Analysis
The following pictures show the final result of our road. The map on the left shows how the low resolution of our raster cells did not allow us to zoom in enough to show the switchbacks needed in the road.
At a resolution of 1: 40,000, the map shows how the road follows the easiest path cutting across the most gentle slope to reach its final destination. However, we were unable to determine why the road from checkpoint 1 to check point 2 (blue) seems to meander around a seemingly flat area.
The proposal sent to us by the JSC had specific details and recommendations as to how they proposed the road be laid out. It was an important piece of data to have, along with the maps, as it allowed us to determine whether or not their layout was the most effective (cost efficient) way. Unfortunately, the Raster data we used did not allow us to see the detail needed to compare our road to the one outline by the JSC.
When conducting our cost-path analysis we assumed that we were working with Isotropic distances. However, in all likelihood this road would likely be anisotropic. In theory it would be easier to go down the road when there is no snow cover than up the road with snow cover. Simply less effort and friction. However, for the sake of simplicity we ignore that possibility.
The scale we used to assign cost to the slope angles was sufficient to allow the least-cost path to be determined effectively.
Ideally we would be able to get a more detailed set of data, so that we could present our road in a more optimal way. nevertheless, we hope that the interested parties can use this information to further their plans to construct a road up to the Juneau ice fields.
