GPSFileDepot Forums

General Category => Map Making Support => Topic started by: vt.flatlander on April 13, 2016, 06:33:25 PM

Title: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: vt.flatlander on April 13, 2016, 06:33:25 PM
Does anyone have any idea why the same map looks vastly different on a iMac vs a PC.
I set up a .typ file on the Windows machine. The color tones in Basecamp and on my Oregon 600 look very similar. I like it.
 The same map viewed in BaseCamp on my iMac looks like a carnival.Color tones are different and much more saturated.
I calibrated the display. Typical photos in iPhoto look natural.  ??
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: Boyd on April 13, 2016, 07:14:05 PM
Here's one of my maps on a Mac and PC. Aside from the fonts, they look pretty close to me. Now my PC has a cheapo Dell monitor and my Mac has an Apple Cinema Dislay which is quite old but has always been a really nice monitor. So there are some differences when looking at the two side by side.

Take a screenshot of the map on your Mac and PC, and view both screenshots on the same monitor. That should clue you in on whether the difference is in the monitors or if the map itself is actually different.
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: vt.flatlander on April 14, 2016, 06:28:43 AM
I will take a screenshot and do as you suggested.
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: Boyd on April 14, 2016, 07:45:04 AM
Should have added…. every object on my map is defined by a custom type with a specific color, pattern and text style. I have a background as an artist/designer and am very picky about the appearance of the map… to the point of obsession.  ;D

Using custom types for every object is the only way to get consistent results across different gps devices and software, and even then there are some factors that we just can't control. If you are using the default Garmin types, then that could account for differences between the Mac and PC, not really sure since I don't make that kind of map anymore.
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: vt.flatlander on April 14, 2016, 08:54:55 AM
Actually what has keyed me in on the difference IS the .typ definitions.
For example : Lakes using hex code #6064F8 Blue looks blue to me on both the  PC and the Oregon 600 but the same lakes on the iMac looks more purple.

Also I suspect I am as fussy as you are. Just not as experienced at this map making stuff.
My wife tells me that my map will never be finished because I have a habit of fixing things that are not broken.

Which leads me to my next issue.

Any idea why POI icons and labels appear fine in BaseCamp but just the icon with no label on the Oregon 600 ?
Answered my own question. This is the first map that I have used that shows icons as  POI's and didnt know you had to tap on the icon to get the name.... Not my preference.
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: Boyd on April 14, 2016, 10:11:42 AM
How did you create the Mac version of your map? Are you sure the .typ file was actually included in the mapset?

Do the POI show names if you zoom WAY in? Check your settings on the GPS. On the Montana I would press Setup > Map > Advanced Setup > Zoom Levels  > Map Points. The numbers there mean that points *should* be display up through that zoom level. So if you choose 500 feet, then you would have to zoom in to 500 feet in order to see the POI. If you choose 2 miles, then the POI *should* show until you zoom out farther than 2 miles.

I say "should" because Garmin's devices seem to have a mind of their own, and that setting is more like a "suggestion" than a rule.  ;D
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: vt.flatlander on April 14, 2016, 10:18:18 AM
Boyd
I used MapConverter on the PC and installed the new converted map file on a small SD card. Then plugged the card into the USB port on the iMac. Clicked on the file in the drive then Mapmanager installed the selected map.
I dont know if the .typ file is included but all the changes I made to the map are visible.

I have also figured out that I can add or subtract the labels in the advanced set up of the Oregon600. I really like this GPSr and even more now that I have my own map. ;D

Now I would like to better understand draw order and how to implement changes to get predictable results.

I could be mistaken but after looking at the .typ file for the Lake polygon there is a preview of both the day(#6064F8) and night colors(#480090). The night color looks exactly like the color that I see on my iMac  ??
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: Boyd on April 14, 2016, 11:35:03 AM
Your process for converting/installing sounds right, so I guess that is not the problem. But if you want to confirm your .typ file is there, open MapManager, highlight your map and click "reveal in Finder". In the Finder, right click (or control-click) on your .gmap file and choose "show package contents". You should see the .typ file and a few other things.

