give a much clearer sense of slope direction and more subtle topography like bowls, saddles, and stream beds.

I cannot really recall how I first experienced them as a novice. I was a child looking at USGS quadrant maps of the Sierra Nevada.

[OGWhales]

I think that this is more useful at showing height on a massive scale. Contour lines seem more generally useful, I agree, but looking at say the Appalachian mountain range on this zoomed out is much more appealing and intuitive than looking at the same scale using contour lines or another method of showing off height. I can also quickly compare the height of those mountain ranges to the Rockies.

Also it's just cool. I'll talk to my friend who does this type of thing professionally and ask his opinion. He is on vacation though. I was trained to read contour lines in boy scouts and I hike a lot since I live in the mountains, so I am quite comfortable with them too. I think this one is just a cool way to represent the data. I think the only time it is better is showing of height and height on a massive scale that are simply too big for other types of maps to be easily understood at a glimpse.

I'll challenge you to find a good map showing off the height of the Appalachian region, as I can't find one and really want to after seeing this. The one those tool can provide is quite cool in comparison to every one I can find. My friend would probably be a good person to ask in that regard.