 Michael
|
Posted: 27 November 2012, 10:28 AM
And it is these issues of scale that are holding up the ISOM revision?
|
|
Paul I
|
Posted: 28 November 2012, 6:29 AM
Who would know? It does look like they are putting a lot of thought into the update with lots of trial work on colour specifications for different printing methods as well as some alternative improved area and point symbols etc. Hopefully the delay is because they are consulting with a range of high level mappers and athletes and trying hard not to get it wrong. Potentially ISOM could be a bold game changer or just fiddling around the edges, but one thing for sure, it will be hard to please everybody.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 17 December 2012, 2:05 AM
The maps for this year's world champs were digitally printed. See http://ocad.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Printing-techniques-Layout-Layer-OCAD11-201211-AUS.pdf
Thomas Gloor from OCAD (in Switzerland) wrote the article. He's on the IOF Map Commission, which has previously discouraged it for IOF events. Unfortunately the article is more about new OCAD facilities for logos etc than about digital printing. The link came from Ken Dowling in Melbourne who has had a lot to do with printing methods.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 18 December 2012, 7:35 AM
And another link from Ken about vegetation mapping using LIDAR data. Also by Thomas Gloor, as above. LIDAR data reflected from the ground and the vegetation top are subtracted to give a vegetation height map. Not as automated as Pullautin, the vege is printed as colours for various heights, along with contours etc to provide a base for a person doing fieldwork. Done any more experimentation Martin? Anyone else? http://ocad.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Vegetation-Height-Maps-OCAD11-201211.pdf
|
|
Martin
|
Posted: 18 December 2012, 8:44 AM
In the process of getting some more data... Watch this space Michael
|
|
Bryan
|
Posted: 11 January 2013, 12:02 AM
Talked to Adrian Uphill at the IOF Clinic in Masterton on 9th. (Chair of mapping committee, AOF)
He said that he had access (via a password to a wiki page on the IOF web site) to the draft revision of the ISOM specs - it had been out since Oct, 2012.
He had some real concerns with the various options that were proposed and he wondered if/when we were going to respond. It would be nice to get a coordinated response.
Has anyone seen the draft specs yet?
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 14 January 2013, 4:41 AM
I'm sure Stuart would have let us know if he had been advised. The last MTBO mapping specs came out without any consultation so you can guess where I think the blockage lies. Stuart can you enquire?
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 14 January 2013, 4:54 AM
The dreaded scale question. Bryan, looking at the long distance map, in good light, in a rested state, with my recent prescription glasses on, I cannot read the detail round three of my controls. Sure most of it was fine but I would like all of it to be fine.
In fact I would like to propose a principle. If an area needs a certain scale for athletes in the prime of life, then it should be larger for classes 45 (say) and over. This means typically 1:10,000 for the long, and (where elites get 1:10,000 for the middle/relay) then 1:7500 or 1:6666 for oldies. And if it is felt that elites need 1:5000 for a sprint, then 1:4000. And if the mapping for the elites needs 1:4000, then 1:3000.
|
|
Bryan
|
Posted: 14 January 2013, 11:59 PM
Most maps will have small areas of almost unreadable detail. You'll find also on the 1:7500 and maybe 1:5000 for Waikawa Beach that there will probably also be some small detail that is unreadable for most people. To get any map legible requires a lot of work which is usually not done on most maps in New Zealand. 9 months ago, the Waikawa Beach map at 1:10000 was unreadable, and it required 6 months of generalisation/incremental changes before a version was created which I could read mostly. Thankfully the printing was fine enough to make the maps even clearer.
Maybe in the new specs in our submission, we could ask that a section on recommended scales for older classes (dependent on the scale the elites are using) is added.
In regard to the new draft specs, I have subsequently been informed by David Rosen that only the people who are references for the specs have been given access to the new draft specs (and Adrian Uppill of OA is one of these).
There is noone in New Zealand who has been given this access. Maybe we can be asked to be given access.
|
|
The Map Guy
|
Posted: 15 January 2013, 1:58 AM
I believe it is imperative that NZOF sees the draft ISOM specs along with Australia. Both NZ and Australia (and probably many other countries)have unique orienteering terrain and their map features have to fit into the specs. Orienteering is a world wide sport - not just Europe or Northern Hemisphere.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 31 January 2013, 11:42 AM
SI Champs at Teetotal: What did you think of Jason's angling of the 407/409 stripes perpendicular to the contours (for better legibility)? I was taken aback as I thought they had to be north-oriented, but a look at the spec and these DON'T have the red arrow that signifies they must be north-orientated.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 23 February 2013, 11:05 AM
Photogrammetry is coming to an end. Stuart H is among the last of a dying breed. http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/message_791783#message792118
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 3 March 2013, 3:19 AM
Can't remember when we were last discussing what's in Koordinates, but it seemed that NZTA had photographed the state highway network over the last few summers. I thought it might be complete, but today I found some SH where they haven't got any. Hopefully they've had planes up this summer filling in the gaps. Anyone found any other new stuff on Koordinates?
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 18 March 2013, 10:55 AM
Selwyn provided this tip, which helps me a lot when there are lots of background images. I find myself wanting to frequently switch between photos, lidar, old map etc. From version 10, you can push the background list outside the OCAD window, and carry on drawing without closing it.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 17 April 2013, 7:07 PM
I was browsing the RouteGadget Facebook pages, which is not so much about RG but Pullautin, the software for automatically generating maps from LIDAR data. But this comment was not even about Pullautin, it was mapping philosophy. Consider this.
"For the best athletes the leg is the task, not the control - a control is never genuinely challenging if there is lots of details. It means putting control to a really really detailed place usually makes no sense. It is just easy, because from the edge of the control ring one can see all details. But if same details are spread to four times larger area it becomes more challenging because you can't see it all at once. The only difficulty with detailed controls locations is legibility, one may not be able to read the map well - and that is not the kind of challenge we are supposed to give atheltes."
I guess we should do this kind of thinking also when planning how to map an area and to figure the right generalizaton level. And what ISOM should really be like. Do we or have we done that?"
This is really interesting. We have a fairly blunt instrument for controlling generalisation, and that is the scale and symbol sizes. A call for larger scales can be seen as a shift in the type of orienteering, the long becomes a bit more like the middle, the middle becomes a bit more like the sprint. We should instead back off and consider what types of orienteering we want to have.
|
© Ruffneck Productions