News   |   Events   |   Forum   |   Photos   |   Links    


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  


Show Profile  fraser Posted: 29 October 2014, 6:21 PM  
Thanks Michael, yes I use the duplicate function a lot followed by the switch symbol function to create borders.

I see how the fill/border function works now and it has the exact same result as the duplicate/switch method.

There is an open ticket which sums up the problem and potential solution if it were possible to follow the border line rather than the centre line.

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 29 October 2014, 7:45 PM  
Paul, easy to get waterproof black. Have tried many colour leads - most don't work in the rain. Pentel is what I use
- it can be rubbed out (on good quality drafting film).

see invoice below:

Detailed Invoice:
Date Ordered: Monday 21 June, 2010

2 x Pentel Hi-Polymer Ain Pencil Lead - 0.5 mm - Blue (PENTEL C255-BL) = $6.00
2 x Pentel Hi-Polymer Ain Pencil Lead - 0.5 mm - Red (PENTEL C255-RD) = $6.00

I got this 4 years ago and I still have plenty.
With just three 0.5 colours I can do most fieldwork - I use the blue for vegetation (and canopy). I also use waterproof
pencils (Yellow - to highlight open/rough open/semi) but not necessary and green (for watercourses/water/streams). Both the yellow and green need to be sharpened often.

I fieldwork at 1:1500 (complex buildings), 1:2500 (sprint), and 1:5000 (non-sprint) - usually double the scale of the finished map so lines don't have to be too fine.

Only problem - I use a lot of drafting film.

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 29 October 2014, 8:57 PM  
I prepared the maps Michael.

In this instance the maps were exported from OCAD11 as PDFs (and don't contain any raster images). Printed using the same settings as the Thames Sprint map and NZSS maps (hence the comparison above). So I think it will come down to CMYK colour settings in the OCAD map file, how the printer processes each colour or white paper vs waterproof paper.
Here's one of the maps if anyone wants to test on a different paper/printer setup:

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 29 October 2014, 10:50 PM  
Yep, no sign of any rasterisation is there? (On Naseby there was rasterisation of the map but not the course markings, which suggested the course planning software). So the difference occurred after you sent the files to the printer? Same printer, same printer management software, not outsourced due to high workload? No doubt you've been down this track?

A different topic, but I switched on overprint preview in Adobe Reader and - green streams. My experience is that the printer management software might or might not obey the overprint settings in the pdf - and looking at the jpg versions on DOMA it seems perhaps not. Though I don't know the process for getting the maps into DOMA.

Show Profile  Dwayne Posted: 29 October 2014, 10:51 PM  
Martin - I printed the map on my printer and get good results on both Teslin and 140gm white. Difference between those two is only that the Teslin is slightly off white, all other colours register the same.

Similarities to the actual map (I got a fresh one out of the start box after my race) are the yellow and brown are identical. Blue is a darker shade overall and greens look a little too grey to me on the actual map. I thought for a brief moment that one patch of green was bare rock during the race. The greyish green is especially obvious in the gully in the south most portion of the map and just above the not mapped area (larger areas).

I thought the map was quite good overall though - except that the contour lines may have been too close together

I'll leave the maps in my bag so anyone who's interested can have a look if you see me at a race.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 30 October 2014, 1:09 AM  
I realise now that I have a preconception that "fuzziness" was the main problem (well it does come up quite often!) But the only post-printing maps I have seen are on DOMA and they were presumably scanned. I'd better wait till I see Dwayne with his bag:-)) Or pop round to the Robertsons.

Show Profile  Ad Posted: 30 October 2014, 9:32 AM  
Future Mapping?

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 30 October 2014, 11:43 AM  
Kawakawa file supplied 100% isom2000. Brand new ocad 11 nothing altered.
So it is in the suply to printer or the printer itself.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 7 November 2014, 1:38 PM  
At some stage this might need to come out from this mapping geeks thread but I'll start here. Just as it has in traditional orienteering, sprint orienteering is seeking out complex terrains. And though generalisation is still required, mappers are depicting more and more nuances of what they see on the ground. And because of the nature of urban terrain, the legibility of the tiny gap becomes an issue - is it passable or not. We talked about a case back in June. At last night's sprint there were more than a few cases of mistaken interpretation of gaps. And the 1:4000 map that was supposed to be printed on A5 was actually A4 and the scale was I guess 1:2800.

