GPS Map Challenge...

[+embra]

I read in a recent Groundspeak\GPS and Technology DeLorme PN-40 thread that those beta testing the unit have been somewhat released from their NDA. Does that mean you could post your own PN-40 screen shots now and we could leave the PN-20 out of the "picture"--pun not intended?

The PN-20 and PN-40 map screen displays are identical...the 40 just draws 'em faster. As best I can recall, all the PN-20 shots in this thread could have come from either model (and indeed, they probably did come from both).

[+embra]

The holy grail of maps are the USGS 7.5-min Topos at 24K, Delorme's PN-20/40 can load/view those maps as geo-referenced bitmaps or raster maps. Sound good? Well maybe Yes, maybe No. After using vector maps inside a GPS for the last 16-months, I'm convinced that true 24K vector maps are superior to 24K raster maps. Others may disagree.

I'm in agreement. One part of that is that raster maps require *much* more memory than vector maps.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

I read in a recent Groundspeak\GPS and Technology DeLorme PN-40 thread that those beta testing the unit have been somewhat released from their NDA. Does that mean you could post your own PN-40 screen shots now and we could leave the PN-20 out of the "picture"--pun not intended?

The PN-20 and PN-40 map screen displays are identical...the 40 just draws 'em faster. .....

Let me emphasize this as I couldn't yesteray. But, then I said that the 20's redraw rate was an issue at 70mph for me. Well, with the 40, it is not a problem - it keeps up! Actually, it's a different method. The 20 moved the cursor in twitches over to the edge and then the whole screen went blank until it redrew with the cursor back in the middle. But again, for walking and geocaching, I never feel as if that is holding me back by making me wait for it. With the 40, the cursor remains in the middle and the map shifts up-down-left-right, depending on how you have it set, in little increments and very swiftly and almost imperceptibly.

 

There is really no comparison.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Team CowboyPapa

[+Ratsneve]

The REI GPS Master thought the difficulty was that DeLorme's base map was a "vector" type instead of whatever Garmin uses (bit type?) for example. It gets very sketchy here from my memory of the discussion and lack of taking any notes. It sounded like Garmin takes images of a map series which includes trail and POIs but that DeLorme's approach with Topo7 is somehow different and explains why redrawing the maps is slower and details are missing or not accurate, like the trail.

That's totally wrong. Vector and Bitmap are not the issues.

 

The PN-20/40 can use either vector or bitmap, whereas Garmin's are vector only. Although the CO/OR have some limited geo-referenced bitmap functionality in the two 400 non-t flavors. Your Garmin 24K NW is a vector map, so too are the 24K maps from Above the Timber. The real problem is Delorme's Topo 7 vector maps, they're not true 24K maps, only the contours are 24K, "everything" else is at 100K resolution. That's why the Snow Lake trail is straight and misplaced.

 

The holy grail of maps are the USGS 7.5-min Topos at 24K, Delorme's PN-20/40 can load/view those maps as geo-referenced bitmaps or raster maps. Sound good? Well maybe Yes, maybe No. After using vector maps inside a GPS for the last 16-months, I'm convinced that true 24K vector maps are superior to 24K raster maps. Others may disagree.

 

The basic reason: every thing you see is an identifiable object (point, line, area) on a vector map, on a raster map everything is a pixel, just ink dots.

 

Aerial photos are yet another issue, not covered in this rant.

 

/ end rant

I wish you wouldn't consider your information a 'rant'--it isn't. You understand far more about this GPS map business then I do and I was seeking that clarification and knowledge. I was pretty sure the info I had gleaned from REI was incomplete and/or in error. Thank you for making sense of at least some of it.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+Ratsneve]

The PN-20 and PN-40 map screen displays are identical...the 40 just draws 'em faster. .....

Let me emphasize this as I couldn't yesteray. But, then I said that the 20's redraw rate was an issue at 70mph for me. Well, with the 40, it is not a problem - it keeps up! Actually, it's a different method. The 20 moved the cursor in twitches over to the edge and then the whole screen went blank until it redrew with the cursor back in the middle. With the 40, the cursor remains in the middle and the map shifts up-down-left-right, depending on how you have it set, in little increments and very swiftly and almost imperceptibly.

 

There is really no comparison.

