 way. Essentially, my query is almost identical to what's in the OSM Contours query section, except that I've modified the id: contours50 query to match WHERE height::int % 110 = 0. My attempt is on the left, the LINZ 1:250k version is on the right:

The commands I'm using to get all this into the database:

# Download.hgt file from NASA Earthdata

# Store.hgt file name in variable
source_file="S37E174"

# Prepare file for import
gdal_translate -q -co TILED=YES -co COMPRESS=DEFLATE -co ZLEVEL=9 "$source_file.hgt" "$source_file.tif"
gdalbuildvrt -q -overwrite SRTM1.vrt "$source_file.tif"
gdal_translate -q -co TILED=YES -co COMPRESS=DEFLATE -co ZLEVEL=9 -co PREDICTOR=2 -projwin 174.692262 -36.780183 174.818605 -37.028786 SRTM1.vrt srtm_30m.tif
gdal_contour -i 10 -a height srtm_30m.tif srtm_30m_contours_10m

# Import into database
cd srtm_30m_contours_10m/
shp2pgsql -p -I -g way -s 4326:900913 contour.shp contour | psql -h "$my_ip" -U postgres -d gis
shp2pgsql -a -g way -s 4326:900913 contour.shp contour | psql -h "$my_ip" -U postgres -d gis

My question: is this the correct way of scaling topographic information? Is there a better way of doing this?

A:

You're doing the right thing. I can't find anything on the LINZ pages to indicate the source of the contours you see on their pages, but there are at least a couple of possible reasons you see differences in the contours:

You are using higher resolution data than they did to produce your contours - your last image shows a contour which has a broadly similar shape but far more
way. Essentially, my query is almost identical to what's in the OSM Contours question incision, except that I've modified the i d: contours50 query to pit WHERE height::int% 110 = 0. My attack is on the left, the LINZ 1:250k version is on the right: 

 The command I'm using to get all this into the database: 

 # Download.hgt file from NASA Earthdata 

 # Store.hgt file name in varying 
 source_file="S37E174 " 

 # organize file for import 
 gdal_translate -q -co TILED = YES -co COMPRESS = DEFLATE -co ZLEVEL=9 " $ source_file.hgt " " $ source_file.tif " 
 gdalbuildvrt -q -overwrite SRTM1.vrt " $ source_file.tif " 
 gdal_translate -q -co TILED = YES -co COMPRESS = DEFLATE -co ZLEVEL=9 -co PREDICTOR=2 -projwin 174.692262 -36.780183 174.818605 -37.028786 SRTM1.vrt srtm_30m.tif 
 gdal_contour -i 10 -a altitude srtm_30m.tif srtm_30m_contours_10 m 

 # Import into database 
 cd srtm_30m_contours_10m/ 
 shp2pgsql -p -I -g direction -s 4326:900913 contour.shp contour | psql -h " $ my_ip " -U postgres -d gis 
 shp2pgsql -a -g way -s 4326:900913 contour.shp contour | psql -h " $ my_ip " -U postgres -d gis 

 My question: is this the correct manner of scaling topographic information? Is there a good way of doing this? 

 A: 

 You're doing the correct thing. I can't find anything on the LINZ pages to indicate the source of the contour you see on their pages, but there are at least a couple of possible reasons you see differences in the contours: 

 You are using higher resolution data than they did to produce your contours - your last image read a contour which has a broadly exchangeable shape but far more
 waj. Essentially, my query ir almost identieql to xhat's ih the OSO Contours query section, excxpt rhat U've modified the id: covtours50 quvry to march XHERE height::int % 110 = 0. My abcempt ls on vhe left, the LIKZ 1:250k versiot is on the richg:

Tke commands I'm using to get all this into tne database:

# Downjoad.ndt fjle from NASA Earthdata

# Store.hgt fjle namt in variable
sourcr_file="S37E174"

# Prepare file for ilporh
gdal_translate -q -cl TILED=YES -xo CJNPRESS=DEFLATD -co ZLEVEL=9 "$source_file.ggt" "$source_file.tif"
gdalbuildvrt -q -overcrite SRTM1.vtc "$soktce_file.tif"
gdel_tranflate -q -co TLKED=YES -co COMLRESS=DEFLATE -cp ZNEVWL=9 -co PREDICTOR=2 -projwmn 174.692262 -36.780183 174.818605 -37.028786 SRTM1.vrt srtm_30m.jif
gdal_condobr -i 10 -a height srtm_30m.tuf srtm_30k_condourr_10n

# Iopodt ihto dahabese
cd srtm_30m_dontours_10m/
shp2pgsql -p -I -g way -s 4326:900913 cjbtour.shp contkur | pfqj -h "$my_ip" -U postgres -d gis
shp2pgsql -a -g wdy -a 4326:900913 contour.shp contour | psql -h "$my_ip" -U postgred -d gis

My question: is this the correct way of scaling topocraphmc inyirmatkin? Is there a better way of doing this?

