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  Neil K Posted: 27 October 2009, 11:25 AM  
Good call Paul! Bring back the IOF standard 1:15,000 to NZ.

Show Profile  robert06 Posted: 2 November 2009, 1:12 AM  
Niel have you been looking at your dads maps again?

Show Profile  MikeW Posted: 2 November 2009, 4:18 AM  
I have plenty of old UK maps at 1:20,000 - not very much detail. 1:15,000 is OK for elites but I prefer to stick to 1:10,000 because I hope most areas I O in will be technical enough to warrant it!

Show Profile  Marquita G Posted: 2 November 2009, 6:18 AM  
Why do we need one-scale-fits-all? Younger age groups with good eyesight do not need 1:7,500 maps, while half-blind old people really appreciate them. At the TONIC events this weekend course 4 and below had 1:7,500. Classes on these courses included M16, W18 and W20. They could probably cope with 1:15,000 on the same terrain, and in fact do have to cope with this at major international events like JWOC even when the terrain is very detailed. What's wrong with having different scales for different classes on the same course? A bit more work for the organisers of course but maybe something which should be done for A-grade events.

Show Profile  Richard H Posted: 3 November 2009, 5:04 AM  
Jan at world of O has documented the way to get ocad maps on to a garmin gps. I have used the second method for some time, with a good success rate.

For the latest models

For older garmin models

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 11 November 2009, 3:38 PM  
The latest update of OCAD10 (10.1.4) has just been released

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 2 December 2009, 3:17 AM  
I wonder what's happening to the ISOM revision? A thought I had recently is that thin and thick black lines for rockfaces and cliffs are not easily distinguishable especially when there's no room for the tags. Would it be better to just use black for impassable cliffs, and to show passable rockfaces with the brown (earthbank) symbol. There is no functional difference to the orienteer between a bank made of earth and a passable bank made of rock. There is a precedent in the use of the BROWN dot for a high point made of rock which doesn't have vertical sides.

Show Profile  Alistair Posted: 2 December 2009, 3:31 PM  
What would you then do about the gully symbol that uses a solid brown line?

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 3 December 2009, 3:06 AM  
Please explain further Alistair. Gullies and earth banks are present at the moment and I think we can tell the difference.

Show Profile  Alistair Posted: 3 December 2009, 4:15 AM  
Don't earth banks usually have tags? In steep areas it's not a problem as the gully symbol is perpendicular to the contours. So an earth bank in on a slope in such an area would significantly different to a gully - so long as the line is think enough to differentiate it from a form line... Flat areas are the problem then - if the cliffs etc don't have tags as your original posting specified.

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 3 December 2009, 10:09 AM  
errosion gully perhaps, as opposed to an australian gully

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 15 December 2009, 2:26 PM  
A new update for OCAD 10 (10.02.00) has just been released.

Show Profile  Richard H Posted: 16 December 2009, 12:48 AM  
One of the goodies in OCAD 10.02.00 is the ablity to export OCAD maps for use on the newer Garmin GPS's as standard. For the last 18 months or so I have been part of a team that made this possible in a non-standard way. The routines that we developed will still be useful for Garmin GPSMAP60 and 76 users but now for those with a newish Garmin and OCAD 10 it will be a lot more straightforward. If you plan in OCAD, OCAD 10.02.00 also caters for exporting courses as tracks and waypoints to the GPS.

OCAD press release...
1. KMZ Raster Export (Beta) for Garmin Custom Maps and Google Earth

Recently a new firmware (software) for the GPS devices Garmin Colorado, Dakota and Oregon has been released. This makes it possible to use your own maps (custom maps) on this GPS devices. Therefore the maps must be converted into the KMZ raster format, as described in the Garmin Blog:
With the latest service update for OCAD 10 you can directly generate such KMZ raster files. Once you have transferred these files to any of the above mentioned GPS devices with the appropriate firmware (version 3.22), you can navigate using your own maps. You can also look up this maps with Google Earth.

Show Profile  MikeW Posted: 22 December 2009, 12:19 PM  
I prefer to stick to black lines for crags and always use tags as long as detail is not being obscured. May not be too many brown linear symbols being used in NZ, but several UK areas I have mapprd already have more than enough brown linear symbols including large gullies running along the hillsides (mining activity).

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 7 January 2010, 6:55 AM  
I've been working at Naseby and thinking about some of the drawing issues in mining terrain. Any comment on...

The dry man-made ditches, some of them round the contour, some of them downhill. Last time I worked there I used 110 brown dots, but the 1988 mapping by Swedish mappers used a lot of 307 blue dashes, and I kinda like that. For: They show the bends and the junctions a lot better than the dots. The Aussies use blue dashes a lot for watercourses that given their climate hardly ever see water. Against: blue is a handy cue for "down" and it's possible to misread a blue water race.

The small pillars left after mining. The Swedes used hollow rockfaces without tags (ie black circle) for these. They took up far too much room, and last time I converted them to brown dots. (Some of them occupy less space than a brown dot even!) I am wondering about using the small boulder symbol. For: The symbol is smaller than the brown dot. You can't climb them. Against: orienteers may expect to see something dark in colour, when these are made of the light-coloured conglomerate material. However I note that an unclimbable wall of this same stuff would be shown in black.

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