Basecamp will only show the day colors of your map, it should ignore the night colors. If you want to preview night colors you can install Garmin's old nRoute program on your PC. It will see all the maps you have installed in Mapsource/Basecamp (except for .gmap files which are not compatible). You can choose day or night mode in the preferences.

http://www.gawisp.com/perry/nroute/

Draw order only affects polygons. Line and points are "hardwired" to draw on top of polygons and you cannot control their order. So, an example of how to use draw order would be if you have polygons for forest cover, parks, lakes and buildings.  A forest would have the lowest priority and would only cover the map background. A park would have the next highest priority because you want to see it regardless of whether it is forested. The lake would need a higher priority, because you want to be able to see the lake in both a forest and a park. A building would need the highest priority so nothing else will cover it up.

But that is about all you can do with draw order, it has no effect on color or how the map looks on the PC vs Mac. You must be doing something wrong, because I see very little difference between them myself, and that includes the map I posted before that uses every possible polygon type. :)




Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: vt.flatlander on April 14, 2016, 04:38:45 PM
I mentioned draw order as something I had in mind that I wanted to get a handle on unrelated to the issue we are discussing.
I had another look at the map at home. The .typ is installed with the map. The colors are not as bad as I was stating earlier but there is a quality to the color that I do not like as compared to my Windows laptop.  I don't care for the cream color to the base of the map and all the other colors chosen in my .typ file seem much more vivid and intense.
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: Boyd on April 14, 2016, 04:54:56 PM
The cream colored map background (0x4b) is classic Garmin style, going way back to Lord knows when, I remember it on Garmin topo maps circa 1999. At least it was better than the mustard yellow background on my StreetPilot 2620.  ;D I never liked the cream background and  changed it to white when I started using custom types.

Putting a PC screenshot on your Mac screen next to the map in Basecamp (and vice versa) should clarify what is happening. Everything you've said suggests that it's just a difference in colorspace/calibration between the two systems.

Anyone who has worked with graphics should be familiar with the challenge of creating images that look good on both the Mac and PC, especially considering that most people don't calibrate their monitors.

Even on the same platform from the same company, there can be major differences. My 11" MacBook Air screen is vastly different from my 15" MacBook Pro and Apple Cinema Display. :)
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: vt.flatlander on April 14, 2016, 06:53:00 PM
If there was a TYP file tool for Mac I would just tweak the map for Mac viewing only.
I intend to change the background to something other than cream. What is the MP_TYPE Hex code for Background ?
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: Boyd on April 15, 2016, 04:19:22 AM
What is the MP_TYPE Hex code for Background ?

It's in my post above.  ;)
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: vt.flatlander on April 15, 2016, 09:07:39 AM
Got it.

I like the way my map looks but will continue tweaking it.
What color do you like to use for waterbodies ?
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: Boyd on April 15, 2016, 11:36:40 AM
I have used many different colors, see the screenshots from the two maps I posted above for a recent one (you can open the image in photoshop or other graphics software to see the color.

I have been working on raster topo maps recently and really prefer the classic USGS style where the water is light blue and has a dark blue border. Unfortunately Garmin's polygons can't have borders. Have considered creating the border separately as line features (simple to do in Globalmapper), but that adds a lot more data to the map and my maps are already too detailed (which affects performance on the GPS).

Raster based maps have a lot of other nice possibilities, like transparency and texture mapping for 3d hillshading. Plus they can easily be converted to different formats to work on a variety of Android and iOS apps. Here's an example :)
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: Boyd on April 15, 2016, 11:45:01 AM
FWIW, here is my Garmin version of the same map. Actually I have intensified these colors to the point that I don't care for them in Basecamp/Mapsource. They are tweaked to look better on my Montana 600 which makes everything look too washed out compared to a computer monitor, especially green, which looks like grey on the Montana.

You can download the Garmin version here if interested, includes universal installer for Windows and MacOS:

http://boydsmaps.com/download/core_pines.zip

The raster topo is available as .kmz file for Google Earth:

http://boydsmaps.com/download/boydmap_wharton_30.zip

Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: vt.flatlander on April 15, 2016, 12:03:01 PM
Boyd
I installed the Pines map to have a look. Looks great. How does a typical modern Garmin GPSr handle that much detail.

