Jump to content

Colorado update, Montana & California build thread...


IndyJpr
Followers 10

Recommended Posts

One big thread for the upcoming work on CO, MT & CA.

 

Colorado Update

 

I've released a new version of the Colorado mapset, the website is here:

 

http://www.miscjunk.org/mj/mp_cotopo.html

 

The release information is:

 

Ver 1.30 - 10 Mar 2008

- New: Added high resolution water data

- New: Added more detailed land status data

- New: Added an overview preview image for MapSource

- Fix: Split tile size in half to help with performance

- Fix: Tuned zooms/levels to help with performance

 

This update was done in preparation of adding an extensive set of track and POI data which is being generously shared by n0wae. I will be releasing incremental updates to the mapset as I finish each quad...

 

Montana Build

 

Yogazoo (and friends?) have be collecting and processing data with gusto and I've been told the CDs are in the mail.

 

California Build

 

I've received the DVD/CDs from Marky and Barrikady and will start processing them this week.

Link to comment

Sweet, I'll have to update my Colorado map now.

 

My Arizona map is almost done processing then I'll just have to combine and export. Hopefully by the end of the week (it'd be ridiculous if it wasn't).

 

Question: What are the track logs of?

Edited by -Oz-
Link to comment
My Arizona map is almost done processing then I'll just have to combine and export. Hopefully by the end of the week (it'd be ridiculous if it wasn't).
Cool, have you picked out another state yet?... :laughing:

 

Question: What are the track logs of?
The track logs and POIs are for backcountry roads/forest roads/4wd trails/... Here is test I did with some of his early data:

 

Original

gms_bc1.jpg

 

Updated

gms_bc2.jpg

With the custom line styles it makes a really good "trail" map...

Link to comment

Cool, have you picked out another state yet?... :laughing:

I'm thinking either Mississippi or Texas. I have orders to both of those states so ironically I will finish Arizona just in time to leave it.

 

With the custom line styles it makes a really good "trail" map...

Yea, that does look nice.

 

Also, did you get my PM?

Link to comment

For IndyJpr and those interested in Montana.

 

I have compiled a test map in GPSmapedit today to see if everything jives and the data I sent is all correct for the entire state of Montana. Everything worked like a charm and the updates/corrections I sent IndyJpr on Monday morning (package #2, Package #1 was sent last week) are all perfect. Since I dont have the licensed version, the program I can't break the entire state in to chunks and the program promptly takes a fat dump when I try to process the entire state.

 

I sent Batymetric isolines for Flathead Lake and I sent roads from the Tiger2000 dataset all seperated by roadclass into shapefiles. I also sent some files that have had names in the attribute table changed to make more sense. IndyJpr, everything is very clearly marked and labeled and explained in a TXT file so there will be no confusion as to what I updated. :laughing:

 

The only piece of work left (besides building the map from all the layers) is to build the 40ft contours from the DEM fles I sent last week. Everything else looks ready to roll!

 

Folks, this mapset is going to make Garmins pathetic topo offerings look like pooh-pooh! Call your friends with mapping Garmins and let them know.

 

These maps will include:

 

1) 40ft contour intervals

2) detailed public land ownership with owner labels (taken from cadastral) to include State, federal, local, and tribal land

3) High Resolution NHD wetland/stream/waterbody data that kicks the %&@$ outta Garmin maps.

4) POI's that include everything!

5) Bathymetric data of Flathead Lake, and as soon as Chuck @ NRIS gets done georeferencing them, Batymetric data for over 100 lakes across the state. (In a future update I'm sure, this could take months). Hurry up Chuck!!! This also would blow the top off Garmins current inland lakes mapset for Montana which includes only about 5 lakes.

 

IndyJpr, you are a legend amongst all GPS and mapping nerds across our great state. We thank you for your efforts.

 

Those of you out there in Montana who plan on downloading these maps and using them on your GPS, when you do so, please consider a donation to IndyJpr. This mapbuilding stuff isn't easy and is quite tedious.

 

Good day!

Link to comment

One big thread for the upcoming work on CO, MT & CA.