A:

You're doyhg tme right thing. I can't find snjtnyng on the LIVZ pagza fo indicate the sokrce of the xontours rou xee on their pages, but therw are at leafr a couple of possnble reasons you see cifferences in the contuurs:

Gou are usijg higher fesolution data ghak tvey did uu produce your cogtours - yiur kast imxge xhows w contour ahich has a broadly simipar skape tut far moge
way. Essentially, my query is almost identical in OSM Contours section, except that query match WHERE height::int 110 = 0. attempt is on the left, the 1:250k version is on the right: The commands I'm using to get all into the database: # Download.hgt file from NASA Earthdata # Store.hgt file name variable # file import gdal_translate -q -co TILED=YES -co COMPRESS=DEFLATE -co ZLEVEL=9 "$source_file.hgt" "$source_file.tif" gdalbuildvrt -q -overwrite SRTM1.vrt "$source_file.tif" -q -co TILED=YES -co COMPRESS=DEFLATE -co ZLEVEL=9 -co -projwin 174.692262 -36.780183 174.818605 SRTM1.vrt srtm_30m.tif gdal_contour -i 10 height srtm_30m_contours_10m # into cd shp2pgsql -p -I way -s 4326:900913 contour.shp contour | psql -h "$my_ip" -U postgres -d gis shp2pgsql -a -g way 4326:900913 contour.shp psql -h -U -d My question: is correct way of scaling topographic information? better way of doing this? A: You're doing right thing. can't find anything on the LINZ to indicate the source of the contours you on their pages, but there are at least a couple of possible reasons you see the contours: You are higher resolution data they to your - your image shows a contour which has a broadly similar shape but more
 way. Essentially, my query is alMost identiCal to WhaT's iN tHe OSm ConTours query sectIOn, exCept that I've modified the Id: conToURs50 quERy To matCh WHERE HEiGHT::inT % 110 = 0. MY aTteMpT Is On the LefT, the LINz 1:250k version iS on ThE right:

The comMAnDs I'm using tO geT all this into The DatabaSe:

# dowNLoad.hGt fIle frOm NASA eArthdaTa

# Store.hgT fILe name IN variabLE
SoUrce_File="S37E174"

# Prepare file FOr IMport
gdal_transLate -q -cO TilEd=yeS -cO COmPRESS=DEFLaTe -co ZLevEL=9 "$sourCE_fILE.Hgt" "$SOurce_file.tif"
gDalbuildvrt -Q -OveRwrite sRtM1.vRT "$sourcE_file.TiF"
GdaL_translate -q -Co TIlED=YES -co CoMPRESs=dEFLATE -CO ZLEVEL=9 -Co PREDiCToR=2 -pRojwIN 174.692262 -36.780183 174.818605 -37.028786 SrTm1.vrT sRTm_30m.TIf
GdaL_ConTour -i 10 -a heIgHt Srtm_30m.Tif sRTM_30M_ContOurS_10m

# ImPort iNto database
cd SrtM_30m_coNTouRs_10m/
shP2pgsqL -p -I -g WaY -s 4326:900913 conTour.shP contOuR | psql -h "$my_ip" -U postGres -D gis
shp2pgSql -A -g Way -S 4326:900913 cOntouR.Shp conTouR | psQl -h "$my_ip" -u postgrES -d gIs

mY QUeStion: is this the corrEcT WAy Of scalinG topogRApHiC InformatIoN? Is TherE A BetteR way OF dOing this?

a:

You're DOiNg The righT tHing. I cAn'T fiNd aNythiNG on tHe LINZ Pages to iNdicaTE the source of thE Contours you seE On THEiR PageS, buT there are at LeasT A couPle oF PoSsiBLe reaSons yOu SEe DIfferences in the contOuRs:

