BirdsEye

[+geosibisa]

What a load of rubbish.

Takes ages to download,

Ages to upload,

Costs £21.00 In UK.

Has no definition,

no contrast....

Using Oregon 550. My advice, save your money and use Google for free. I wonder if they will refund me?

 

Would not mind the clunky download if it was worth waiting for, but definition starts to fail at about the height of an orbiting space shuttle!

 

Much dissapointed

 

My own fault. should have asked first.......

[+splashy]

Read and see this

 

See youtube

 

PDF

http://www.tritonforum.com/morel/A%20Guide...s%20Creator.pdf

 

Download here

free map creator

 

Really veeeeeery nice program.

[+TheRedArmy]

Read and see this

 

See youtube

 

PDF

http://www.tritonforum.com/morel/A%20Guide...s%20Creator.pdf

 

Download here

free map creator

 

Really veeeeeery nice program.

 

nice youtube tutorial, i'll have to give those a try when i get my 62s (non squeaky model) up and running.

 

fyi...your 2nd link doesn't seem to be working.

[lalittle]

Read and see this

 

See youtube

 

PDF

http://www.tritonforum.com/morel/A%20Guide...s%20Creator.pdf

 

Download here

free map creator

 

Really veeeeeery nice program.

 

Isn't there a limit on how much satellite data you can load to a garmin device using this method? I thought I read that the limit was quite low.

 

Thanks,

 

Larry

 

PS. The PDF link doesn't work.

[+Red90]

That is only for "custom maps" which is limited to 100 1 MP images. Basically nothing useful.

[lalittle]

That is only for "custom maps" which is limited to 100 1 MP images. Basically nothing useful.

 

The tutorial he posted was about using "custom maps." Is there some other way of getting satellite imagery on the unit that gets around this limitation?

 

Thanks,

 

Larry

[lalittle]

Duplicate post.

 

(Couldn't find option to simply "delete" this post.)

Edited August 8, 2010 by lalittle

[+dfx]

The tutorial he posted was about using "custom maps." Is there some other way of getting satellite imagery on the unit that gets around this limitation?

yes. birdseye.

 

[lalittle]

The tutorial he posted was about using "custom maps." Is there some other way of getting satellite imagery on the unit that gets around this limitation?

yes. birdseye.

 

 

I should have been more clear -- I meant other than Birdseye.

 

Larry

[+splashy]

'fyi...your 2nd link doesn't seem to be working.'

 

Sorry,

http://www.tritonforum.com/morel/A%20Guide...s%20Creator.pdf

 

If you don't really need bigger maps this is nearly perfect.

[+jlw82]

does birds eye use google maps, or something else?

[+geosibisa]

does birds eye use google maps, or something else?

 

By the look of the lack of detail I suggest something else.

[+g-o-cashers]

BirdsEye is based on DigitalGlobe imagery. http://www.digitalglobe.com/

[+user13371]

...Birdseye is based on DigitialGlobe...

And in a large part so are Google Earth and DeLorme's newer imagery service, though there's s a mix of other data providers iinvolved. Not every vendor using DG licenses the same level of detail or imagery from the same dates.

 

Frankly, the gripes I've heard about Birdseye sound awfully similar to what I experienced (and still hear) about DeLorme's online map subscription. Google seems to have mastered serving up the data on demand -- but slicing/dicing/packing it into a form you can load on a GPS seems to be a whole 'nother matter.

Edited August 10, 2010 by lee_rimar

[+dfx]

And in a large part so are Google Earth and DeLorme's newer imagery service, though there's s a mix of other data providers iinvolved. Not every vendor using DG licenses the same level of detail or imagery from the same dates.

i can't complain about lack of detail really. some areas aren't covered well in birdseye while they are covered in google. but that's expected. overall i find detailed coverage in birdseye to be pretty good. YMMV.

 

but it's also about alignment of the images. many of the birdseye images i've downloaded so far were 50 meters off or more, while on google maps/earth they're much better aligned, even though the images are the same. so, google is clearly doing a better job at (re)aligning the images - of course obviously they'll still never be perfect.