 

Colorado Update

 

I've released a new version of the Colorado mapset, the website is here:

 

http://www.miscjunk.org/mj/mp_cotopo.html

 

The release information is:

 

Ver 1.30 - 10 Mar 2008

- New: Added high resolution water data

- New: Added more detailed land status data

- New: Added an overview preview image for MapSource

- Fix: Split tile size in half to help with performance

- Fix: Tuned zooms/levels to help with performance

 

This update was done in preparation of adding an extensive set of track and POI data which is being generously shared by n0wae. I will be releasing incremental updates to the mapset as I finish each quad...

 

 

IndyJpr,

 

I noticed that the latest Colorado data seems to end at -109W - the border with Utah is actually a few miles west. This is common for western states.

It appears you included '46007' ephemeral crenulated streams. Many/most have sections of '46003' intermittent streams between them and the '46006' perennial streams. On zooming out, this leaves them

unattached. These watercources are not on the USGS 1:24,000 maps and water is in them far less often than the intermittent streams. This was an addition by the Forest Servicee for areas within forests. I have not decided what to do with them (code as intermittent, make a new type, or not use at all). See the Sept, 2007 issue of the NHD newsletter for a discussion. -- OZ you might also want to check this out --

On my 76CSx, I find that the land status green makes it harder to see the other features. How do others find it?

Does seem faster, especially in panning from home location to another area.

 

Thanks IndyJpr.

Link to comment

It appears you included '46007' ephemeral crenulated streams. Many/most have sections of '46003' intermittent streams between them and the '46006' perennial streams. On zooming out, this leaves them

unattached. These watercources are not on the USGS 1:24,000 maps and water is in them far less often than the intermittent streams. This was an addition by the Forest Servicee for areas within forests. I have not decided what to do with them (code as intermittent, make a new type, or not use at all). See the Sept, 2007 issue of the NHD newsletter for a discussion. -- OZ you might also want to check this out --

I didn't actually do anything in my SQL queries for 46007 so I will probably have to go back and delete them. I don't even know what "ephemeral crenulated streams" are. I definitely included intermittent streams in Arizona because all water is here :rolleyes:

 

I will definitely have to do some more experimenting. I'm currently trying to figure out how to setup the [DICTIONARY] part of the file so I can check my map in my GPSr. Glad for the info.

Link to comment

So, if someone, say me, wanted to get a topo set like this for Oregon, what are the steps to get it done? I've made some small maps using the instructions here, but never anything with this much detail or on a state-wide basis. Would be happy to contribute labor (and my fiber internet connection) to the cause!

 

--Bill

Link to comment

So, if someone, say me, wanted to get a topo set like this for Oregon, what are the steps to get it done? I've made some small maps using the instructions here, but never anything with this much detail or on a state-wide basis. Would be happy to contribute labor (and my fiber internet connection) to the cause!

 

--Bill

OK, answered my own question by finding this thread:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=185855&hl=

 

Will start grabbing data now!

 

--Bill

Link to comment
I don't even know what "ephemeral crenulated streams" are.

Sounds like something one should see a doctor about... :rolleyes: (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

Hi snowfleurys,

 

I noticed that the latest Colorado data seems to end at -109W - the border with Utah is actually a few miles west. This is common for western states.
Yes, that's by design... I initially had the maps covering the whole state plus some extra (the extra because the maps where cut as a square when they were not a perfect square). This would cause two adjacent states to overlap slightly. Unfortunately I've had a handful of people report that when they had multiple maps (states) loaded to their GPS they were having an issue where some states would not show up in the mapset show/hide menu... My testing seems to indicate that this issue is caused by the overlapping maps... I've been going back and forth on a solution but finally decided on cutting states to the 100K quad (or half quad). Where states (that I've created) are adjacent, the state with the most data in that quad will "own" the quad...

 

That probably doesn't make sense to anyone but me - the short answer is that the "missing" CO section will be part of the Utah mapset. It's not ideal but it causes minimal disruption with my workflow (and I'm assuming if someone is interested in that part of CO they will probably also have the UT mapset).

