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  Martin Posted: 17 May 2011, 6:17 AM  
don't think so, they would need to be converted using a GIS program first

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 17 May 2011, 7:47 AM  
Try googling 'Convert SID to jpg' or 'Convert ECW to JPG' - there may be freeware which will do the conversion. I have access to software at work which can perform the conversion (eg MrSID Geoviewer then export to TIF then convert TIF to JPG, or FME translate SID, ECW or any format to any other format)

Show Profile  footprints Posted: 27 May 2011, 6:05 AM  
Two useful programs to try for converting raster files are Irfanview and ERViewer ( both free).

When you download Irfanview you will need to also download the plug-ins to get the SID & ecw viewer. Irfanview has lots of other options for processing the images as well - fine rotation, resizing, colour changes. It does not support georeferencing of the image.

ER Viewer
part of the ER Mapper set of programs , can handle very big images, and also supports georeferenced files

Show Profile  nh Posted: 30 May 2011, 9:57 AM  
I get an error message when I use the "Import from GPS" function on OCAD9. As soon as I click on this button a window appears that says "Unable to connect GPS!" The same thing happens when I click on "Connect GPS" and "Get waypoints"/"Get tracks". I have to save the GPS file as a gpx on my computer somewhere and load click "Load" under "gpx file". However, the GPS device connects fine to other programs on the computer, it only has troubles on OCAD.

Does anyone else have troubles with this, or know how to fix it?

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 30 May 2011, 4:34 PM  
Strange but true. See the GPS "how-to" on the OCAD website Nick. I think you need the professional version of OCAD to connect your GPS directly.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 30 May 2011, 4:40 PM  
See also thread "Import GPS" last post in March this year

Show Profile  Kenny Posted: 9 June 2011, 12:19 AM  
Is your GPS a Garmin? My Garmin eTrex Vista H works fine with this function. Haven't bothered trying my Magellans as OCAD says the feature is for Garmin only.

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 9 June 2011, 9:25 AM  
anyone heard of any progress with ISOM 201x?
According to the IOF August 2010 14th ICOM, Trondheim document (try saying that with a mouthful of food) there are a number of interesting possible issues/changes that are being considered...
*Poor Laser printing quality is a threat to the advantages of digital cartography.
*Detailed Lidar base maps and Mobile Mapping are a threat to generalisation mapping requirements, encouraging enlargements.
*Case studies are being undertaken for more abrasion and water resistant maps.
*POSSIBLE change to the following... rocky areas; using a paler black, new boulder field and stoney ground representation.Earth landforms; new graphic for formlines? new special land feature.Vegetation; 3 or 4 levels of vegetation? new graphic representaion for undergrowth, new semi open, and new prominant vegetation feature.
Manmade feature; good/bad runability narrow ride, new prominant feature.
Water Body; Impassible as per ISSOM, seasonal pond and watercourse. New promnt feature.

So there could be a few subtle changes on the way eventually. I like the possible concept of a difference between the black of tracks, veg boundaries etc, to that of any rock symbol. Also the possibility of getting rid of that horrible green stripe once and for all!
I would still have liked find a way of defining difference between very large and small dot knolls. ie, two sizes? Small formline knolls look weak too.

The document states that one of the strengths of ISOM is; KISS (keep it simple and stupid) I'm hoping that was just a typo)

Show Profile  HeadHoncho Posted: 3 July 2011, 4:34 AM  
From the IOF:

The ISOM revision project has been delayed.

The work of revising the International Specification for Orienteering Maps has turned out to be more complicated and time consuming than expected, and there have also been other matters that has needed attention.

There has been progress on printing and colour, but the IOF Map Commission is still not ready for the second consultation with the member federations. This consultation was scheduled for late 2009 in the first project plan.

A revised project plan will be published after the commission meeting in France in August.

We are sorry about the delay.

HÃ¥vard Tveite

IOF Map Commission Chairman

Show Profile  Svend Posted: 1 September 2011, 1:09 PM  
The IOF Map Commission has now published the evaluation of maps
used for international events 2009 and 2010 including NZ maps
used for Oceania Champs in 2009. The sprint map, Kairaki Beach,
Craigieburn and Humpy Dumpy.

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 2 September 2011, 12:44 AM  
Do you have a link? - I can't find it on the IOF map Commission web site. What did the IOF evaluator say?

Show Profile  Casser Posted: 2 September 2011, 1:54 AM  
here is a link:

Show Profile  Svend Posted: 2 September 2011, 2:41 AM
The evaluation was done by Sergio Grifoni.
"Sprint map: Print quality looks OK, due to the fine colour dots.
Symbols are in general correct with some mistake" (he mentions the green circle being the wrong size and something about contour and formline)

"Middle and long: Long at 1:10000 !!! There are three maps all at the
1:10000 scale. Two maps 4-colour offset printing. Printing very poor."
(I think he has that wrong)
"One map (Kairaki Beach) 4-colour non offset: brown is close to be orange, so it is hardly readable on yellow and half-yellow. Besides,
yellow is not according to specifications, and this fact makes the situation even worse.
In rocky areas (Humpy Bumpy map) it is difficult to understand if boulders and cliffs touch each other or not. Since most of the map is yellow, it would have been better to use 75% yellow.
Blue, green and yellow are not according to specifications, but reasonable.
In one map there is a new symbol: 50% brown areas in the forest.
Occasionally, two formlines between contours and some extra form line.
A wonderful fieldwork wasted by poor printing and colour choices!
Here again: did the Event Advisor accept the new symbol and the bad printing of Kairaki Beach and Humpy Bumpy?"
My(Svend)comment: It must be remembered that Sergio Grifoni, in the past has got his evaluation wrong. A few years ago he criticized two
european maps produced by two well-known mappers. Both maps and SG's
comments were soon removed from the IOF Map Commissions web page.


Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 2 September 2011, 2:06 PM  
So what can we make of it?
The map commission is consistent in its critique and recognizes several very common problems with maps all around the world. Some of them you would have to agree with, others may be a little contentious. If you download the 20+mb 2009 evaluations the commission is very critical of several highest level maps made by top mappers, so we are not alone.
Breaking it down you get similar problems or issue repeating themselves in the quest for perfect conformity&

Colour: Adhering to the ISOM 2000/ISSOM colours appears to be a big problem, and you have to admit they are correct about the orangey coloured light brown contours on Humpty Bumbty and the dark orangey yellow open areas on Kairaki Beach. Ive noticed that on a lot of our maps. I have no idea how this has come about but I do know that often I get a map file and the colours have been altered to suit a particular printer. Problem is that the master file is not put back to normal. Really the master copy should never be altered. Some clubs are probably good with this, others are fairly blasé. We really need to get more involved with our printers to ensure we get the right colour palette.

Symbol Sizes: Is another common complaint from the map police. Some of their discoveries were indeed quite bad, others very minor. With some objects I wonder if a problem that was not there with the old specifications, has actually been created by an increase in size going too far, hence it almost becomes common practice to stray away from the correct size.

Paper Quality: Seems to come up a lot, and it always will until we find and settle on a small choice of papers and thicknesses. They didnt like it when the paper was too thick either. Ive noticed that very glossy papers, although they are good quality and print nicely, tend to be the ones which fail the quickest at the creases.

Form lines: Too many unnecessary ones is another common complaint. Strangely where they picked on some of the Swiss maps quite a lot, I felt mostly that they did show additional useful information. But yes there were some useless ones.
A very common criticism of the commission was having two form lines between contours. This is supposed to be a no-no, but I can now see it actually happens more than you think. Ill have to admit that at times I am guilty. Problem occurs sometimes on complex terrain where no matter how you alter the above, the bellow, and the middle, you still need another to represent whats happening, and if you leave something out it is just wrong!

Generalisation: Always the big battle for the fieldworker, what to leave on or off, how to show it best graphically for legibility. Work in progress for everyone to be the perfect mapper. Small problem becomes a major if it is for a 1:15000 map!

Scale: Where do you start and finish with this issue? I can see why the attraction of 1:15000 for long distance, because they want to hold onto the traditional form of O in regard to long route choice legs and less complexity. But there are many problems and to me it comes down to having to purpose make a map intended for that scale. The same terrain used for a middle distance, and for the other grades would normally be at 1:10000 and by todays mapping standards would almost always need to be mapped at greater detail than for a 1:15000 map. No one wants to make two different maps of the same terrain. I think it needs to be remembered that it is also the runners job to simplify or discard detail when needed. It is part of the skill set.
I think this also highlights that we should put more focus on good course setting for the appropriate format. Bring back the NZOF course setting competition?

So really the commission is doing it's job, which without it would be anachy. Not that I agree with everything but am at least trying. Hopefully some of the problems will be fixed with ISOM201X!

Our biggest issue to improve on is printing quality.
That's my 2c

Show Profile  Ellmo1769 Posted: 2 September 2011, 3:14 PM  
@ Paul
You can no longer use 2c or even 5c in NZ. At least not in a physical form. Also in using AOC rules for the course setting competition - you suggested so you organise it :-P

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