Ja Mapsource kann es nicht – Basecamp dagegen schon. Wenn du die Karte sendest musst du die Kacheln per Drag/ziehen auswählen über den kompletten Bereich ziehen den du brauchst – da am Rand nur Höhenlinien ODER Karte sind wenn es nicht der Kartenrand an sich ist – dann sind die Höhenlinien auch am Vista HCx sichtbar. Überprüfe evtl kurz vorher in Basecamp ob sie wirklich angezeigt werden und vorhanden sind.

oh I have a garmin etrex touch 25, and while that series is not that old, it’s painfully slow. I would have hoped the 30x is faster. And older etrex 30 felt faster than the touch 25 (bought that one on a trip where I managed to forget all of my gps devices at home – and they had not 30 as I would never choose 30 over 25).
The Oregon 600 is really fast in comparison to both devices.

okay – thanks. Well I will decide in a couple of days.

With both files, panning speed is the same on my Etrex 30x : slow, as always with this device. But this is OK. Usually I avoid panning by zooming out then in.

do you notice differences on your GPS device with those files in map panning speed? That’s most important because I can not test it on many devices myself.

I was looking for subtle changes in “not that steep” areas.
But yes you are right, in “cliffy” areas like N43° 45.187 E007° 08.031 : 10m is clearly better than 10ml.
And personnally I do not care about the bigger size of the file. SD cards and HDD are cheap, processors are fast.

For server space and traffic this may be another story.

okay thanks for your opinion. I think for all countries that do not use external contourlines – I will integrate one version of the 10m contourlines into the installer as a separate download for windows. For OSx it will be integrated in the download itself. For countries with contourlines right now as a separte downlaod – it will stay separated, as it takes too much time to calculate it on each map update. At cliffs and very steep regions the 10m vs the 10ml looks much better – but those places are very rare. Another advantage of the 10m vs 10ml is likely a bit better performance. Because at resolution 23 in the 10m download there are only 20m equidistance. Only at resolution 24 it will be 10m. From resolution 22 they are identical. On the other hand at resolution 24 because of being more detailled the 10m will be slower but this is zoomed in closer so should be less of a hit vs resolution 23.

I can clearly see a difference between previous 10m edition from last month and those 2 files : more details, very often where there was a straight line before, now we can see an “S” shape. Especially noticeable in small river beds.

But while I can see slight differences between the 2 new files, I would not say that bigger size “10m” really makes a useful difference.
So for me “10ml” is good enough.

Hi Christouf, I updated the 10m contourlines another time – because in some very steep regions they did not look nice.
You could give me your opinion on:
a) https://openmtbmap.org/?s2member_file_download=10m/windows/windows_contours_france10m.7z
b) https://openmtbmap.org/?s2member_file_download=10ml/windows/windows_contours_france10ml.7z

Do you think the quite big increase in size for the 10m vs 10ml is worth it for you? Also the 20m contourlines are better now and will be used from the next update or second next onwards. My server needs about 10 days to compile all those contourlines newly.