maptalk.co.nz Forum   |   Links    

  Forum

Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  

Mapping

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 5 May 2006, 4:48 PM  
Where does it "clearky states" I can not see it anywhere??

It does say superimposed.

No I was not trying to be funny.




Show Profile  Nah Posted: 5 May 2006, 5:28 PM  
Nah!

I have to admit, Svend, your getting steez handed to you by the Greg.

And I have another point to make. How about you take your head out of your arse, Michael, and get over the fact that some people want to discuss other things in this forum.

So Nah!

Show Profile  addison Posted: 5 May 2006, 6:11 PM  
Michael you want to know if we could run through the olive green. Olive green was out of bounds. You could however run through the streets within this olive green, as it was mapped as streets.

This message was edited by Simon Addison on 5 May 2006, 7:19 PM

Show Profile  Alistair Posted: 5 May 2006, 11:08 PM  
To Answer Michael's request for a European opinion.

Firstly, everyone here considers the olive-green areas to be OOB. Am pretty sure organisers don't specify this in race invitations/programmes. But maybe there is something in the Swedish rules but I'm not going to go off and start reading those :-P

But, the large tracks/roads in olive-green areas are not generally considered OOB - but of course unless the road/track goes right through such an area and out the other side it would be pretty useless to use. This is generally because you cannot determine from the map if the olive-green areas are bordered by a road or if it is one area disected by a road...

Maybe the NZOF should change the rule - like other people have said here - it's generally private property and thus OOB. And most importantly it should be the mapper and course planner who should decide whether or not a road/track through such an area should be:
a: on the map and thus probably traversable.
b: if it is on the map - the course planner can use XXX symbols to indicate if it's not traversable.



Show Profile  Michael Posted: 14 June 2006, 2:00 PM  
Some comments on the QB maps.

I think Shanks's Pony might have been clearer with less use of the distinctive boundary dots. The very wiggly nature of the manuka edges meant the dots didn't pick out the shapes clearly, and lots of black diverts the eye from other features.

I was impressed by the sprint map.

The symbol sizes on Otakanini Topu were seriously undersize - again! Not only were they not increased 50% over standard as required for 1:10,000, but at least the U depression seems to be smaller than the 1:15,000 size. This was made worse by the use of rough open with undergrowth stripes on the inland side of the road, where it was actually low-visibility forest. What does it take to get the message through on symbol sizes? For those of us with less than perfect eyes this takes us back to the early maps when you read the description, and compass-paced into the circle and hunted around...

There was something funny with the sandy ground too, although it didn't affect my (any?) course. The dots were too close together and the raster processes of the printer have created a moire fringe effect.

Waioneke was clearer to read but the U depression still seems too small for a 10,000 map by my measurements - perhaps there's an undersize symbol set being used which was enlarged for Waioneke and not for Otak.

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 14 June 2006, 5:57 PM  
so when does rough open with undergrowth become low vis forest?
alot of the time you could see over the trees.

There was a difference between where we entered the other side of the road in the morning & where we exited.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 14 June 2006, 7:29 PM  
how tall are you Martin??

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 14 June 2006, 8:06 PM  
taller than you greg

Show Profile  Marquita G Posted: 15 June 2006, 6:32 PM  
The Otakanini map was drawn in Ocad using the existing handdrawn map as a template - it was not refieldworked at the time of drawing. Presumably the cartographer had to use small symbols to fit everything in as he would not have known what to leave on and what to leave off. Enlarging the symbols is a rather onerous task and I think it will have to be accompanied by a fieldcheck as I doubt all the symbols will fit any more.

The sand on Otakanini came out almost black on the first print - no idea why, I hadn't changed anything since the last print when it came out fine. I have struck this before, once the green stripe on Pot Luck came out solid green. We re-printed the 3 courses who were affected by the black sand after copying a sand symbol from another map.

Waioneke was drawn with the standard 1:10,000 size symbol set from Ocad. I do confess that I reduced the small depression u and the dot knoll to 90% of correct size.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 15 June 2006, 6:56 PM  
why?

Show Profile  Marquita G Posted: 19 June 2006, 2:33 AM  
To improve legibility.

Show Profile  Svend Posted: 19 June 2006, 9:30 AM  
I can understand why you reduced the dimension of some point symbols
because there simply isn't enough room to fit them in but reducing the symbols is not the right solution to the problem.

The ISOM states: "All line widths and symbol dimensions must be kept
strictly to their specified value."
Another part of the specification which is often ignored: "The gap between two fine lines of the same colour, in brown or black:0.15mm"

This problem will always exist when the cartographer is someone other than the fieldworker.

Looking at the Waioneke map the land forms are very detailed with
what I think is execessive use of form lines. When you have two hills
side by side, there is generally a saddle between them and often a
reentrant on each side of the saddle but is it really necessary to show the saddle and the reentrants with a formline?

Who decided to add a large depression to the map? It wasn't there on the original map used in January 2005. The depression is on the south side of a cresent shaped hill. The formline showing the depression is too close to the contour line and there is hardly room for the two slope tags. The depression may be there in the terrain
but it should not be on the map. Also the dot knoll on the East end of the hill is touching the contour line and like the depression does
it really need to be there? It certainly does not improve legibility.











Show Profile  andrew b Posted: 20 June 2006, 2:19 PM  

"The depression may be there in the terrain
but it should not be on the map."
If it is there then shouldnt it be mapped?
Everyone has different eyesight but how much should we allow for it?

Show Profile  Svend Posted: 20 June 2006, 7:37 PM  
It does not comply with the mapping specification. For that reason alone it should not be there, and that is probably why the mapper
didn't have it on the original map.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 24 June 2006, 9:31 PM  
The purpose of this thread is to improve mapping, so I make some suggestions resulting from QB.

Controllers should know how to establish whether the symbol sizes are correct. While they can potentially all be modified individually, the most usual error is that they are not increased by 50% for 1:10,000 maps. The U depression can be checked with a ruler, under a magnifying glass if required. It should be 1.2mm across for 1:10,000. While you can't exactly tell the size you CAN tell whether its above or under 1mm.

The ability of OCAD to print at any scale is a trap. Controllers should do their field checking using maps at the final scale to be used rather than enlargements; and also must check that the maps to be used by competitors have symbols at the correct size. There are potential opportunities to get it wrong at many stages of the printing process.

Up to 2000 it was permissible to use standard symbols at 1:10,000 for "special terrain". Clubs must identify maps that did this, and progressively get them updated. OCAD can increase the symbol sizes at the push of a button, but the symbols may then blur into each other. It is necessary to go over the entire map to fix these. Detailed parts of the terrain will have to be visited. The opportunity can be taken to delete undersize features, eg the ankle-deep depression 133 in the afternoon race at Otak. In other cases features will have to be moved while keeping the relationships intact.

I think maps drawn to the old specification would have been acceptable for a couple of years after 2000 even for A level events. But six years is more than enough time to bring maps up to date for top events. Of course there may be cases where the effort is not justified, eg life of the forest etc. Events on these maps should be labelled "B" level just as with any other reasons for non-compliance with the rules. The reason for non-compliance should be advertised - then competitors can decide knowingly whether they will attend.

Of course mappers should also be thoroughly aware of all these things including the nitty gritty of how to achieve the right sizes. But I say "controller" above because the buck stops there.


1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  


Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions maptalk.co.nz