Having not been able to travel with a PN-20 yet I didn't know about the way the cursor behaved. The PN-40 cursor staying centered works the same way on the Colorado and I presume Oregon which I prefer.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+benjamin921]

The cursor is pinned to the center of the screen on the 40 and has no issues keeping up at 70 mph - even while viewing large aerial maps.

 

As Papa stated the 20's cursor moved on the screen until the map needed to re-draw (if you had large aerial maps to look at, it was a tad slow but not on the 40).

 

The screen shots between the 20 and 40 will be the same (I know that some of the ones posted in this thread are from the 40 ).

 

As for the base maps, I don't care who you are, you will never get anything perfect - ever.

 

I'll be back later to try and answer some more questions if Max, Stu or Chip don't beat me to it.

[MtnHermit]

I'm in agreement. One part of that is that raster maps require *much* more memory than vector maps.

Can you quantify the additional memory? Perhaps some of the previous screenshots as an example. I have no reference. What format, JPEG, BMP, other?

 

Thanks

[+Team CowboyPapa]

I'm in agreement. One part of that is that raster maps require *much* more memory than vector maps.

Can you quantify the additional memory? Perhaps some of the previous screenshots as an example. I have no reference. What format, JPEG, BMP, other?

 

Thanks

Just a wild guess from glancing at a folder with both, but a USGS 3DTQ raster might be 10 times or more on a square mile basis than a Topo 7 vector. But the raster is what it is, a scanned image. Whereas the vector can be "custom cut" for a particular area whereby certain features such as contours or POIs can be excluded to save space.

[+embra]

That sounds like about the right ratio to me...it has seemed to me that a small vectorized T7 map of 4MB might reguire 40MB or so for comparable raster coverage. And then, the rasters are readable at a relatively narrow zoom range, while the vectorized maps are crisp at all levels.

 

XMap can import the formats you cited (jpg, bmp, etc), but it will export the proprietary format needed for the PNs. (did I understand the question correctly?)

Edited September 7, 2008 by embra

[MtnHermit]

That sounds like about the right ratio to me...it has seemed to me that a small vectorized T7 map of 4MB might reguire 40MB or so for comparable raster coverage. And then, the rasters are readable at a relatively narrow zoom range, while the vectorized maps are crisp at all levels.

 

XMap can import the formats you cited (jpg, bmp, etc), but it will export the proprietary format needed for the PNs. (did I understand the question correctly?)

Oh goody, another proprietary format. The implication is that I need XMap? Or it that only it I wish somehow to geo-reference my own images?

 

Can I go to Google Earth and get aerials or must I pre-process them in XMap? Just as a refresher, XMap is how you made the cool trails in Smith SP?

 

Thanks

[+Ratsneve]

The cursor is pinned to the center of the screen on the 40 and has no issues keeping up at 70 mph - even while viewing large aerial maps.

 

As Papa stated the 20's cursor moved on the screen until the map needed to re-draw (if you had large aerial maps to look at, it was a tad slow but not on the 40).

 

The screen shots between the 20 and 40 will be the same (I know that some of the ones posted in this thread are from the 40 ).

 

As for the base maps, I don't care who you are, you will never get anything perfect - ever.

 

I'll be back later to try and answer some more questions if Max, Stu or Chip don't beat me to it.

I know that nothing will ever be perfect and that is why I chose in part to get City Navigator and the Topo 24K Northwest MicroSD card--desiring more then just a 100K Topo base map. This is also why I am continuing my interest in the PN-40 too. Should I take the PN-40 over the Oregon it will very likely include other maps then its Topo 7 base map since I don't appreciate its trail drawings.

 

The discussion is very interesting but with no hands-on myself is still over my head. I think I would prefer establishing _accurate_ maps on whatever GPS I have that don't require downloading and messaging different map sections every time I go off on a trip and this counts for city navigation as much as terrain.

 

Let's forget about "perfect" okay but let's accept something better then that darn trail over the saddle at Snow Lake. If that is the best that Topo7 can come up with for terrain how does it fair as far as city navigation goes? Are there similar drawing inaccuracies?