 

It appears you included '46007' ephemeral crenulated streams. Many/most have sections of '46003' intermittent streams between them and the '46006' perennial streams. On zooming out, this leaves them unattached. These watercources are not on the USGS 1:24,000 maps and water is in them far less often than the intermittent streams. This was an addition by the Forest Servicee for areas within forests. I have not decided what to do with them (code as intermittent, make a new type, or not use at all).
Thanks for the information. I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area so I tend to miss things like that... My first instinct after reading your info was to make them intermittent but I just did a google to find out what they were - basically "cuts" in the terrain interpreted to be streams... So I don't know...anybody with more knowledge have an opinion as to whether these are useful on a map?

 

On my 76CSx, I find that the land status green makes it harder to see the other features. How do others find it?
I get a lot of feedback saying people like them and want more/better versions of land status. I've been experimenting with custom styles to 1) make a distinction between different types and 2) to also make them unobtrusive... Unfortunately I'm not having much luck with custom polygons - the color mapping is not well defined and what looks good in MapSource comes out as purple blotches on the GPS...

 

Thanks again for the feedback!

Link to comment

One big thread for the upcoming work on CO, MT & CA.

 

Colorado Update

 

I've released a new version of the Colorado mapset, the website is here:

 

http://www.miscjunk.org/mj/mp_cotopo.html

 

The release information is:

 

Ver 1.30 - 10 Mar 2008

- New: Added high resolution water data

- New: Added more detailed land status data

- New: Added an overview preview image for MapSource

- Fix: Split tile size in half to help with performance

- Fix: Tuned zooms/levels to help with performance

 

This update was done in preparation of adding an extensive set of track and POI data which is being generously shared by n0wae. I will be releasing incremental updates to the mapset as I finish each quad...

 

Montana Build

 

Yogazoo (and friends?) have be collecting and processing data with gusto and I've been told the CDs are in the mail.

 

California Build

 

I've received the DVD/CDs from Marky and Barrikady and will start processing them this week.

 

I have the new update but Ill be honest, I have no idea how to load this into MapSource V 6.12.4 and it wont recognize any of the files.

Can someone please help me. It is my understanding I can use mapsource to view this file and to load it into the Colorado 400T.

Thanks

Link to comment
I have the new update but Ill be honest, I have no idea how to load this into MapSource V 6.12.4 and it wont recognize any of the files.

Can someone please help me. It is my understanding I can use mapsource to view this file and to load it into the Colorado 400T.

Hi Tiny dancer,

Following these steps to install a mapset:

- close MapSource (if open)

- double-click on the installer executable that you downloaded

- an installer should start to install the mapset

- once the installer is done open MapSource

- in the View menu select the Switch to Product item

- within the resulting list select the name of the mapset you installed (for example, Colorado Topo Maps)

- if Colorado you should see an overview map, if Utah or Wyoming you will have to zoom in to start seeing the map detail

 

To download the maps to your GPS you do it like any other map - use the Map Tool to select the tiles that you want to transfer and use the Send to Device function to transfer.

 

Let me know if you have any problems or have any other questions.

Link to comment

Sounds like something one should see a doctor about... :) (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

That probably doesn't make sense to anyone but me - the short answer is that the "missing" CO section will be part of the Utah mapset. It's not ideal but it causes minimal disruption with my workflow (and I'm assuming if someone is interested in that part of CO they will probably also have the UT mapset).

 

Thanks for the information. I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area so I tend to miss things like that... My first instinct after reading your info was to make them intermittent but I just did a google to find out what they were - basically "cuts" in the terrain interpreted to be streams... So I don't know...anybody with more knowledge have an opinion as to whether these are useful on a map?

 

I get a lot of feedback saying people like them and want more/better versions of land status. I've been experimenting with custom styles to 1) make a distinction between different types and 2) to also make them unobtrusive... Unfortunately I'm not having much luck with custom polygons - the color mapping is not well defined and what looks good in MapSource comes out as purple blotches on the GPS...

 

Thanks again for the feedback!

 

I understand. Nice to know that using political boundaries would cause more problems. I would expect some users to not like having to download an entire adjacent state, but you need to do what works and is easiest for you. This is a huge undertaking. Again, thanks.

 

My current thinking is to include them as intermittent streams. They do add some information (where they exist) that is lost by contouring a grid (expecially where much of the 10m data is actually resampled 30m data).

