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  Paul I Posted: 12 September 2015, 9:06 PM  
I still feel bad. I do wonder if mine has some differences in quality as I think it's fairly good. I mostly use HP inkjet colorlok paper. not the cheapest but not one of those specialty smooth coated expensive papers either.
I have the Officejet pro 8600 Plus.
Have noticed a new Epson printer that claims to be great , like they all do. Poor that there is nowhere to get sample prints in this industry.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 18 September 2015, 8:00 PM  
Some useful features in OCAD 12 beta. Make a rectangle, edit a rectangle keeping rectangularity will address some urban mapping bugbears. Available to version 11 users (you'll need your licence info). Haven't yet seen anything as handy as the reshape tool in version 11 though.

Show Profile  addison Posted: 19 September 2015, 1:56 PM  
Michael,

What is the best arrangement for clubs these days with OCAD? Many still sit on OCAD 9 for multi user purposes.

What about for an individual?

Cheers
Simon

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 21 September 2015, 3:06 PM  
The only thing I can say in a public forum is that the OCAD licence is individual one. The NZ and International federations seem to have made no progress in seeking a better arrangement for clubs.

An OCAD 11 licence is about $950 at current exchange rates. There's a starter edition at $300 which would be fine for starting, but it has some restrictions. It can't import a GPX file for example.

I don't think we'll make progress until Open Orienteering Mapper fixes some issues to do with the real-world links. Which might have happened, have you got anything to add, Fraser?

Show Profile  fraser Posted: 21 September 2015, 9:09 PM  
I believe the issue you are referring to Michael is "Opening and aligning .ocd maps". The project has now moved to github and the bug report is here https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/issues/373

This is scheduled to be fixed in version 0.6.1, no date set for that, but v0.6.0 is due by end of October.

Shouldn't be any problems if you are starting a new mapping project with OpenOrienteering though.



This message was edited by fraser on 21 September 2015, 9:10 PM

Show Profile  fraser Posted: 4 October 2015, 10:34 AM  
The maps used for the GPS tracking for this weekends world cup in Switzerland appear to have shaded relief. I assume this is not on the actual competition map though.

https://www.tulospalvelu.fi/gps/private/20151002_WCF_L_HE/?v=m3

I haven't noticed this effect before but in the new OCAD 12 I see there is a new hillshading function so maybe that is how it was done. Can anyone shed any more light on this? (pun intended)


Incidentally on the middle distance map the shading seems to me to be from the wrong direction, especially around the first half a dozen controls, creating a multistable perception illusion (thanks wikipedia). In other words up looks like down and vice versa. https://www.tulospalvelu.fi/gps/private/20151003_WCF_M_HE/?v=m3



Show Profile  Michael Posted: 6 October 2015, 4:44 PM  
In the goldmining areas of the Oz Champs week, the planners/controllers felt bound by the OA rules on scales - essentially stick to the IOF. Many people my age found the 1:10,000 maps hard to read. And we are not a minority - the biggest class of the carnival.

But here's another view of the scale/legibility conundrum:-)) https://www.facebook.com/177518995597572/photos/a.180287198654085.49663.177518995597572/932369230112541/?type=3&hc_location=ufi

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 30 October 2015, 11:33 AM  
OCAD version 12 is now available. Price is about NZ890, or NZ740 to upgrade from v10, or NZ580 to upgrade from v11. There may be advantages from ordering thru Ken in Australia, will probably depend on the vagaries of the exchange rates. Checking now.

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 30 October 2015, 2:50 PM  
And still an individual licence rather than a club one?

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 30 October 2015, 4:25 PM  
Yes, organisational licence only available for academic bodies. Ken says his price is no more than the listed OCAD price, and you can pay by NZ bank xfr. But he hints that a maintenance fee is in the wind, he doesn't have details yet.

Show Profile  fraser Posted: 25 November 2015, 2:32 PM  
I talked to a few people about mapping an area with scattered green vegetation and it was suggested that "404 Rough open land with scattered trees" can be used but with green dots rather than white dots. Is my understanding and reading of ISOM correct, and does anyone have an example of it being used on an actual map?

I do like the idea behind it as it makes more sense in describing this particular terrain. I tried using it on a training map but I used 60% green because 100% seemed too heavy. Interested to hear anything further.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 25 November 2015, 4:35 PM  
I use it extensively for rogaine and MTBO maps. I am sure this represents slow scattered or young trees more intuitively than white dots. I agree that it is too heavy as specified, and like you have tried reducing the green; but now prefer a smaller dot of full green 0.4mm. Oddly the spec says 70% yellow but I prefer 50% yellow.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 25 November 2015, 6:10 PM  
Small areas using white dots in 404 are barely seen. Light green dots would show up much better than white ones.

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 26 November 2015, 3:31 PM  
I came across an example when mapping in New Caledonia.
Most of one map was scrubby small scattered vegetation and
was shown by green dots over rough open.

I ended up changing it to white dots because:
- in my opinion less glaring on the eye when green dots covered over 80% of the map
- there was an orchard on the map that looked the same as the rest but was distinctly different and I was able to show the difference using most of map rough white dots, orchard green dots
- there were areas of green slow or walk strips drawn over the top of the rough open/scattered trees (green lines over green dots was an eyesaw) and these areas (green stripes over rough scattered) were distinct compared with the rough scattered with no stripes) and needed to be shown

The use of green dots I think should depend on the area and I think requires some experimenting/sample prints to confirm that the end result has better clarity.


Show Profile  Michael Posted: 26 November 2015, 3:55 PM  
Agree that green stripes over green dots is terrible. Green stripes over white dots isn't too flash either though there are many areas where it's technically necessary (coastal dunes). Returning to the stripeless situation, can all non-mappers instantly distinguish 402 and white-dot 404?


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