 

What one or two sets of maps would any of you recommend I get for the PN-40 to replace the poor terrain (and possible city) details of Topo 7? [And yes, I'm afraid what this is going to start. ]

Edited September 7, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+Team CowboyPapa]

 

What one or two sets of maps would any of you recommend I get for the PN-40 to replace the poor terrain (and possible city) details of Topo 7? [And yes, I'm afraid what this is going to start. ]

 

Seriously, it doesn't matter, to me anyway. With the $30 per year, all you download annual subscription, I'll just load up on the Color Aerial Maps and USGS 3DTQs, which don't have those accuracy problems. I think that I mentioned that I recorded some tracks of USFS roads up in the Sierras, overlaid them on those maps and they matched perfectly. Yes, I could see some anomalies when overlaid ot the bundled Topo quads.

 

Put a bunch of those one a 16, or 32GB SDHC card and could you outwalk it on a 7 day backpack trip?

[+embra]

Oh goody, another proprietary format. The implication is that I need XMap? Or it that only it I wish somehow to geo-reference my own images?

 

Can I go to Google Earth and get aerials or must I pre-process them in XMap? Just as a refresher, XMap is how you made the cool trails in Smith SP?

 

The suffix at the end of the PN-20/40 files happens to be pm0, for those who care. So if you let a new GPS company into your life, welcome to another format. Fortunately, I let that be a matter between the PNs and the software.

 

But yeah, if you want to bring your own imagery into a PN, XMap is the gateway software for that. That was indeed how I did the Smith Rock trails: downloaded a pdf of the park map, took a screen snapshot and saved it as a jpg, imported the jpg into XMap and registered it, and then traced the trails it showed. After I had the trail layer, I ditched the imported jpg layer because it didn't look so hot after its journey. At that point I could have XMap generate the pm0 file for the PN-40.

 

If you have a good quality image to import, you could use it for your imagery. It would be rasterized if you retained it...on reflection, my aesthetic choice to chuck the jpg allowed for the more efficiently sized vector file. For something the size of that park, though, it wouldn't have been too big a raster file.

 

Perhaps I ought to add for clarity that pm0 files can contain both raster and vector data.

[yogazoo]

I would just like to throw this out there. I don't hear much discussion of this program and for $45 it seems like something many are looking for.

 

I have used MapWel to load aerial imagery onto my Garmin Colorado. The redraw rate is impressive, not lightning fast, but pretty darn good. Granted, I have access to aerial imagery downloaded from the web (Montana has alot of this data available online.) but you can georeference anything even scanned USGS topo's.

What's even cooler is that the transparent road layers I've made for my unit simply overlay on top of the photo's. Try the demo of mapwel, it allows you to test the fully functioning program out, load air photo's, and see the refresh rate and detail for yourself.

 

IMHO Garmin is stupid for not capitalizing on this. Then again, they can't even get the firmware figured out for their new lines of GPS's.

Edited September 8, 2008 by yogazoo

[+benjamin921]

 

***

Another interest between the Oregon and PN-40 is this recently learned term "exit search" for food or gas off of your route. G-O-Cashers mentioned that neither the CO or OR could do "exit serch" but I have noticed this when I have done searches for new waypoionts. The list produced on the Colorado would include a small directional arrow and distance to by the item. What more do you really need? If it is a gas station 2 miles ahead you GoTo it and your autoroute would be interrupted and the new route off the freeway to the gas station would be displaye--right? When done you GoTo your Route or next WP.

 

What am I missing that would be better about a real "exit search" GPS option? Do the search results include little maps or more description detail of what exit up ahead is needed? I would assume that this sort of feature in itself isn't why you would pick one portable GPS over another.

 

***

Here is just a quick example of an 'Exit' search. Nothing fancy at all but it does what it indents to do.

 

[+benjamin921]

Double post

Edited September 8, 2008 by benjamin921

[+Ratsneve]

Oh goody, another proprietary format. The implication is that I need XMap? Or it that only it I wish somehow to geo-reference my own images?

 

Can I go to Google Earth and get aerials or must I pre-process them in XMap? Just as a refresher, XMap is how you made the cool trails in Smith SP?

 

The suffix at the end of the PN-20/40 files happens to be pm0, for those who care. So if you let a new GPS company into your life, welcome to another format. Fortunately, I let that be a matter between the PNs and the software.

 

But yeah, if you want to bring your own imagery into a PN, XMap is the gateway software for that. That was indeed how I did the Smith Rock trails: downloaded a pdf of the park map, took a screen snapshot and saved it as a jpg, imported the jpg into XMap and registered it, and then traced the trails it showed. After I had the trail layer, I ditched the imported jpg layer because it didn't look so hot after its journey. At that point I could have XMap generate the pm0 file for the PN-40.

 

If you have a good quality image to import, you could use it for your imagery. It would be rasterized if you retained it...on reflection, my aesthetic choice to chuck the jpg allowed for the more efficiently sized vector file. For something the size of that park, though, it wouldn't have been too big a raster file.

 

Perhaps I ought to add for clarity that pm0 files can contain both raster and vector data.

I really don't want to pay another $200 for XMap 6 Professional Software even if I pay another <$500 for a PN-40 from REI. I think it will be far more practical for me to explore/learn how _I_ can do this mapping--or not--to wait until I get a PN-40 in my hands but perhaps I can still learn more about what my limitations will be.

[+Ratsneve]

I would just like to throw this out there. I don't hear much discussion of this program and for $45 it seems like something many are looking for.

 

I have used MapWel to load aerial imagery onto my Garmin Colorado. The redraw rate is impressive, not lightning fast, but pretty darn good. Granted, I have access to aerial imagery downloaded from the web (Montana has alot of this data available online.) but you can georeference anything even scanned USGS topo's.

What's even cooler is that the transparent road layers I've made for my unit simply overlay on top of the photo's. Try the demo of mapwel, it allows you to test the fully functioning program out, load air photo's, and see the refresh rate and detail for yourself.

 

IMHO Garmin is stupid for not capitalizing on this. Then again, they can't even get the firmware figured out for their new lines of GPS's.

When you do something like this on the Colorado, might one assume you can do it on the Oregon too? (Porbably a terrible assumption to make--to make any assumptions on a Colorado or Oregon.) Are the roads and trails that you could describe in your procedure above fully routable too? You really should post a picture of what you have done here if you would? Thanks.

[+Ratsneve]

Here is just a quick example of an 'Exit' search. Nothing fancy at all but it does what it indents to do.

 

Doesn't do much good when I don't have anything yet to compare with. But one thing I am curioius about is it shows a bearing of 28 degrees true but the arrow is pointing more like SSW or 208 degrees true? Isn't true north at the top always? If you prefer it otherwise can the PN-40 set true north to the top? Or perhaps I'm totally missing something else?

 

My recollection of the CO was somehow similar to this.

[+snow_rules]

Here is just a quick example of an 'Exit' search. Nothing fancy at all but it does what it indents to do.

 

Doesn't do much good when I don't have anything yet to compare with. But one thing I am curioius about is it shows a bearing of 28 degrees true but the arrow is pointing more like SSW or 208 degrees true? Isn't true north at the top always? If you prefer it otherwise can the PN-40 set true north to the top? Or perhaps I'm totally missing something else?

 

My recollection of the CO was somehow similar to this.

 

The PN20/PN40 has 3 different options North Up, Heading UP and Course Up. I am guessing the the screen shot was with Bearing Up so that is why arrow is pointing the way it is.

Edited September 9, 2008 by snow_rules

[+Team CowboyPapa]

Here is just a quick example of an 'Exit' search. Nothing fancy at all but it does what it indents to do.

 

Doesn't do much good when I don't have anything yet to compare with. But one thing I am curioius about is it shows a bearing of 28 degrees true but the arrow is pointing more like SSW or 208 degrees true? Isn't true north at the top always? If you prefer it otherwise can the PN-40 set true north to the top? Or perhaps I'm totally missing something else?

 

My recollection of the CO was somehow similar to this.

 

The PN20/PN40 has 3 different options North Up, Heading UP and Course Up. I am guessing the the screen shot was with Bearing Up so that is why arrow is pointing the way it is.

Actually, I just went outside and the arrow points to the POI as you are holding it so as I turn around once it follows in a 360 deg circle.

 

But good to see you stopping by to help, SR.

[yogazoo]

When you do something like this on the Colorado, might one assume you can do it on the Oregon too? (Porbably a terrible assumption to make--to make any assumptions on a Colorado or Oregon.) Are the roads and trails that you could describe in your procedure above fully routable too? You really should post a picture of what you have done here if you would? Thanks.

 

The display on the Colorado with the aerial photo's loaded looks alot like the PN-XX. Yes it is compatible with Garmin Oregons as well. It's really pretty slick and gives the garmin line a new level of functionality, similar to that of the PN-20 only much faster draw rates. I'll load an aerial photo on my Colorado tomorrow and post some screenshots. My transparent layers of roads aren't routable, yet. If I pay for the Mapwel license I can make them routable. I will also be able to make topo iso-lines transparent to overlay on top of the aerial photo's as well. For 45 bucks mapwel will give you the full ability to load any scanned map, aerial photo, jpg, bmp, png, and tiff thats georeferenceable to be loaded onto the 60csx, vista, Colorado or Oregon line. In my previous tests the redraw speed in the 60csx/vista models is slow much like the pn-20. The redraw speed in the Colorado and Oregon lines is fast and refreshable in a car moving at a fair clip you don't see any white gaps.

 

Tomorrow I'll post some screenshots. You can see for yourselves a nuvi loaded with raster images at this link ==> http://www.mapwel.biz/autovector/hw_autovector.html

 

The .img file for download is not compatible with Colorado/Oregon. I will provide a link to a test img file and give you a centroid waypoint so you can find it tomorrow. I think you'll be pleasantly suprised with the scanned USGS topo maps that you can load onto your GPS. I'll provide examples. It's really slick.

Edited September 9, 2008 by yogazoo

[+Team CowboyPapa]

The redraw speed in the Colorado and Oregon lines is fast and refreshable in a car moving at a fair clip you don't see any white gaps.

 

Perhaps as fast as a PN-40?

[+embra]

MapWell looks like a great piece of software for a Garmin owner to have.

 

The link cites "automatical vectorization." Does it really create a vectorized map that is crisp and viewable at many zoom levels (especially zoomed in very close)? Or is it essentially a raster image that is viewable on GPS devices that typically deal only with vector data? (I hope that question is interpretable...)

[navyrat]

Hey, I just finished reading this entire thread and I feel like I there is a whole world of GPS possibilities I never imagined. I bought my wife a Garmin Nuvi for Christmas and just discovered Geocaching two weeks ago. Now I have a ton of questions. Maybe you guys can steer my in the right direction as it seems ya'll are deep into the GPS knowledge.

First thing, ratsneve mentioned in one post that Nuvis were not to be included in this comparison discussion. Should I be considering a CO/OR or PN-xx if I intend to continue in the pursuit of "sport" GPSing (as opposed to just driving directions).

Second, is there any indication of the accuracy of the location on the various GPSrs while in use? (I am in the Navy and our GPS will give a Figure Of Merit (FOM) indicating the availability of a satellite signal and how close to "reality" the GPS data is).

Third, I have enjoyed reading the discussion here and appreciate the commradery (SP?) that is displayed by the posters. Thank you all. It is very encouraging to see that there are so many willing to help others learn about getting more out of there GPS.

 

navyrat

[MtnHermit]

navyrat, welcome to the forum.

 

Your Nuvi has an accuracy indication, at least mine does. Hold down the satellite bars, upper-left, for several seconds to bring up the satellite screen. Most handhelds will show a circle around the position marker as a graphic indication of accuracy. Possible the CO/OR have deleted this feature. Here's a screenshot showing the accuracy:

 

 

As to whether you need a handheld vs. a Nuvi, here's another thread to read.

Edited September 9, 2008 by MtnHermit

[yogazoo]

MapWell looks like a great piece of software for a Garmin owner to have.

 

The link cites "automatical vectorization." Does it really create a vectorized map that is crisp and viewable at many zoom levels (especially zoomed in very close)? Or is it essentially a raster image that is viewable on GPS devices that typically deal only with vector data? (I hope that question is interpretable...)

 

Later on today, when I'm on break I'll get some photo's loaded and post some screen shots for ya'll to take a look at. In my opinion the Mapwel product does extremely well in vactorizing rasters and they're almost indistinguishable.

 

I'll post around 1pm mountain time.

[+Team CowboyPapa]

 

First thing, ratsneve mentioned in one post that Nuvis were not to be included in this comparison discussion. Should I be considering a CO/OR or PN-xx if I intend to continue in the pursuit of "sport" GPSing (as opposed to just driving directions).