 

My initial attempt to include the geology (esentially contiguous polygons) worked, but caused some other data issues.

Link to comment

IndyJpr,

 

I sent you an e-mail which contained a TYP file that contained data to colorize land ownerships. You can see at the below link that it works quite nicely. Pink is state, orange/yellow is BLM and green is USFS.

 

What do you think?

 

http://lampropeltis.googlepages.com/HorseP...-full;init:.bmp

 

Edited to add:

By the way, does anyone know how to load images into your posts? Moderators?

Edited by yogazoo
Link to comment
I sent you an e-mail which contained a TYP file that contained data to colorize land ownerships. You can see at the below link that it works quite nicely. Pink is state, orange/yellow is BLM and green is USFS.

 

What do you think?

Hi yogazoo,

 

I did get your email but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet. It looks good in your shot from the Colorado and I'm interested how it looks on something like my 76Csx... Is this something you used pre-Colorado and how did it look?

 

In the end the maps will probably default to what they are now but there will be an additional (small) download to add the custom style to all maps if wanted...

Link to comment
I sent you an e-mail which contained a TYP file that contained data to colorize land ownerships. You can see at the below link that it works quite nicely. Pink is state, orange/yellow is BLM and green is USFS.

 

What do you think?

Hi yogazoo,

 

I did get your email but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet. It looks good in your shot from the Colorado and I'm interested how it looks on something like my 76Csx... Is this something you used pre-Colorado and how did it look?

 

In the end the maps will probably default to what they are now but there will be an additional (small) download to add the custom style to all maps if wanted...

 

I orginally designed the color scheme for my 60csx. I know what you mean about the colors on those units compared to the new Colorado's. There is quite a difference however these colors seem to work well with both.

Link to comment
How are you gonna do the small download to change the style? I've had requests to change how the trails are shown.
Hi Oz,

 

To add a custom style (or to change an existing one) on a mapset that has already been installed you would just need to create a custom installer (same thing that installs your map but smaller).

 

This installer would only contain (and install) two files:

- the TYP file with your custom style(s)

- an updated TDB file

 

The installer would also add the TYP registry entry that points to the TYP file.

 

I don't know how hard it will be - I haven't tried it yet - but I'm going to try to make the installer present a "menu" with the following options:

 

- remove all styles (return map to default)

- install style A

- install style B

etc.

 

The installer should be very small (< 50K) and could be updated when needed for people to download and use...

 

Just an idea...not even sure how many people will want or use the styles...

Link to comment
Did the postman bring you any special packages this week? Um, say, the Montana data?

Hi yogazoo,

I got both your original package and the update package on Friday... I'm currently going through all of the CA & MT discs and I'll try to post another update once I've went through it all.

 

Thanks,

 

PS: I also got your email re: hunting districts and I'll try to look at the info you sent this weekend - thanks.

Link to comment
Did the postman bring you any special packages this week? Um, say, the Montana data?

Hi yogazoo,

I got both your original package and the update package on Friday... I'm currently going through all of the CA & MT discs and I'll try to post another update once I've went through it all.

 

Thanks,

 

PS: I also got your email re: hunting districts and I'll try to look at the info you sent this weekend - thanks.

 

Well, I guess they don't call it "snail mail" for nothing.

Link to comment

Indy,

 

I have WA,ID, and OR dems... 350-400 files, approx 30GB, catalogged by 1deg lat x 2deg long directory structure (8 files per block).

 

Do you have the exact settings you used for global mapper? I would like to compare results to a linux contour program. I know settings affect shape file size a bunch... What size shape file "average" are you looking for in a typical cell in a mountainous terrain like WA,OR,ID? I played a little with granularity and files sizes changed dramatically, but a somewhat less dense shape file looked fine on 400t even to a reasonable zoom level. Anyway, I would like to get to a optimal level of file size versus accuracy on a Garmin 400t screen. Makes a big diff in storage requirements and loading,panning, and drawing times.

 

Also, what roads data are you using? Also, I have found pieces of USFS and NPS trail/primitive road gis coverages on different websites...

 

I also have GNIS and land ownership for all 3 states.

 

Thanks...

