Forum   |   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   64   65   66   67   68   69   70  


Show Profile  Michael Posted: 19 November 2008, 4:21 AM  
Map Guy, could you amplify that rule of thumb? Are you suggesting examining many many objects in some way? And what sort of sloppy drawing are you referring to?

I would think I do the same sort of drawing on the one map that has the partial map problem as I do on all the others (which don't!) I usually extract the A4 or A3 part of the map using a rectangular cutting object (which I keep in the file off to one side); and then I use a curved cut line on the result to make way for legend etc.

Its important to say that curved cut lines are normally OK; but the maths must be fairly complex so I'm not surprised there is the odd bug.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 19 November 2008, 5:45 AM  
It's my "rule of thumb". I don't religously check every object, but visually compare the cutout piece with the original map. If I detect problems I select that item and look at the points. If required, I'll manually add extra points, then regenerate the partial map. Hopefully, I'll get it right.

I'm not inferring by any means that you would ever draw a sloppy map Michael - far from it. But inexperienced OCAD cartographers often do. They cut corners and whilst it may visually look OK when printed and on the screen, but when it comes to future editing (e.g. cutting out a partial map or changing vegetation at a later refieldworking) problems arise. An example is one area colour partially overlaying another one. It often becomes a nightmare for future map updating

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 19 November 2008, 6:51 AM  
Thanks, I might try that on my problem map next time I want to do an extract. It covers The Akatarawa Forest out to the Kapiti Coast, and has rather a lot of contours.

I'm sure we each have drawing habits good and bad which are worth discussing. I too don't like coloured areas on top of other areas, and will use curve following to avoid it. That's not to say I never have an overlap, but just keep them to a minimum.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 19 November 2008, 7:46 AM  
And another source of handy tricks is the OCAD "Howtos" on their website. Looked at the new ones just now and found some shortcut ways of making a short gap in a line, for example.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 20 November 2008, 2:57 PM  
Another method to help tidy up the edges of a partial map is to first export the original map at 300dpi. This gives you a template which can be imported under the partial map. OCAD9 allows you to be selective about how much map you can export as a template. OCAD8 gives the whole map which you can crop in other software if required.

Either hide the icons you don't want, or turn on hatching for area symbols. Manually tidy up the edges. You'll probably have to dim the template or else you'll get horribly confused with the partial map.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 28 November 2008, 9:50 AM  
I heard recently of someone putting a paper map into OCAD - before re-fieldworking it. I thought we had demolished that one! Pleeeease don't!

Show Profile  Neil K Posted: 29 November 2008, 3:30 PM  

Show Profile  addison Posted: 30 November 2008, 2:17 AM  
I put a few paper maps into OCAD - purely so that we didn't have to hold such large stocks of old maps any more.

We then decided to update one of these, so it was good as it was already in OCAD. Sure - it wouldn't be as fast as doing it straight from the old map being re-fieldworked, but at least parts could be blown up etc.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 1 December 2008, 5:41 AM  
I usually convert a existing paper map into OCAD BEFORE fieldworking it. It gives a good base map to work with, and adding the updates isn't a big problem.

In the past, if our club has virtually no maps (i.e. we've run out of fenced maps, but heaps of unfenced left), this has bought us time until a new version becomes available.

I would have thought by now (after OCAD being used in NZ for 14+ years) there should be NO paper maps in use now so this "problem" should have died a natural death.

Show Profile  Svend Posted: 1 December 2008, 12:53 PM  
I am pleased to hear that I am not the only one who draws the map in OCAD before fieldworking it. Also thank you Map Guy for your comments
on the symbols issue.

Paper maps may not be in use now for the simple reason that the forest has been felled. Two of our early maps have not been changed to OCAD because we are waiting for the next generation forest to mature. One of our early black & white maps was retired for a number of years and is now been produced in OCAD. Part of another paper map,
Dolamore Park, was this year drawn in OCAD for a school map.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 2 December 2008, 11:17 AM  
OK, I've got something to learn here. What's the benefit of an OCAD printout for fieldwork, that makes up for drawing some parts of the map twice?

Show Profile  Svend Posted: 2 December 2008, 12:36 PM  
I like to have a base map that I can read in a dark forest. I often ad things to the map from Google Earth before starting on the fieldwork.
If I use the photogrammetry as a base map with drafting film over it
I find it difficult to tell the difference betwen green and black lines.
My experience is that a few extra hours spent on the computer preparing a good base map can save many hours in the field.

I use methods which suits me and the map I am working on but I'm
not saying that others should do the same.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 4 December 2008, 1:31 PM  
I agree with Svend - I like clarity. What do you use for your base map Michael if it isn't an enlarged photocopy of the original paper map (whether it be on paper, or better still OHP sheet)?

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 4 December 2008, 2:57 PM  
An enlarged photocopy of the original paper map. Yes I have tried copying onto OHP but the colours weren't dense enough for my liking. But when I tried laminating (primarily to stop it stretching with moisture) I found that it intensified the colours too.

Svend I take your point about combining with newer/other info before going out. Actually I haven't had the luxury of photogrammetry since pre-Google times. Back in those days I would insist on a recent photo at fieldwork scale, and (after registering my tracing paper to the basemap) would trace whatever I could see from the photo before going into the field.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 13 January 2009, 4:36 PM  
The Naseby maps mention fieldwork by Michael Wood and Carsten Joergensen, without paying tribute to the original mapping by Kjell Melander for APOC 1984. This original work was outstanding, and the depiction for 1:15,000 of some of NZ's most complex terrain has made things much easier for later updaters.

Those who have puzzled over the 1988 edition may be surprised at this statement, but the map picked up many errors after Melander and a couple of associates returned to do a revision and extension. I suspect the later cartography which was done by a non-orienteering organisation; and misinterpretations when inputting to OCAD.

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   66   67   68   69   70  

Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions