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: 16 February 2012, 5:30 AM  
I didn't make it clear I want to get the control points onto a GPS as waypoints.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 17 February 2012, 12:02 PM  
Non-technical interlude. I think you'll enjoy looking at

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 18 February 2012, 6:55 AM  
The curved cutline problem is fixed in V11, at least for the case that I most recently encountered. And another annoyance, rubbersheeting now respects protected symbols.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 18 February 2012, 9:47 AM  
Nice to see Mark Roberts is thriving in Queensland and his mapping skills are being used outside of orienteering.

I haven't worked out a solution for exporting waypoints from OCAD and retains the original control number. Suggest you contact the OCAD team and see if they can provide it as an option. You can export the numbers with the circles but the text is also treated as a waypoint.

I can import a GPX waypoint with its number into OCAD in one step. Would be great to be able to export the same way.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 18 February 2012, 10:08 AM  
I have off-set printed around 15 maps in the last 5 years. None were orienteering, but several had contour lines on them.

All were printed using CMYK process from PDF files (what most printers want). Many had colour photos added using Adobe Illustrator and for printing those images accurate registration is crucial. Results have always been excellent. Modern computer generated images/plates can be made which are far superior than they were a few years ago so accurate registration should be straight forward.

We have got very lazy drawing maps then laser printing them. Laser printing is a CMYK process and the top colour kills anything under it so you can happily slap one colour on top of another and only get what you want (WYSIWYG). However, it doesn't work like that using spot colours - you get everything mixed together (ie. a blue lake place on top of a yellow background results in a "green" lake).

The cartographer has to carefully draw the map so the background area colours do not cover other area colours.

The other solution is to enter zeros in the right hand OCAD colour table where you want to kill any of the 6 spot colours. If accurate registration doesn't occur a thin white line may be visible around the object.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 18 February 2012, 10:19 AM  
Regarding costs for off set printing. Can't help you too much there as the client gets the bill, not me. I can tell you that metal plates are no longer used and the cost of "plates" (actually an acetate-like film) are about 25% of what they used to be - now around $30 for A3 plate. Plates are used only once then discarded, unlike their metal predecessors.

With offset printing the cost is all in producing the first map - therafter you are only paying for paper, ink, and machinery running costs.

Paul Ireland may be able to help you more.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 26 February 2012, 11:00 AM  
Today's course reminded me of a feature in both ISOM and ISSOM that I think is illogical. We could (still within the specifications) get round it. What do others think of the following:

519 Stone wall, says "a stone wall or stone faced bank". I think, great to have a symbol for a stone fence like they have in Central Otago, but why use it for a bank? Isn't a stone-faced bank effectively a passable or impassable rockface, which we already have symbols for?

But there IS a difference in appearance and ease of passage between a one-sided wall and a double-sided wall. We could, if we chose, refrain from using 519 for one-sided walls.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 12 March 2012, 8:16 AM  
Elsewhere, The Map Guy wrote: 3200 waypoints were recorded in situ... very little traditional fieldwork drawing on a map board

How do you relate waypoints to features Jim? With just a few I can write the number on my map in the field (dropping the first digit helps). With a moderate amount I can write notes round the edge of my basemap. But I suspect 3200 would use up all your edges, even with multiple sheets at fieldwork scale. Separate notebook? Dictaphone? Or have you got a GPS with an easy way to store a comment? Even to change waypoint type, mine takes far too many button pushes to be practical.

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 12 March 2012, 8:47 AM  
I'll email you a copy of a day's work off my map board Michael. I just recorded the waypoint number and what it was using IOF symbols on the map board - bit what we used to write as "control descriptions" on a clip card.

The base map (contours and/or previous day's work) was on the map board as you would traditionally use.

Clearly 3200 waypoints were not done in one day, but 100-150 was not unusual. The GPS tracks (between waypoints) gave the line of a linear feature (e.g. gully line). Waypoints were reference points only - one heck of a lot more accurate than when I tried to map the same area without the GPS - using supplied contours.

It is very quick and OziExplorer is great software.

Pity you didn't get to the event Michael - I'll send you a map

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 12 March 2012, 10:34 AM  
Thanks Jim. So you put less on your mapboard at a time, to leave more space for waypoint notes, using a shorthand based on control description symbols. Probably some standard ways of working so you can tell which parts of the track represent linear features.

And the role of OziExplorer?

This message was edited by Michael on 12 March 2012, 6:41 PM

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 12 March 2012, 11:14 AM  
OziExplorer is used to upload/download data to/from the GPS. I can easily edit the waypoint data (notes,renumber waypoints, if required). It also alows me to use an orthophoto or the original base map (or another map).

I then export the tracks and waypoints as a GPX file which is then imported into OCAD.


Show Profile  Michael Posted: 21 April 2012, 5:48 AM  
With the perspective of time maybe mappers could discuss the national sprint map. There was a protest about missing impassable barriers - and barriers and tiny gaps can be decisive in an urban sprint.