 

navyrat

I agree with Ratsneve on this. The in-car, stick-'em-up on the windshield things are a totally different genre than the handhelds used for outdoor purposes such as backpacking, 4WD exploring and geocaching. There is very little overlap between the two types. There are some who geocache with the Nuvi, but I'm not sure why. I have both a PN-20 and an in-dash NAV/GPS in my Jeep and I don't use the in dash to get me near a cache and I don't use my PN-20 to get me to an unfamiliar location by street address, although it will.

 

The PN-20 and -40 do display a ciruclar probability of error type number in terms of feet.

[yogazoo]

Ok I have finally made time to post.

 

The topo maps are from scanned and registered USGS topo maps. There is a "demo" message written over the maps which dissapears after you buy the license.

The one below shows a transparent road layer enabled over top of the topo map.

Below is a aerial photo taken in 2005 of the same area as above. Notice some whiting out and the "demo" message again. This whiting out and demo message goes away with a license.

You can start to see the limits of resolution as you zoom in.

 

Now just some notes: This was on a Garmin Colorado. The redraw rate for the aerial photo's was slower than the USGS topo. the draw rate gets faster as you move in. You can adjust zoom settings with the program to tweak the presentation. You may be able to increase the detail of the max zoom level or reduce the detail to improve drawing zoomed further out. I would say that the redraw rate is faster than the PN-20 but probably slower than the soon released PN-40. After all the Colorado's don't have a dual processor.

Edited September 9, 2008 by yogazoo

[+coggins]

Well this is an interesting thread, looks to have fizzled out as far as the challenge...

 

Let me post a spot and see what you can do with it: 31.58708,-114.97072

 

Love to see which of the various units are up for a challenge.

[+Ratsneve]

Let me post a spot and see what you can do with it: 31.58708,-114.97072

 

Love to see which of the various units are up for a challenge.

Here is my "attempt". Bare... (pun intended) since these coordinates are South of the Border the only map I have to use is the base map on the Oregon, Topo U.S. 2008, so it really doesn't show much. It will be interesting to see what other Oregon GPSr maps some might come up with of this part of Baja.

 

 

BTW, unless it is a real coincidence and this location is actually 3,005 feet ASL (which I still doubt very much since it looks very much like the coordinates are in an old region of the Colorado River delta) the Oregon reflects my home elevation in Central Oregon instead. Oh, wait the 3005 foot elevation is my elevation. In the other screen shots 157 must be the elevation--no? But it is funny seeing the one red pin in the Gulf showing 156 feet--perhaps that is an elevation error? Or is it true elevation change relative to Central Oregon representing that the Earth is not a perfect sphere but very slightly "pear shape"?

 

A bearing of 156 or 157? That would work. Well, it just goes to show you how much I know about my Oregon. Come to think of it, does anyone know why the course route splits like it does? There is a thin line and a much thicker straight-line route. Why? The course couldn't autoroute because the source and the destination are not on any roads the OR could use but the thin line takes off from the source too? Is it showing a deviation or a deviation error even though I don't think there should be any?

Edited September 15, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+benjamin921]

Well this is an interesting thread, looks to have fizzled out as far as the challenge...

 

Let me post a spot and see what you can do with it: 31.58708,-114.97072

 

Love to see which of the various units are up for a challenge.

I'll see what I can come up with later tonight.

[+coggins]

The DEM on the Oregon basemap looks good. Too bad the TOPO2008 DVD doesn't cover this area also. MexiMaps has a 50K TOPO mapset for Baja, with the rest of the country in the future... Nice to see that you can autoroute with the basemap to the nearest highway.I think your 156 & 157 is a forward azimuth from your current location(bearing), the elevation for the area is showing as 3 meters MSL.

 

Vista HCx basemap Night mode colors @ 5Km

Vista HCx Basemap with Bluechart Americas (Chart is NOAA US21008)

View @ 2Km

 

My older GPSr is a basic eTrex, with that unit I can stream NMEA out to my PC and port that realtime into Google Earth to get aerials and a TOPO overlay(in this case a 250K H13-3), but that's what I'm trying to avoid. Would like to see a handheld replace all that trouble. Here is an example of how this looks:

TOPO & Roads layers

 

Aerial & Roads layers

 

Composite

Edited September 16, 2008 by coggins

[+coggins]

I'll see what I can come up with later tonight.

I'd love to see what can be done with a PN-40 and XMap. There are some chart numbers and TOPO links in my last post that might be of use.

[+Ratsneve]

I'll see what I can come up with later tonight.

I'd love to see what can be done with a PN-40 and XMap. There are some chart numbers and TOPO links in my last post that might be of use.

I'm real happy to see that too so long as the Colorado and Oregon GPSr's are not ignored.

[+coggins]

A bearing of 156 or 157? That would work. Well, it just goes to show you how much I know about my Oregon. Come to think of it, does anyone know why the course route splits like it does? There is a thin line and a much thicker straight-line route. Why? The course couldn't autoroute because the source and the destination are not on any roads the OR could use but the thin line takes off from the source too? Is it showing a deviation or a deviation error even though I don't think there should be any?

Not sure about the split, my unit will display the bearing or course, but not both. I would guess that the thick line might be a route airline and the thinner one a great circle bearing calculation, maybe... is the difference in the two lines larger at the center point?

 

If you make a waypoint on the MEXICO 5 Highway(10Km to the West), you should be able to autoroute to that waypoint with the basemap, try that as it works on the Vista HCx. I was surprised at the TOPO data in the Oregon 400t for Baja, I would guess it's the same with the Colorado 400t? I wonder how the Bluechart G2 Vision data looks.

Edited September 15, 2008 by coggins

[+benjamin921]

I'll see what I can come up with later tonight.

I'd love to see what can be done with a PN-40 and XMap. There are some chart numbers and TOPO links in my last post that might be of use.

Well nothing special - the data really isn't that good at all but this just goes to show ya what this PARTICULAR data looks like on the 40/20. This was done using XMaps image registration process. I tried looking around for data that had projection and was of decent quality but could not come up with any.

 

 

[+coggins]

Well nothing special - the data really isn't that good at all but this just goes to show ya what this PARTICULAR data looks like on the 40/20. This was done using XMaps image registration process. I tried looking around for data that had projection and was of decent quality but could not come up with any.

Sometimes getting good data can be a task in it's self. And the maps will only be as good as the data. The H13-3 San Felipe TOPO is only 250K, but it's better than the blank screen of the in-dash NAV/GPS in my Jeep for this area (there are 50k TOPO maps for the area but I didn't find any freely available). You could use that to navigate and you will find your way home. It's very cool to be able to register that and load it to the PN20/40. I bet you could trace the highway and route it if you wanted to.

 

One source of data I've found online for that area for DEM is the SRTM Finished 3 arc sec Shaded Relief and LANDSAT 7 for the aerial available from the USGS Seamless Server:

Data selection

 

Data download

 

LANDSAT 7 image.

Edited September 16, 2008 by coggins

[+benjamin921]

Hmmm, I had the same LANDSAT 7 image and went to download it and all I got was the Arcgrid output. I'll try again tonight and see if I can't get the download right this time. The image reg is very cool. You can take any image and put it on the PN-xx. I even had a pic of my daughter on there (when they use it and go to a place that they are not supposed to, you can have a pic of yourself there

 

Your right about being able to trace the roads, that is the beauty of it all is that there is so much that one can do with it all - it almost becomes mind boggling

[+benjamin921]

Got it. I did not have the Download selected. Here is just a quick shot of the area. Once again this was done using XMap. The GeoTif projected right where it needed to be. So the process goes like this.

 

1. Find the projected imagery you want (.sid/.tif)

2. Once downloaded, you open it up in XMap.

3. Cut your map.

4. Exchange it with your PN-xx

5. Have fun and don't get lost

 

[+coggins]

It's nice to see how easy the GeoTIFF works with XMap. You can use MrSID files too? That's great as there are some maps that would be a blast to see displayed on a GPSr such as this Yosemite 125K TOPO, Edition of Aug. 1897. Between registering maps and loading Georeferenced data, I could see the PN-20/40's as being pretty good international units coupled with XMap...

 

Working with the following data sets, this has proven to be a pretty tough challenge, nice to see there are some good workable solutions out there to prevent the blank screen syndrome:

 

NOAA 21008 Golfo de California-Northern Part. Nautical 1:639,400.

INEGI H11-3 San Felipe TOPO 1:250,000

SRTM DEM 00.00028

LANDSAT7 Orthoimagery 00.00083

 

Edit to add: I forgot to mention earlier, realtime tracking with Google Earth v4.3 via GPS TrackMaker v13.4.380.

