maptalk.co.nz News   |   Events   |   Forum   |   Photos   |   Links    

  Forum

Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63  

Mapping

Show Profile  joff Posted: 8 October 2009, 12:37 AM  
Hi ... a message from us poor relations across the Tasman! I saw a post back in Nov 2008 from 'selwyn' about "Richard Hensby from PAPO has worked with our Woodhill BigMap to convert an OCAD map to a Garmin map" ... we have been trying to do this without much success. Can anyone enlighten me, or put me in contact with Richard? Any help much appreciated! joffpeck@hotmail.com

Show Profile  addison Posted: 8 October 2009, 7:01 AM  
The other person who knows how to do this is Robert Newbrook

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 8 October 2009, 2:15 PM  
The LINZ orthophotos are a free source of distortion-free location information. For many areas however you have to use photos related to the old topo map series and grid. That's no big deal because you can convert their corners to the new grid and hence place them sufficiently well for our purposes.

That is, if you know where the corners of the old topo maps are. LINZ used to have this on their website, but the baby has gone out with the bathwater. I have obtained the info from them, pending reinstatement on LINZ I have put it on www.mapsport.co.nz/260mapcoords.html

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 8 October 2009, 6:56 PM  
That link is much appreciated Michael. Somehow I have missed this information on the LINZ website which I've visited MANY times before.

The co-ordinate convertor uses Latitudes/Longitudes.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 9 October 2009, 12:18 AM  
After some further research on the LINZ site I managed to find a converter from using 7 digit eastings and 7 digit northings from NZMG to NZTM and vice versa. It is well hidden.

www.linz.govt.nz/geodetic/conversion-coordinates/online-conversion-service/index.aspx

Scroll down to "common conversions" and enter in your values. Gives about 1 or 2 metre difference from what you can get by using the GPS as a converter. NOTE: the Northings come first, followed by the Eastings on the table.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 9 October 2009, 12:35 PM  
Map Guy and others: this appears to be just another way-in to the converter that I give with the 260 map coords. The LINZ nomenclature for coordinate systems appears to be:
NZMG is the coordinates, NZ Geodetic Datum 1949 is lat-long
NZTM is the coordiantes, NZ Geodetic Datum 2000 is lat-long
I'm more used to thinking easting first then northing, and you can switch using "advanced details" or something.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 10 October 2009, 12:38 AM  
Yes it's more logical to have Eastings first, then Northings.

BTW: Two more service updates for OCAD10 have just been released - minor tweaking, especially to background maps. Latest version is 10.1.3

Show Profile  MikeW Posted: 20 October 2009, 9:57 PM  
Just arrived in NZ on semi permanent basis and found your forum - would have been useful ages ago! Been a part time professional O mapper in UK for 10 years (Acorn Maps)and orienteer since 1967 (now M60)and now getting into MTBO. Great to see you have a healthy forum - sadly lacking in UK. Been interesting to see some of the problems you face compared to UK. Hopefully will get into some NZ mapping soon!

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 20 October 2009, 10:02 PM  
Welcome MikeW. Doesn't the internet work in the UK? :-)

Show Profile  Ellmo1769 Posted: 20 October 2009, 10:58 PM  
I know this is a Mapping forum but what do you think about our "season" issue MikeW?

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 23 October 2009, 11:04 PM  
Most sprint maps are of urban terrain but I'm working on a rural one. I'm not feeling good about the unpaved track symbols. According to my reading they are chocolate sandwiches - except for "small unpaved footpath or track" which is a dashed black line. So at some width the character of the symbol changes hugely, quite out of proportion to what happens on the ground. In fact I'm not that happy with the chocolate sandwich at all for unpaved tracks, since the black edge lines (I guess necessary to make it stand out) imply a definite edge on the ground which is generally not there.

Any thoughts? Any suggestions for what constitutes "small"? My guess is: significantly less than the minimum width of the choc sandwich: 0.35mm plus two times 0.14mm equals 0.63mm which is about 3m.

Show Profile  HeadHoncho Posted: 24 October 2009, 7:37 AM  
I would use the choc sandwich for 4WD/vehicle tracks. The dashed black line for bike/foot tracks.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 24 October 2009, 9:28 AM  
Read the spec and stick to it, nothing worse than a mapper making up his own standard. (an open patch of bare earth, is still open land to me)
It says un-paved tracks have a dashed black line. The only difference between urban and rural is the colour of the brown, (which is just stupid) and its even worse when other mappers take that as free rein to make what ever parts of roads/footpaths different colours in the same area.

Show Profile  Selwyn Posted: 27 October 2009, 11:52 AM  
The specs for sprint maps need some specifying by IOF. Nowhere do they say what is meant by urban and rural in a sprint map context. Is it possible to have urban and rural on the same map? It makes the map look silly. Many of our sprint maps are of university type areas that often have an urban-type set of buildings and rural-type, extensive grassland and trees.

WMOC Sprint qualifier at Macquarie University used one shade of brown (looked like 50%) with some fine black lines to distinguish obvious changes. I could easily see what was a road, a path, a parking area or a tennis court by its context.
The Sprint final at Sydney Olympic Park used two shades of brown (probably 30% and 50%). The 50% seemed to be used for roads and vehicle areas, the 30% for paved pedestrian areas some of which were rather large. As an orienteer I found this map harder to read while orienteering, but it looks OK at home. The colour difference between the two browns appears to more obvious than the colour difference between 30% brown and 401 yellow. But in the terrain the difference between a paved area and a grassed area is the most significant thing to notice.

I have generally drawn sprint maps a bit like the Olympic Park map, but having now competed on consecutive days on the two types of mapping, Im more inclined to stick with one shade of brown for paved areas.
Then, could I reserve a lighter shade of brown for the bark chip play areas?

The other issue that would be nice to have guidance from IOF: What is meant by paved? If a track has been paved with loose gravel or broken shells, is it paved? Or if has been paved with bark chips, is it paved?

I can agree that the unpaved path symbol looks a bit strange. When orienteering I never notice its relevance until I study the map at home.
The Macquarie University map had some small sections of this symbol, in one case just a hard to see track in the trees caused by students taking a short cut.


Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 27 October 2009, 1:45 PM  
I agree mostly with Greg, stick to the rules. You can have a rural bush setting small path as a dashed line as well as a urban park small unpaved path on the same map using the two different symbols. Obviously the dashed symbol anywhere near the urban area would be a big no no as it could complicate the look where only non crossable features should be thick lines. I appreciate there could be places where urban and rural mingle and would give the mapper a choice and decision to make.
One option that I feel could work well in regards to the unpaved path symbol of the choc sandwich with skinny dashed border - would be to lose the chocolate altogether (probably wouldn't go down well with the girls tho)and just have the parallel dashes, so across grass, through trees or whatever it could give the impression of the terrain conditions. Just a thought.
With the two browns for paved areas I am however in two minds... I feel that potentially dangerous vehichle roads should stand out against all other pedestrian typed paved areas for the sole purpose of safety awareness for young and old and inbetween. However we should never alter the rules/looks to suit our selves and get out of sync with the IOF.
While I'm raving I wish for the sake of our elite that some of our less technical maps were printed at 1:15000 at least for the MWelite courses.


1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63  


Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions maptalk.co.nz