The most interesting site was control 104. It was shown as being inside a building corner, the description actually said inside a paved area corner. If you approached from the SE or SW you arrived at what looked like a paved inside building corner but no control. It was on an upper level (one storey up) where there was a balcony and another similar paved building corner where the control was.

The mapper has explained that he separated the upper and lower levels with the "building outline" line. I've only seen this used as a border for the building symbol, not as a stand-alone barrier. In the range of line widths from easily crossed to obstacle to impassable its near the thin end (0.14mm). What do you think?

Any other interesting sprint mapping issues? I found it hard to spot olive green in very narrow building gaps (control 137). Could be my eyesight (should older sprinters get an enlarged maps as for classic orienteering?) but I saw someone younger using the olive. Two shades of brown paving. The spec says to use a darker brown for "rural" areas but somewhere I've seen a suggestion to distinguish traffic'd from traffic-free areas. Two sizes of small tree, are we going too far with detail?

Show Profile  R2 Posted: 21 April 2012, 2:10 PM  
try this link for an intersting way of mapping a multilevel building and parking lots

Show Profile  rossmaxmo Posted: 21 April 2012, 11:12 PM  
Sound's like the course setter got the description for 104 right (you're not supposed to use building inside corner any-more, the control desc. should be describing where the control actually stands eg - see the WOC map from last year: Sounds like just a mapping issue.

The building outline symbol should definitely not be used to represent anything other than a building outline. Impassable wall or rock face (depending on what it looks like should've been used).

I haven't seen an actual map from nats sprint, only on Route Gadget so I don't know where 137 is, but as long as the olive meets the minimum width requirement, it should be OK??

Why was the map scale 1:5000? From what I can see the area used for the courses can easily fit on A4 at 1:4000 (I hope it wasn't just to fit on those fancy borders), it would have made the mapper's job a lot easier, and might have avoided a lot of this hoo-hah. Although ISSOM says you're allowed to use 1:4000 or 1:5000, you rarely see 1:5000 maps any-more, especially when the terrain is as detailed in places as at NZ champs.

I don't think the mapper can solely be blamed for these issues. The IOF controller is responsible for making sure everything is up to standard - has the IOF controller ever done a sprint course?? If not did they delegate someone with experience to field-check the map? From what I hear, the map was ready late last year?? That leaves plenty of time for revisions.

Also, from what I've heard and seen, the mapping issues make the courses more than unfair enough to invalidate. I looked at winsplits and there is a lot of time loss throughout most of the field in many grades on controls where mapping ambiguity played a part. The protest should have been upheld and the courses invalidated, especially since it was a WRE. It's nonsense to say that the first 3 weren't affected, when from looking at the splits, they were! This approach doesn't make sense anyway because the issues affect many runners and therefore everyone's world ranking points! Even if the winner lost time on the control in protest, it still affects world ranking points because their time changes in relation to other runners who get lucky or don't have a problem, and the points are based on time. I don't know what went wrong in that meeting... I hope that those in charge of making such decisions were impartial i.e. they won't be swayed by thoughts of the amount of money 'wasted' making the map, organising the event or paying to hold the WRE - or be in charge of making decisions on protests about issues that were their responsibility in the first place to avoid.

I just realised most of what I wrote belongs in another thread, but I already wrote it, so it's going here

I also read that the mapper says 'I think the printed scale of the map caused a slight problem making the line look thinner than it was shown. When i visited the site with Rob C the IOF controller and Allan the event controller it looked to me as though I had drawn it as an edge of paving symbol, as the line looked quite thin but on checking the map file that night it was indeed a building outline' This statement leads me to believe that there were some other problems, I'm only guessing here but:

1 - Sounds like the map was mapped at 1:4000 scale and then resized to 1:5000 for whatever reason without scaling the symbol sizes at the same time. The symbol sizes after printing should be the same size after printing regardless of the sprint scale - if you hold a 1:4000 scale map and a 1:5000 scale map next to each other the impassable wall symbol should be exactly the same thickness to the naked eye.

2 - The fact that upon checking the control site during the protest process, it appeared to look like an edge of paved area symbol rather than a building outline sound's a bit fishy - they should not appear to be any different at all, the symbols are basically the same, a black line 0.14mm in width (this is LESS THAN HALF the size of the minimum impassable feature size - 0.40mm). Perhaps the standard symbol set in OCAD was tampered with, to adjust symbol sizes in attempt to make things fit? - I don't know.

Show Profile  rossmaxmo Posted: 21 April 2012, 11:20 PM  
I just saw that 5m contours were used, wtf - how is this possible?? That totally goes against ISSOM. I wanted to use them at Woodford Iona Nationals last year, we applied to IOF for an exemption from ISSOM for the WRE, but it was denied. I don't see any reason at all why you would need to use 5m contours on such a flat area.

Come on people.

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