SRTM DEM data in GeoTIFF format can be downloaded from here: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/

Edited September 17, 2008 by coggins

[+julianh]

I would just like to throw this out there. I don't hear much discussion of this program and for $45 it seems like something many are looking for.

 

I have used MapWel to load aerial imagery onto my Garmin Colorado. The redraw rate is impressive, not lightning fast, but pretty darn good. Granted, I have access to aerial imagery downloaded from the web (Montana has alot of this data available online.) but you can georeference anything even scanned USGS topo's.

What's even cooler is that the transparent road layers I've made for my unit simply overlay on top of the photo's. Try the demo of mapwel, it allows you to test the fully functioning program out, load air photo's, and see the refresh rate and detail for yourself.

 

IMHO Garmin is stupid for not capitalizing on this. Then again, they can't even get the firmware figured out for their new lines of GPS's.

(This forum desperately needs a smiley for "super-cool"! A big "two thumbs up" from me!!)

 

Yogazoo - thank you so much for bringing Mapwel to my attention. I can't believe I had never seem this before . I have just downloaded it and tried out the demo, and I am mightily impressed! The automatic vectorization of a scanned map works brilliantly, and within 5 minutes of downloading, I have manged to get a vectorized version of a scanned trail map of my home area onto my Summit HC - just brilliant! I think I will have paid for and registered this product before the night is out!!

 

 

 

 

S27o27' E152o58'

Edited September 17, 2008 by julianh

[+coggins]

(This forum desperately needs a smiley for "super-cool"! A big "two thumbs up" from me!!)

 

Yogazoo - thank you so much for bringing Mapwel to my attention. I can't believe I had never seem this before . I have just downloaded it and tried out the demo, and I am mightily impressed! The automatic vectorization of a scanned map works brilliantly, and within 5 minutes of downloading, I have manged to get a vectorized version of a scanned trail map of my home area onto my Summit HC - just brilliant! I think I will have paid for and registered this product before the night is out!!

 

 

 

Fixed the image links. Post the co-ords to let the rest of us a chance to see what we can do with this area.

Edit to add: I found the location here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.4479...;layers=B000FTF

Edited September 17, 2008 by coggins

[+julianh]

Fixed the image links. Post the co-ords to let the rest of us a chance to see what we can do with this area.

Edit to add: I found the location here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.4479...;layers=B000FTF

Thanks! I never could quite get the hang of these image links!

[+coggins]

Fixed the image links. Post the co-ords to let the rest of us a chance to see what we can do with this area.

Edit to add: I found the location here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.4479...;layers=B000FTF

Thanks! I never could quite get the hang of these image links!

So the co-ords are about: lat=-27.44798, lon=152.97613

I was able to load in the OpenStreetMap linked above and the Shonky TOPO map sets.

OSM

 

OSM & a transparent Shonky layer for TOPO contours.

 

Shonky only.

 

One nice thing about the OSM is being able to autoroute with it and have the street names:

And here's a closeup of the area from the raw OMS map:

Much better that working off the World Base Map:

Edited September 18, 2008 by coggins

[+julianh]

Yogazoo - thank you so much for bringing Mapwel to my attention. I can't believe I had never seem this before . I have just downloaded it and tried out the demo, and I am mightily impressed! The automatic vectorization of a scanned map works brilliantly, and within 5 minutes of downloading, I have manged to get a vectorized version of a scanned trail map of my home area onto my Summit HC - just brilliant! I think I will have paid for and registered this product before the night is out!!

I have had the chance to "road test" the auto-vectorised map that I created last night in just 5 minutes with the demo version of Mapwel and loaded onto my Summit HC.

 

It is a bit slow to load and reload when zooming in or out (compared to MapSource street maps), but this is not really surprising since the auto-vectorised map is very "dense" with detail compared to a simple street map or similar. It is also a bit slow to redraw as you pan around on the map.

 

However, once loaded, the map pans quite quickly and smoothly to show your current location as you walk around or drive around, even when zoomed in quite close - 80 m or so.

 

I can't speak highly enough about this product - I am just amazed that I hadn't heard about it before. Anyone who wants to be able to effectively load raster maps onto their vector-only Garmin should definitely take a look! (I have paid for and registered my copy already.)

Edited September 18, 2008 by julianh