Link to comment
I have WA,ID, and OR dems... 350-400 files, approx 30GB, catalogged by 1deg lat x 2deg long directory structure (8 files per block).

 

Do you have the exact settings you used for global mapper? I would like to compare results to a linux contour program. I know settings affect shape file size a bunch... What size shape file "average" are you looking for in a typical cell in a mountainous terrain like WA,OR,ID? I played a little with granularity and files sizes changed dramatically, but a somewhat less dense shape file looked fine on 400t even to a reasonable zoom level. Anyway, I would like to get to a optimal level of file size versus accuracy on a Garmin 400t screen. Makes a big diff in storage requirements and loading,panning, and drawing times.

 

Also, what roads data are you using? Also, I have found pieces of USFS and NPS trail/primitive road gis coverages on different websites...

 

I also have GNIS and land ownership for all 3 states.

 

Thanks...

Hi Pete,

 

Here are the contour settings I use in GM:

 

Resoultion (what GM defaults to based on data)

X: 0.000104605841386575 arc deg

Y: 0.000081169112836251 arc deg

 

Interpolate... checked

Smooth... checked

 

Simplification

0.50

 

I also use the "Export Contours Directly to Package Files..." option so it's going to be hard to do any meaningful comparisons on the file size. My biggest (compressed gmp) files for western Montana are about 20 MB (1/2 deg by 1/2 deg).

 

Another way you could compare is load into GM and compare the vertex "density" - kind of crude but will give you an idea of detail. I ususally zoom into 1:5000, hit Shift-V and take a look:

 

v1.png

 

As for road data it varies. I usually check the DOT and GIS organizations for a state to see if they have any road data. If so I'll compare it to the Tiger/Line data and pick whichever is "best" (based on accuracy, coverage, name attributes, road type attributes, etc.).

 

I need to send you my latest SQL files (for NHD, GNIS) - I'll try to get that done today.

 

Thanks,

Edited by IndyJpr
Link to comment

Montana Topo mapset finished!

 

The first version of the Montana Topo mapset has been completed, the website is here:

 

http://www.miscjunk.org/mj/mp_mttopo.html

 

Version 1.00 of the mapset contains the following features:

- Interstates, highways, railroads, county, local and forest roads

- High resolution water data (lakes, rivers and streams)

- Land use, metro areas

- Elevation contours (40ft intervals)

- Points of interest (summits, mines, falls, dams, cemeteries, towers, populated places, etc.)

 

Thanks,

Link to comment

California Query

 

It was noted on FreeGeographyTools (http://freegeographytools.com/) that a free custom 24K scale topo map was already available for CA:

 

http://www.vr6.com/gps/

 

Can some of you guys from CA check this out and let me (us) know how it looks? I'm getting ready to dig into some of the CA work but I may re-evaluate if the above mapset is good - it doesn't make sense to do redundant work.

 

Thanks,

Link to comment

California Query

 

It was noted on FreeGeographyTools (http://freegeographytools.com/) that a free custom 24K scale topo map was already available for CA:

 

http://www.vr6.com/gps/

 

Can some of you guys from CA check this out and let me (us) know how it looks? I'm getting ready to dig into some of the CA work but I may re-evaluate if the above mapset is good - it doesn't make sense to do redundant work.

 

Thanks,

The file is only one .img @ 1.03 GB. Is there a way to get this into mapsource or segment it up?

OK, gave it a look and well, it's pretty poor. Will add some screenshots if you like. Missing lots of features, old road data (pre 90's, no names)... it's all or nothing with this file.

Edited by coggins
Link to comment

California Query

 

It was noted on FreeGeographyTools (http://freegeographytools.com/) that a free custom 24K scale topo map was already available for CA:

 

http://www.vr6.com/gps/

 

Can some of you guys from CA check this out and let me (us) know how it looks? I'm getting ready to dig into some of the CA work but I may re-evaluate if the above mapset is good - it doesn't make sense to do redundant work.

 

Thanks,

 

Not a CA guy and only looked at the info on the wr6.com site, but it states that 100K data was used for roads/trails (therefore, at most highway names) and hydro. Also 'missing ... most labels, boundaries and manmade structures', so probably little if any use was made of GNIS data. The CA guys will have to decide if the 20ft contours are worth it. My 2 cents is it probably does not match your first Colorado version. Thanks again for your hard work.

