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   64   65  

Mapping

Show Profile  Alistair Posted: 2 December 2010, 8:53 PM  
Michael, it exists and is called http://www.openstreetmap.org/. What's more Micro$oft recently decided to back this in an attack towards Goooooooogle: http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.355711/microsoft-attackerar-google-maps--sponsrar-oppet-initiativ

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 2 December 2010, 10:38 PM  
Another update for OCAD10 has just been released (10.4.7). Probably not worth updating untess you are using the Pro version, or are intending drawing georeferenced maps in Sri Lanka or Hungary.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 3 December 2010, 1:19 AM  
When we talked about this in March there wasn't any contour or height info. Is there now? What is Microsoft's aim Al, my Swedish isn't up to the second reference.

Show Profile  Alistair Posted: 3 December 2010, 9:17 AM  
Ooops - sorry Michael, I cut and paste too quickly. It was a link I saw recently.... Anyway - the Google translation is okay I think: http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.355711/microsoft-attackerar-google-maps--sponsrar-oppet-initiativ

Micro$oft's aim? World domination or something like that I thought ;-P Actually - I think they realised that they can't compete against Google on their own...

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 3 December 2010, 1:12 PM  
Thanks Al. Like the idea of using Google-Translate to find out about Microsoft hitting back at Google...

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 8 December 2010, 9:49 PM  
Just back from an afterwork sprint event, and as usual I found it really hard to see the unpaved large paths in bush areas, done with the black-brown-black sandwich symbol. Lots of others (with younger eyes) said the same. I've never liked this symbol for paths which don't have a distinct edge, and earlier in the year I got the controller's OK to use the black dashed line (506) at Roxburgh. The sprint speci DOES allow the black dashed line for the smaller ones (507) in rural areas.

Other opinions? Note that in rural areas the symbol is supposed to have thicker sidelines (0.14mm) and a darker shade of brown, and this is not always done. But I did so at Roxburgh and I still don't like them. Might be OK when you get to vehicle width as then the symbol looks a bit like the two tire tracks.

Talking of the shade of brown, it seems that you can use anything from white to 30% brown for these sandwiches (and paved areas) in urban areas, anything from 20 to 50% in rural. Has anyone played around with this and what would they advise?

Show Profile  robert06 Posted: 9 December 2010, 9:02 AM  
I agree Michael, those symbol is poor at best when used in anything other than open. To get around this problem, in the interim, I've created black dashed lines (as 506 & 507) and named them as the replacements for the wishy-washy black-brown black 506.* symbols. It makes them easy to change back then, when/if necessary.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 23 December 2010, 6:23 PM  
There's a "Walking Access Mapping System" at www.wams.org.nz which might be useful for identifying orienteering areas, or access to them. It shows reserves, most categories of crown land, and roads both formed and unformed. This is overlaid on either the topo map or an aerial photo, and the match is much better than Google's.

This has been produced by the "Walking Access Commission". Its objectives seem quite broad, including those of hunting and fishing. The commission is led by John Acland, I think he's a former Meat Board Chair, at any rate the Acland name is prominent in farming circles. See http://www.walkingaccess.govt.nz/about

At least around cities the access shown misses a lot of what appears to be public, perhaps because some council land is under ordinary ownership, or tracks are de facto rather than legal. On the other hand, it would not pay to be too assertive about "paper roads", which are often in a different place from any tracks on the ground.

It isn't clear how up-to-date the data is, but the system provides an easy way of asking questions about specific places. It's "under test" until the end of Feb.

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 27 December 2010, 4:10 PM  
My company Terralink won the tender to provide the platform for the WAMS system. It shows only legal crown access and is maintained monthly from the current LINZ cadastral system. It also shows Terralink aerial photography which in some cases will be higher resolution than Google.

I agree in some areas it leaves a lot to be desired from the 'actual' public access in reality. I'm sure it will cause debate and one of the WAC's functions is to make public access more well known. Your feedback will provide ways to improve the website.

If anyone wants to know the legal ownership of an area and its not clear on the WAMS system you could contact me and I could research it fairly easily (as part of my job) from the information I have access to.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 29 January 2011, 12:58 PM  
A new OCAD Service Update for OCAD10 [10.04.08 (1031)] has just been released. This one is probably worth downloading especially if you are using OCAD course setting feature. Lots of other fixes too.

Show Profile  addison Posted: 30 January 2011, 12:12 AM  
Enough is enough. Time to start a new thread.

Show Profile  idiot Posted: 31 January 2011, 8:37 AM  
Hell yes Simon, it's such a pain in the proverbial to scroll to the bottom of each page and click on the little arrow. 27 times!

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 2 February 2011, 9:03 AM  
I see no problem really - its just as easy to click on the last page link. The User will decide whether we keep on using this thread or split up into several threads/topics.

I did find having only one thread for mapping useful when my brother asked me to comment on the new mapping specs (which he subsequently forwarded on to the IOF) - it was simple just to open up one mapping thread to see what issues had arisen over the years.

An alternative could be to have a separate forum just for mapping items.



Show Profile  Michael Posted: 2 February 2011, 3:59 PM  
I feel the nitty gritty of sprint mapping would be better here Bryan, so that "Close to Home" can be more about formats and ideas.

Scale: the same thing is happening here as with traditional mapping - moving over the years from 25,000 - 20,000, now nominally 15,000 yet mostly printed at 1:10,000 and even 7500. I have been guilty of over-large sprint scales (Thunderball) but I will raise a voice for sticking to 4-5000. WHATEVER scale we choose there is stuff that will not fit. It is possible to generalise. We can still navigate.

A separate issue relates to older orienteers. I couldn't read a lot of the detail on the run even with specs and a thumb magnifier. With traditional mapping it is acceptable to print a 1:15,000 map at 1:10,000 for older classes. I think there may be a case for mapping "as if for 1:5000" and printing at somewhere round 1:3333.

"...there is a problem I think with the current mapping specs for bushes / gardens - I don't want to draw them as settlement olive - I want to differentiate them and I want to make them out of bounds. I mapped them as fight (and was told afterwards at the event last night I could have use 100%green 50%black instead but this also causes problems of readability when a small track goes through these areas."

I agree and don't like olive green either! We've got dark green/black for dense/not allowed, dark green for dense/allowed, and olive green for not dense/not allowed. So I don't think flower gardens can be dark green. We need King Solomon to make some brilliant new suggestions here.

Although supposedly "not to be used in urban areas" I support your use of 507.0 the small black dashed line for small unpaved tracks. And (as discussed elsewhere) would support 506.0 for large unpaved tracks (but there probably weren't any on the area.)


Show Profile  onemanfanclub Posted: 2 February 2011, 5:43 PM  
I don't see the need for the dark green/black colour. All it seems to do is differentiate between areas you are not allowed to go through and areas you are not allowed to go through but wouldn't be able to anyway. A distinction that almost seems to condone cheating?

I think orienteers should be able to handle the idea that the same colour symbol can represent a number of things that are physically different (settlement, garden beds, crops, hedges, whatever) but all have the same "meaning" with regards to route choice - "you can't go this way!" That just leaves the question of whether olive green is the right colour symbol.

I've never struggled with it but can understand that people with different colour accuity could have issues eg, with picking small areas out from surrounding yellow. I suppose those who say they find it close to the "slow run" or "walk" greens may also have a point (to me it is quite different). But what alternatives are suggested?


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   64   65  


Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions maptalk.co.nz