 HeadHoncho
|
Posted: 31 March 2009, 11:40 PM
Red pen and a circle drawer?
|
|
The Map Guy
|
Posted: 1 April 2009, 9:43 AM
Get them to contact the relevant Club. Doesn't take too long to put their course(s) on the map(s). After all, aren't we trying to help them foster orienteering - at least the Club knows who is using the map, and can help out if required.
For commercial useage a map royalty can be charged and work done putting the course on can be charged for.
I'm not so sure if a PDF map derived from OCAD (versions 9 or 10) can be made uneditable with the likes of Adobe Illustrator. Ideally the PDF file needs to be locked/password protected as you can now do with OCAD10 maps.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 1 April 2009, 4:37 PM
Yes hand drawing is of course an option. I suppose all schools have a photocopier, its probably less hassle than sending printing work out. I hope the quality stands up.
Map Guy, I was hoping the (volunteer) mapping officer of the relevant club was going to be relieved of a bit of work. This role has grown from the paper map days, to producing various scales and layouts possibly each event. In your scenario the map on the web then becomes an advertisement rather than something the teacher will download and use by themselves. Still a step forward though.
|
|
The Map Guy
|
Posted: 1 April 2009, 4:38 PM
In case you haven't seen it on the OCAD website. A new service update has just been released (in the Downloads section):
Changes in OCAD 9.7.0 (706) - 2009-03-26
========================================
FIX Symbol: Bug when loading symbols from an open ocd file. Fixed.
FIX Shape Import, Error Message 'Table xxx not found': Problem with dBase files
version 4 fixed.
ADD Grids: Gabon grid added.
FIX Export: Problems with hatched areas in pdf export fixed.
FIX Japanese Grid: Problem with Japanese Grid 12 fixed (wrong origin data).
|
|
The Map Guy
|
Posted: 1 April 2009, 4:48 PM
I'm not sure what the best solution is Michael. You could post a map with recommended courses on it AND a blank map - covers both situations. Assumes that the land is always available for use.
Schools are special cases. Most teachers are too busy to draw circles on every map, so they'd do it on one map then photocopy that. The map then starts to become unreadable, especially if there is lots of yellow on it, and/or next time it comes to be printed the photocopy becomes the "original"
|
|
Selwyn
|
Posted: 1 April 2009, 5:04 PM
Mr Map Guy. It's time you went to bed.
|
|
The Map Guy
|
Posted: 2 April 2009, 4:09 AM
Selwyn: You know the best time for the gun cartographers to work is at night. Look at the times above for me, Michael and yourself.
I appreciate you staying up late to hear from from me :-)
|
|
Linley
|
Posted: 2 April 2009, 5:51 AM
Some cartographers do go to bed early! Michael, going back to your urban area grey problems. We used to have that with our professional road maps so we changed the urban areas to a soft eggshell colour which looked much more appealing than the darker grey. Used 10Y 5C and 5M or something like that - however my memory might be a bit hazy. Regarding .pdf and .eps I sent half my recent event maps to the print in one format and half in the other to test the system. Couldn't tell the difference when I picked up the results. It was a 1:10 000 standard Foot O map of Orton Bradley.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 2 April 2009, 6:53 AM
Thanks for that Linley. Tried it and it does come out grey! Will do some more experiments, one of the criteria is that when I paint a blob of yellow over the top (which might be pale for rough open) or light green (which I use for passable forest in these maps) the distinction needs to be clear. Another criterion is to use a standard orienteering symbol if possible.
I too have found no significant differences with maps printed commercially from pdf so unless something comes up will now use them to send to the printer. Two advantages, we can eyeball them before hitting send. And (if the map is on our "free" list) that same file can go onto the web. We'll worry about people editing pdf's later.
Do you know about the IOF test file, it's an OCAD "map" with a patch of every area symbol and some of the difficult combinations such as marshes and green stripes over the various yellows, and some fine lines with very small gaps. I did some test prints from that via pdf and eps. I've also got an offset print from this file to use as a benchmark - very illuminating!
|
|
The Map Guy
|
Posted: 2 April 2009, 4:44 PM
Have you got a link for downloading the IOF test file Michael?
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 2 April 2009, 5:31 PM
Yes isn't the IOF website a delight!