Link to comment

California Query

 

It was noted on FreeGeographyTools (http://freegeographytools.com/) that a free custom 24K scale topo map was already available for CA:

 

http://www.vr6.com/gps/

 

Can some of you guys from CA check this out and let me (us) know how it looks? I'm getting ready to dig into some of the CA work but I may re-evaluate if the above mapset is good - it doesn't make sense to do redundant work.

 

Thanks,

IndyJpr,

I'll download it today and give it a try.

 

--Marky

Link to comment

OK, probably a dumb question. Will IndyJpr's custom maps work on units other than the Colorado? i.e., 60csx?

 

I was gonna download the CA map at vr6, but based on the above comments, I am not sure it is worth the time. Probably just wait for Indy's.

 

Thanks

IndyJpr's will work on any Garmin mapping handheld, and a Mac or PC. A first class map product.

 

Here are some screen shots to compare:

(vr6 on the left, TOPO 2008 on the right-notice that there is no elevation for the pointer with the vr6 maps)

 

57a62e33-93cb-45d6-9283-b48321a0f4f9.jpg144c08d9-c1da-404a-b2d5-5729d9fb9015.jpg

 

150158d9-3808-46d7-89d5-db21e3c5fd0d.jpged4e54c8-88eb-402a-98f1-05babb54db78.jpg

 

08945540-d061-4688-81e4-2fc39103cbf4.jpgab4f0b8d-1e85-4111-976f-135ce002be71.jpg

 

58bb7d84-0272-4b99-9c6f-98ef8a8f3bcf.jpg62689a3c-83f9-430d-bb72-ae9ba94d22cf.jpg

Edited by coggins
Link to comment

I downloaded the vr6 map and it seems relatively nice. It has a street map and a transparent topo map. If you activate just the topo 24k along with topo 2008, you get a rather ugly looking set of topo maps because topo line labels of the topo 2008 are written over by the topo 24k. If you activate both maps, then you get nice road and water data, but none of it is labeled, so all roads show up as 'road'.

 

I'm not sure how that would compare to what IndyJpr has planned, but over all it is pretty nice.

 

--Marky

Link to comment
Not a CA guy and only looked at the info on the wr6.com site, but it states that 100K data was used for roads/trails (therefore, at most highway names) and hydro. Also 'missing ... most labels, boundaries and manmade structures', so probably little if any use was made of GNIS data. The CA guys will have to decide if the 20ft contours are worth it. My 2 cents is it probably does not match your first Colorado version. Thanks again for your hard work.
OK, gave it a look and well, it's pretty poor. Will add some screenshots if you like. Missing lots of features, old road data (pre 90's, no names)... it's all or nothing with this file.

Thanks snowfleurys and coggins - I tried to download it but kept getting errors...

 

Given the above feedback I will continue forward with the CA work. FAIR WARNING: Although I've been helped tremendously by Marky and Barrikady it's going to take awhile to get CA done. It is a huge state with a lot of data...

 

Thanks everyone,

Link to comment
Indy, how do the screenshots above compare to one of your custom maps?

 

Well, that's hard to answer - probably best to point you the website to look at the screenshots from the other mapsets I've built... The CA mapset should be about the same as those (as far as data used, details, etc.).

Link to comment

On the Vr6 description there is the following quote, "If you move your GPS pointer to a contour line it will display the contour level."

 

So that is not accurate?

 

Indy, how do the screenshots above compare to one of your custom maps?

If you are on a contour line, then it will display the elevation for that line.

Link to comment

CRAPOLA !!! but then I guess HAPPYOLA !!!

 

After downloading tons (400) of "small" 70mb files of 10 meter DEM's from the USGS seamless server for WA, OR, and ID, I find today a USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service site that allows up to 4GB of DEM's in one job!!!!!! That means only about 2-3 jobs per state!!! I just submiitted a test job for 1/2 of WA in one job to test the site... Anyway, could make other states much easier... Hey Indy, might as well post your methods and get everybody processing to do the whole US... :-)

 

Wish we had a large free ftp server available so we could all post our source data as we find it to make future maps and updates easier... and custom tweaks or layering... and whatever...