There's more than one action that can return orienteering to a route choice/navigation/running contest. Always there is generalisation and exaggeration that needs to be done, even if we mapped at 1:500. Another is the recognition (which is there in traditional orienteering) that older eyes need a larger scale (eg 1.5X). If an event has a single map edition for all ages then maybe it should be that larger scale. (How many rural events supply only a 1:15,000 map these days???) Another is that if we enjoy urban terrain with porches and steps and gaps and non-gaps, that a larger scale is required than the so-far used 5000 (almost extinct) and 4000. Comment?

Show Profile  inghamma Posted: 7 November 2014, 3:44 PM  
I agree completely with Michael. Sprint maps are becoming more and more difficult to read as mappers seem to try and put more and more, often superfluous, detail on. In my experience this seems to be a New Zealand thing, as I have seldom encountered any such problem running overseas.

The whole point of orienteering is that it is a test of map reading/interpretation, route choice and navigation. It is not a test of eyesight. Small gaps, steps etc. on sprint maps need to be emphasised so that they are clear, and many minor features should probably be omitted all together. Generalisation, generalisation.....

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 8 November 2014, 2:54 PM  
Finally got back to civilisation after living in some ex shearer's quarters for a couple of weeks.
I too tried your pdf's on my home inkjet Martin.

The file had the 'Simulate Overprint' box checked.
Printing confirmed that it overprinted blue/purple/brown/black.
Repeated the print just unchecking the 'Simulate Overprint' and it all came out great, with blue looking more blue.
So as Michael has found, the new ocad appears to have a default overprint selected which ALWAYS has to be either turned off completely or refined if some overprint (not blue) is desired.
Also the maps looked fantastic and sharp, with the colours looking great. The fuzziness in my opinion comes just down to the quality of the printer after viewing the actual final maps, it wasn't as poor as the online digitised one's looked although we do need to find the highest possible dpi printers if we want the best results.

There were some interesting consequences on my overprinted sample, provided the Blue overprint is unchecked in the map/colours menus then either normal or overprinted looked good with for and against depending on individual taste.
Brown - goes darker over green and blue which can enhance things.
Blue - Much better when unchecked. No greenish blue over yellow.
Purple - the most common use for overprint, both versions looked good. We need more of a consensus on best practice.
...and then there were a few strange consequences of the 'overprint' selected as follows;
Semi open yellow came out better on the overprint version, the white dots shrunk a little giving a much better result.
Green, strangely, was effected also. The vertical line symbols became slightly thinner.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 27 November 2014, 1:09 PM  
Haven't got time right now, but in the age-old debate about map scales, there's some data about what people LIKE, in the form of candidates for the "course of the year" run by World of O. Anyone like to visit all the maps online and tabulate 1:15,000vs10,000 for the traditional maps, and 1:5,000vs4,000 for the sprint ones? The link is (PS There are some NZ ones there, thank you Rolf.)

And in that connection, any thoughts on what scale you would use if you were starting Naseby afresh right now?

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 27 November 2014, 9:41 PM  
Did another sprint tonight. Sprints (in spite of their unfortunate name) could be sooo good for us oldies who keep orienteering going by our sheer numbers. As we slow up we lose that thrill of being able to outrun our navigation ability, and the need to find that knife-edge between too fast and not fast enough. We COULD get it in the more detailed mapping of the sprint spec. IF ONLY we could read the bloody maps.

When is the message going to sink in? The sprint spec is written for YOUNG people. For example the thickness of the small path symbol 507 is 0.18mm. That's the size of the symbol in the 1:15,000 traditional spec, which nobody in NZ uses any more (except for the occasional elite event). We're all on 1:10,000 now where the symbol is 0.27mm and the dash length and gaps correspondingly larger.

So for older age groups, and events with a mixture of ages, an area mapped to the sprint spec at 1:5000 should be printed at 1:3333 or so. And (although the spec suggests that 4000 should be unusual) if the area is mapped at 1:4000 it should be printed at around 1:2666. I wear glasses stronger than my prescription AND I carry a magnifier on my thumb, but I'm sick of this stop-start activity that I'm forced into. It's not orienteering.

Show Profile  Dwayne Posted: 28 November 2014, 9:16 AM  
Nice rant Michael. I totally agree - I have enough technology at the moment to compensate for compromised vision (because of my compromised speed), but "can't see" that lasting too long into the future I _always_ print my training maps at larger scale (even the sprint ones) because they are so much more fun to use.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 2 December 2014, 8:43 PM  
What people like (as represented by the World of O course of the year entries). Of course there may be bias from whoever selected these. Maps where I couldn't see the scale excluded, but I don't think this would create bias.

Sprints. 1:5000, 4. 1:4000, 16.

Traditional. 1:15,000, 7. 1:10,000, 23.

There were also 4 at 1:7500.

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