30m resolution DEM elevation data instead of 90m DEM data. (once more) massively increased mesh density … by roughly factor 2.5 to 3! This is not only beneficiary to the better representation of the higher res DEM data, but also – once more – improves landclass and forest detail.
Canadian Rockies, Scandinavia and Pyrenees use OSM data based around end of April 2015!
Japan uses OSM data based around mid March 2016!
I see no resolution data/explanation for the new v4 mesh, but it looks like it has some additional features that I guess make it more attractive. And please note, I’m not asking whether to use the v3 HD mesh vs. the v4 HD mesh (that’s a no brainer), but rather whether the UHD v1 mesh is still better than v4 HD mesh?
The v4 is still 90m resolution data, while the UHD is 30m, so more detail (plus more data!) in terms of elevation data mesh.
If you are using the photo Ortho’s then don’t forget it only uses the overlay data (building/roads placement) from the HD or UHD mesh files - it does not use the elevation data (a common misconception). The V4 overlay data in the HD Mesh v4 is newer than the UHD data.
If you are not using the photo Orthos then you really have to choose between (a) the most recent overlay data (in v4) or (b) the most accurate elevation data (in UHD).
That’s sort of dependent on what you prefer. If it was somewhere without ortho but mountainous then I’d go for UHD, but if it was largely flat and sometimes populated with cities etc then I’d go for HD v4.
Yeah - well, my next travels after I get through the Aleutian Islands is going to be Japan - which has UHD offered. I’ll be doing that without orthos. It is a mix of mountains and urban…hmm…I think I still might just stick with the new HD v4…
That’s the reason that I don’t have any additional mesh installed. If I often flew areas outside of my installed ortho photo tiles, I’d probably go back to using mesh. Maybe I’m missing something though. Wouldn’t be the first time.