 

i still think that for $30 per year it's a good service. yeah the downloads could be faster. yeah the software could be better. yeah it would be better if they used google earth images (if google even offers that service). but c'mon, for 58 cents per week?

Edited August 10, 2010 by dfx

[+northernpenguin]

And in a large part so are Google Earth and DeLorme's newer imagery service, though there's s a mix of other data providers iinvolved. Not every vendor using DG licenses the same level of detail or imagery from the same dates.

i can't complain about lack of detail really. some areas aren't covered well in birdseye while they are covered in google. but that's expected. overall i find detailed coverage in birdseye to be pretty good. YMMV.

 

but it's also about alignment of the images. many of the birdseye images i've downloaded so far were 50 meters off or more, while on google maps/earth they're much better aligned, even though the images are the same. so, google is clearly doing a better job at (re)aligning the images - of course obviously they'll still never be perfect.

 

i still think that for $30 per year it's a good service. yeah the downloads could be faster. yeah the software could be better. yeah it would be better if they used google earth images (if google even offers that service). but c'mon, for 58 cents per week?

 

The problem I have with Birdseye is not the slow downloads. I batch them and get it over with, I mean, how often does sat imagery change .... not often. I've got all the areas I would typically travel covered. My issue is what it does to my Colorado --- apparently a potential cause is running more than 4 files at once so I'll be moving files in and out of the Birdseye directory on my SD card to test.

 

I guess BirdsEye would be fine if they fixed that little glitch, or added a file manager to the Colorado so I wouldn't have to hook up to the PC and manage the files before heading out.

[lalittle]

The problem I have with Birdseye is not the slow downloads. I batch them and get it over with, I mean, how often does sat imagery change .... not often. I've got all the areas I would typically travel covered. My issue is what it does to my Colorado --- apparently a potential cause is running more than 4 files at once so I'll be moving files in and out of the Birdseye directory on my SD card to test.

 

I guess BirdsEye would be fine if they fixed that little glitch, or added a file manager to the Colorado so I wouldn't have to hook up to the PC and manage the files before heading out.

 

I don't think many people (if any) would list the slow downloads as the worst problem with Birdseye. The downloads ARE unacceptably slow by today's standards, but the real problems are 1) the incredibly slow performance problems with Basecamp once a number of BE files are downloaded, and 2) all the manual "fiddling" that needs to be done in order to get the imagery on your system. You need to create a new BE square, then zoom in to a corner to line it up with the previous square, then zoom back out, then move to new corner, then zoom back in and line up the next edge, then zoom back out, then move the last edge and adjust it so that it's not over the incredibly small 75 meg limit, then name the file, then download it. This just doesn't feel like a modern product's workflow.

 

When you add to this the fact that Basecamp can sometimes pause 30 seconds to a few MINUTES to start responding as you use the program, you can see that the multi-step process of defining several BE areas can take a ridiculously long time. I have a few dozen BE images downloaded (all around 70 to 75 megs), and just starting the Basecamp application takes about 10 minutes now. With each new BE download, that time increases. If I want to change maps in order to see roads or topo areas, I sometimes have to just walk away and come back since it can take several minutes to respond again.

 

Make no mistake, this is NOT about the system speed. I've used a few different systems, both 32 and 64 bit, with plenty of RAM and decently fast processors (Core2Due 3.0 Gig, 4GB DDR3 RAM, Win7 64bit at the moment), and Basecamp just crawls -- 10 minutes to open, a few minutes to change maps, 15 to 30 seconds to respond to zoom commands at times, etc. Other people with faster systems than mine report the same issues. I can edit multiple layers of video on my system, using multiple 2GB files, with no issues, and I can navigate all over the world in Google Earth with essentially NO delays -- but Basecamp takes 10 minutes to open if a few dozen BE images are downloaded. Note that this was NOT a problem until I downloaded a bunch of BE images, so this issue is definitely related to BE.

 

The only thing more inexcusable than the Basecamp/Birdseye performance is the total lack of information from Garmin on this. They barely admit there is a problem, and to date I have yet to see them even confirm that they are working on the Basecamp/Birdseye performance issues. No "we are currently working to isolate the cause of the problem," or even "we are aware of the issue." They continue to advise people to check their graphics card and printer drivers, as if numerous people haven't already confirmed that this does NOT help.

 

In other words, for those of us who need to use a few gigs or more of BE imagery, it's not a "little glitch" that we need fixing. Rather, it's a PACK of elephants in the room. My guess is that if you aren't seeing the issue, you simply don't have very many BE images downloaded, or you aren't using the highest detail level, which is still WAY below the detail level I'm seeing on my Droid. For those of us who mountain bike and cover 20 miles or so in a single ride, we need dozens of 75MB squares just to cover our "normal" riding areas, and Basecamp just isn't usable anymore at this point.

 

Larry

[+jeepdelfuego]

...I don't think many people (if any) would list the slow downloads as the worst problem with Birdseye. The downloads ARE unacceptably slow by today's standards, but the real problems are 1) the incredibly slow performance problems with Basecamp once a number of BE files are download...

 

I hope Garmin is looking at these Forums because this is at least the third thread I've seen concerning BirdsEye in the last week. I bought a subscription about two weeks ago and got frustrated the first day. I used it for one frustrating week and I don't plan on using it again. It has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I may not even buy a Garmin GPSr again and I've owned 9 different Garmin units over the last few years. As for Basecamp, I am not going to use it until after I have re-installed it without the BirdsEye imagery because if I started it right now, I would have to wait at least 10 minutes for it to be responsive! I wish I could get my money back for my BirdsEye purchase.

[+splashy]

Stop you CC payment?

[+myotis]

...I don't think many people (if any) would list the slow downloads as the worst problem with Birdseye. The downloads ARE unacceptably slow by today's standards, but the real problems are 1) the incredibly slow performance problems with Basecamp once a number of BE files are download...

 

I hope Garmin is looking at these Forums because this is at least the third thread I've seen concerning BirdsEye in the last week. I bought a subscription about two weeks ago and got frustrated the first day. I used it for one frustrating week and I don't plan on using it again. It has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I may not even buy a Garmin GPSr again and I've owned 9 different Garmin units over the last few years. As for Basecamp, I am not going to use it until after I have re-installed it without the BirdsEye imagery because if I started it right now, I would have to wait at least 10 minutes for it to be responsive! I wish I could get my money back for my BirdsEye purchase.

 

Uninstalling Birdseye and reinstalling it does NOT remove the data.

[or-tracker]

Some my tips how to work with crappy BaseCamp program. Allways delete unnecessary downloaded BE images from My Collection, leave only few. Remove sd card from gps, backup and delete images from internal memory, do not insert sd card to computer with a lot of images! Before working with Basecamp insert empty flash card to computer. After downloading few images move them to other location, do not let collect a lot of them. After work clean up temporary files from C:\Documents and Settings\{Name}\Local Settings\Temp\BaseCamp. Hope this helps.

[+northernpenguin]

Biggest problem Basecamp has is that it defaults to showing "All Collections". So, those of us who have downloaded several GB of data have to wait for Basecamp to load EVERYTHING WE EVER DOWNLOADED when the program starts, rather than a small subset.

 

I am in the same boat - Core Duo 3 GHz with 4GB ram and yes, Basecamp is terribly slow. I won't use the application, I use MapSource for everything except BirdsEye downloads - and then I leave the machine to download over night.

 

Why I don't have a problem with that is not because there is no problem. It's because I batched my entire Province, let my computer chew on it for two weeks and then never started Basecamp up again. Ever. I manage the JNX files on my GPS instead. I'm going to be in a world of pain when I travel to a new area though.