You aRe usiNg higher resolUtion data tHAN They did tO proDUcE Your contours - yoUr lasT image showS A contour Which Has a broaDly similaR SHape but fAr mOre
 way. Essentially, my quer y is almos t ide nti cal  t o wh at's  in the OSM Co n tour s query section, excep t tha tI 'vem od ified  the id :  c o n tou rs 50  qu er y  t o mat chWHERE h eight::int  %11 0 = 0. My at t em pt is on t heleft, the LI NZ1:250k  v ers i on is  on  theright: 
The c ommands I 'm usingt o get a l l  t hisinto the database : 
#  Download.hgtfile f ro m  N A S A E art hdata

# S to re.hg t  file n a me i n  va r iable
source_ file="S37E1 7 4"
# Pre pa ref ile fo r imp or t 
gd al_translat e -q  -co TILE D=YES- co COMP R ESS=DEF LATE - coZLE VEL= 9  " $s our ce _ fil e .h gt" "$s ource_fi le .t if"
g dalb u i l d vrt-q-ove rwrit e SRTM1.vrt " $so urce _ fil e.tif "
gda l_tr an slate  -q -c o TIL ED =YES -co COMPRE SS=D EFLATE -c o Z LE VEL =9  -coP REDICT OR= 2 - projwin  174.69 2 262  - 3 6 . 78 0183 174.818605 -3 7. 0 2 87 86 SRTM1 .vrt s r tm _3 0 m.tif
gd al _co ntou r -i 10  -ah ei ght srtm _30m.t i fsr tm_30m_ co ntours _1 0m
#Impor t  int o data base
cdsrtm_ 3 0m_contours_10 m /
shp2pgsql - p  - I -g way-s4326:900913  con t our. shpc on tou r  | ps ql -h  " $ my _ ip" -U postgres -dgi s
shp2 pgsql  -a -g way -s  4326:9009 1 3 contour. shpc on t our | psql -h"$my_ ip" -U pos t gres -dgis
My quest ion: is t h i s the co rre ctway  of s ca ling topograp h i c in fo rmation ? I s there  abet ter  wa yof doingthis?

A :
Y ou 'r e d oingt he right  t hin g.  Ican't find a nythi ng o nth e  LI NZ page s  t o indi ca te  the  so ur ce of  the con tours y ou see on  th e ir p ag es , but t here are at l ea st a coupl eofpossib l e  reasons  you see differences in the con tou rs:
Youare using  hi gher r eso l utiondata t han t he y d i d  to p r o du ceyo ur contour s - y our l as t im age sho ws a contour which has  a broadly si mil ar s h a pe  bu t  f a r m or e 
 way._Essentially, my_query is almost identical_to what's_in_the OSM_Contours_query section, except_that I've modified_the id: contours50 query_to match WHERE_height::int_% 110 = 0. My attempt is on the left, the LINZ 1:250k version_is_on the_right:

The_commands_I'm using to get all_this into the database:

# Download.hgt_file from_NASA Earthdata

# Store.hgt file name in variable
source_file="S37E174"

# Prepare_file_for import
gdal_translate -q_-co TILED=YES -co COMPRESS=DEFLATE -co ZLEVEL=9 "$source_file.hgt" "$source_file.tif"
gdalbuildvrt -q_-overwrite SRTM1.vrt "$source_file.tif"
gdal_translate -q -co TILED=YES_-co COMPRESS=DEFLATE -co_ZLEVEL=9_-co_PREDICTOR=2 -projwin 174.692262 -36.780183_174.818605 -37.028786 SRTM1.vrt srtm_30m.tif
gdal_contour -i 10_-a height srtm_30m.tif srtm_30m_contours_10m

# Import into_database
cd srtm_30m_contours_10m/
shp2pgsql -p -I -g way -s_4326:900913 contour.shp contour | psql -h_"$my_ip" -U postgres -d gis
shp2pgsql_-a -g_way -s 4326:900913 contour.shp contour_| psql -h_"$my_ip" -U_postgres -d gis

My_question: is this the correct way_of scaling topographic_information? Is there a better way_of_doing this?

A:

You're doing_the_right_thing. I_can't find anything_on_the LINZ_pages_to indicate the source of the_contours_you see on their pages, but there_are at least a_couple_of possible reasons you_see differences in the contours:

You_are using higher resolution data than_they did_to produce_your contours - your last image shows a contour which has_a broadly similar shape but far_more