You go looking in the document library, get as far as mapping standards, and draw a blank. You have to click on "IOF", "Commissions", "Support Commissions", "Map Commission", "Documents", and then you think, oh its the same list of mapping standards I got to before. But lurking down the bottom of the list is "IOF Map Commission Info Centre".
But we're not there yet. It's not among the documents on the front page of the IOFMCIC (which looks suspiciously like a badly-formatted version of the same list of mapping standards you've been to twice already). You have to look in "Ongoing Projects" for the "PrintTech Project". And then you have to look right down the bottom to find a link to the test file in OCAD8 format.
Probably fine if you were raised on Doom.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 27 April 2009, 5:27 AM
In November I wrote...
"I have also changed the offset values - from their NZMG values to the NZTM values. I was prepared for complications..."
I have learnt that you can't change a map referenced to NZMG, to NZTM, quite so easily. The details are gory, let me know if you want to discuss. I just want to correct this wrong statement.
If you're starting a new map or georeferencing an existing one, I think the time has come to use NZTM. This new grid system has nearly reached "consumer level" with a whole new set of paper topo maps due for release in September 09.
|
|
The Map Guy
|
Posted: 27 April 2009, 12:09 PM
I believe the changeover date is 23 September 2009. Many cartographers have been drawing maps in NZTM for several years now.
You are right about the georeferencing bit Michael - especially if the map has been derived from Shape files which have their own database. Start as you mean to continue is the maxim!
However all is not lost as it is possible to put a NZTM grid onto a map which has been drawn in NZMG/Geodetic 49 format. Reasonably satisfactory for 1:50000 and 1:25000 scales for "small" areas - say around 100+ square km
|
|
Paul I
|
Posted: 9 May 2009, 5:26 AM
Check this out from the IOF Map Commission after evaluating the 2008 year maps. Sure scares the hell out of me...
"Final comments
Form lines
In my opinion something must be done. It is frustrating to observe good mappers to spoil their own
maps loading them with hundreds of unnecessary form lines. Probably, the most simple solution is
to abolish form lines from the ISOM revision, although mappers may not like it. Form lines may be
necessary only for hills or depressions. However this problem may be solved by introducing two
new symbols: hill top (for instance a brown *) and depression bottom (for instance an empty brown
star). We can even introduce two sizes for these two new symbols (shallow or evident
hill/depression top/bottom). In this way we solve also two problems: eliminate the use of an
imprecise area symbol (a large closed contour line) for a control symbol hill or depression
which in reality is meant as a point type control point and indicate the precise location of the hill top
or depression bottom. In this way is even possible to locate more than one hill/depression
top/bottom within a single closed contour line, or even both type of symbols. Of course this would
not impair the use of the closed contour line when it is small enough. This is in the direction of
greater generalization and would give the same information with much less map loading.
Courses
Let us suppose to design on the same terrain and on the same map two different courses with the
same winning times. One with 15 to 20 controls, 3 minutes interval start; another one with 36
controls, a butterfly and 2 minutes interval start. Then let the same 80 competitors run both.
I am ready to bet against anybody that the placing will be different, the podium (the first six) will be
different, and most probably even the medals will be different.
If we all agree that this is so, it means that we have two different sports, not the same sport. Which
one is the orienteering we want?
We may choose the second, but remember that it is against development, overwhelmingly difficult
for competitors from newcomers nations, overwhelmingly difficult to be organised by newcomers
nations. Do we really want the same ten nations to win WOCs and WCs, to organize WOCs and
WCs in saecula saeculorum? Is this the way we want to follow to become Olympics?
Is it not a simple 15/20 controls course difficult enough? How can we pull away young people
from other sports and convince them to run these crazy courses?"
... and apparently we're too pathetic to do butterflies. Say What?
I don't like our chances of the new ISOM going down well with very many mappers if this stuff is anything to go by.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 9 May 2009, 10:06 AM
You're right Paul, this reads (after downloading 4mb no less) like the result of a conversation over the teacups. Some things may be valid errata like two formlines between contours, but to extend this to banning formlines is bizarre in extremis. We aren't told who compiled it and I wonder if it has been formally endorsed by the Mapping Committee. If so they must be well outside their brief to be critiquing the courses, and beyond that bemoaning developments in orienteering!
I haven't got a problem with differing formulae producing different winners:-)) We haven't finished yet with new types of orienteering.
|
|
© Ruffneck Productions