 

Will have to check if contour program can handle such large files... or maybe the USDA zip file will already have them split up into chunks... Will report back when I see the results...

 

The site: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GatewayHome.html

 

P.S. Hey, we could also add soil maps to our Garmin maps as the site has data on that... ha ha... lol

Link to comment

Got DEM file for 45.5/125 to 49/122 in WA... around 3GB... Files are in a single ftp directory and are individual files... not zipped into "one" file. I later found a note that jobs > 2.3GB are not zipped into a "single" file... probably due to their zip application limitations.

 

That is not a problem as the free wget application I use a lot will retrieve a whole directory with one command.

 

The files are 7.5 minute quad goetiff's in original NAD83 UTM projection and named using the standard lat/long/letter code for 7.5 quads. Included with the tiffs are the respective rrd and aux files... ESRI ArcInfo will love these files... Being in UTM, they will have to be projected back to geographic for use in Garmin. That's no big deal either.

 

An interesting note in the meta data:

 

"NRCS has elected to ONLY serve NED 10 which is 10 meter or better and not NED 10 which was resampled from 30 meter. NRCS also serves the maps in a UTM projection. These two facts differentiate the maps from those served at http://seamless.usgs.gov/. "

 

This could mean that the NRCS data is more accurate?? That USGS Seamless did some interpolation in some areas from 30m DEM's??? I will test an area by overlaying some of this data with ones I got from seamless... Sometimes you can check by seeing if streams intersect the contours at the "correct" points.

 

There are always some "issues" with accuracies and dealing with data, scales, projections, etc in the mapping world.... Too bad the world isnn't flat, that would have made things much easier!!!

 

P.S. But I do love the SPEED and the LESS TIME requesting the DEM's I needed!!!!

Link to comment

 

An interesting note in the meta data:

 

"NRCS has elected to ONLY serve NED 10 which is 10 meter or better and not NED 10 which was resampled from 30 meter. NRCS also serves the maps in a UTM projection. These two facts differentiate the maps from those served at http://seamless.usgs.gov/. "

 

This could mean that the NRCS data is more accurate?? That USGS Seamless did some interpolation in some areas from 30m DEM's??? I will test an area by overlaying some of this data with ones I got from seamless... Sometimes you can check by seeing if streams intersect the contours at the "correct" points.

 

 

Take a look at their statusmaps. You appear to be good for WA, OR and ID. NV,UT,AZ,NM,NE,KY,TN,NJ, and NY also appear to be complete. The statusmap is dated May, 2005, so the other states may or may not be complete.

 

The soil data will be mostly contiguous polygons; somewhat like the digital geologic maps you can get from USGS for most of the states that I hope to be able to add to the GPSr.

Link to comment

Some folks may have noticed two (the only two found) issues with the Montana Mapset v1.00 by IndyJpr.

 

I would like to identify these and make everyone aware that the problems have solutions that may be implemented in the next version.

 

1) The Bathymetric lines for Flathead Lake have errors. These errors seem to be the result of the raw data being skewed slightly AND the '0' depth contours not being taken out. Corrected data has been sent to IndyJpr for implementation.

 

2) On Indian Reservations, random water features do not show up. This error is due to some kind of draw order priority error. Where the Indian reservation polygon is drawn over the water features. I have sent IndyJpr a TYP file that corrects the draw order priority and colors the land owner information (Pink=State, Orange=BLM, Green=USFS, NPS, USFWS, BOR).

 

Once these errors are corrected the Montana Mapset will be hard to update because, well, everything is already there. I mean what more could you ask to be shown? Seriously, the Montana mapset is as good as it gets.

 

Kudo's to IndyJpr, the mapset is absolutly amazing! Thank you and keep up the great work!

Link to comment

Some folks may have noticed two (the only two found) issues with the Montana Mapset v1.00 by IndyJpr.

 

Add Going to the Sun highway in Glacier National Park. On the east side it is shown as a prominent red line, on the west side as a minor thin grey line (and that is when zoomed in). I know it is seasonal, but it used to be the paved through road across the park.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 10
×
×
  • Create New...