 

I took a trip to Regina recently and rather than setup my computer to download the images for a week, I used my smartphone with Google (satellite) Maps instead on the trip. Not good when I'm gonna find an HTC phone to be more handy than a dedicated GPS that sells for the same price.

 

I won't be renewing my BirdsEye until my GPS can handle at least a dozen JNX files on the card and the BaseCamp application is fixed so that I can run it on something less than a supercomputer cluster when I have more than 200MB of satellite imagery.

[+khumbu_calypso]

I only started into this GPS thing a month or so ago and have been using Birdseye satellite imagery since I got my GPSMAP 62s. I haven't experienced any of the issues that all of the above are complaining about, with the exception of resolution which I think is to be expected depending on the area that you are looking for a picture of. There just are super high resolution images of every square kilometer on Earth. Not even Google Earth has that. There are a lot of areas in Google Earth that are very low resolution to be sure. On the other hand some of the sections of BE imagery that I have downloaded are almost as high res as any I have seen anywhere.

 

Download speed is about what I would expect for files of this size. And Garmin must have upped the download limit since the original posts. I can download 230 MB at a time. It takes about 10 mins for each one. That is about as fast as any download I would get from any company on the internet that isn't using Bit Torrent technology.

 

And so far I have downloaded 10 - 230 MB chunks and Basecamp is running fine. I can't say I have noticed any difference in performance.

[+CacheFreakTim]

Has anyone found a way to use free maps like Google Maps, or that mobile atlas creator to create a nation wide satellite map for free like the maps on gpsfiledepot.com?

[+dfx]

Has anyone found a way to use free maps like Google Maps, or that mobile atlas creator to create a nation wide satellite map for free like the maps on gpsfiledepot.com?

 

Mobile Atlas Creator can create maps in the Garmin "custom maps" KML/KMZ format, but those are very limited in size. Apparently the JNX file format has been figured out, at least to some extent, and so it's possible to create custom birdseye-compatible map files from sources like Google. Haven't tried that myself yet though, and I'm sure it violates a number of license agreements. Also, nationwide high-res aerial imagery would eat up a lot of space, more than any SD card could store.

[+G & C]

I've had zero issues with BirdsEye on my 550t. The DLs really aren't even very slow, to be honest. It hasn't slowed my GPS down a bit, and the detail is just fine by me. Definitely worth $30/year, I'll tell you that much. Especially in areas that I am not all that familiar with.

 

I will say this though, I have found it much more useful in urban areas, as opposed to trails in the mountains and deserts.

[+TotemLake]

I've had zero issues with BirdsEye on my 550t. The DLs really aren't even very slow, to be honest. It hasn't slowed my GPS down a bit, and the detail is just fine by me. Definitely worth $30/year, I'll tell you that much. Especially in areas that I am not all that familiar with.

 

I will say this though, I have found it much more useful in urban areas, as opposed to trails in the mountains and deserts.

LandRover and I accomplished a 9.5 mile hike of which the first couple of miles were on uncharted trails and USFS roads. If it wasn't for the aerials on the GPS's (His is a Garmin mine a DeLorme), we wouldn't have known about the roads in the area and the break in the trees indicated where the trail was and would come out at.

 

Its usueful, you just have to know what to look for. The signs aren't going to be as apparent.

[+Entropy512]

Has anyone found a way to use free maps like Google Maps, or that mobile atlas creator to create a nation wide satellite map for free like the maps on gpsfiledepot.com?

 

Mobile Atlas Creator can create maps in the Garmin "custom maps" KML/KMZ format, but those are very limited in size. Apparently the JNX file format has been figured out, at least to some extent, and so it's possible to create custom birdseye-compatible map files from sources like Google. Haven't tried that myself yet though, and I'm sure it violates a number of license agreements. Also, nationwide high-res aerial imagery would eat up a lot of space, more than any SD card could store.

I've had very good results with patched Oregon firmware and map2jnx (I'm a heavy Linux user with a fair amount of experience with GDAL - if you're not there are probably better choices than map2jnx.)

 

http://whiter.brinkster.net/en/JNX.html