 Do you use Orthophotos and satellite imagery laid over your vector map to get the polygon data ?
 It would be fun to create a vector map with the look of a Historic USGS map but I suspect it would take a great deal of time to build one of an entire state even as small as VT.
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: Boyd on April 16, 2016, 03:55:22 AM
The map works fine, as long as you don't zoom out too far. As you zoom out, the GPS needs to process more data since a larger area is covered. I spent a lot of time on my most recent topo maps trying to optimize the map to improve performance.

The tutorials on this site have always advocated a "dictionary" approcach to setting zoom levels, where each feature type has a default level. But Garmin's format actually allows you to set a specific zoom level for each individual object in the map. So I developed a rather complex system using a relational database where the zoom level of a line segment is determined by how long it is, whether it is in an urban area and other factors. Zoom level for polygons can be set based on their area.

This is a lot of trouble, but it helps. Frankly, it's one reason why I probably won't make any more Garmin maps once I finish a couple projects I've been working on for awhile. The real problem is that Garmin's format is a relic from the 1990's and their GPS hardware is probably 10 years behind the processing power of modern tablets and phones. ;)

The polygon landcover data comes from a very nice dataset available from the state of NJ. They have taken aerial photos and traced the outlines of all the different land use/land cover (LU/LC) areas for the whole state. I have heavily processed this myself, which is an ongoing project I started many years ago.

Working on a larger map of the Mid Atlantic region, I found that Delaware and Maryland also have similar datasets (although they don't track as many separate LULC classifications as NJ). Pennsylvania and New York don't have anything like this. So I guess that small states have invested the resources to develop this kind of database, since planning is more important when you don't have a lot of room. ;)

Look around your states GIS websites, you may find similar data - Google searches for LULC will often find it. For other area, there is a national database called the National Landcover Dataset (NLCD) that was derived from Landsat data. But this is rather low resolution raster data that was processed based on color/reflectivity (or whatever), as opposed to shapefiles that someone actually traced from photos. I have spent a lot of time processing the NLCD data and converting it into landcover polygons for use in NY and PA, and am pretty happy with the results. That has been very complicated, and there is only so far that you can go with a low resolution raster image however.

Have you ever looked at the USGS historic topo collection? Some very cool stuff there, I built two maps from it for southern NJ. One of them is from circa 1900 and the other is circa 1940. One of the challenges is finding the best map of each quad, the quality can very a lot. Then I had to spend a lot of time attempting to match the colors of the different quads, that can also vary considerably.

FWIW, here they are. They are raster imagery in .kmz format for Google Earth. I also have versions that work in smartphone apps. I started building a website to make it easy for people to download my maps in different formats. Eventually I will get it up and running, but have been distracted with other things recently. :)

http://boydsmaps.com/download/becks_pines.zip
http://boydsmaps.com/download/the_pines_in_the_1940s.zip

Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: vt.flatlander on April 16, 2016, 05:03:08 PM
Boyd
Thank you for all your input here. I suspect what you are doing is well beyond my capabilities but appreciate your willingness to share.
I will look into what you mention here and see if I can utilize it for my own purposes.
 
On a different note I have a question regarding Typviewer and hex codes.
I notice all the downhill ski trails on my map are the same as major highways but the tutorial assigned code 0x0106 "Overhead Cable"to this. In Typeviewer the hex code associated with "Overhead Cable" is 0x10106 but the cGPSmapper code list has this as 0x0106.
Typeviewer wont let me enter 0106 as the code ?
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: Boyd on April 17, 2016, 04:27:40 AM
Sorry, I don't know about those line codes. I never use anything greater than 0x29 on my own maps. I believe those codes starting with 0x0100 are for marine charts and they will not be compatible with all gps units. Not really sure though, since I don't use them.

If you want to use 0x0106 in TypViewer, you can enter 001 in the Type box and 06 in the Subtype box. However, when you look at the code that this creates, it seems to come out as 0x01, which is Major Highway, as you said.

TypViewer wants you to enter a leading zero for all the standard types, so for a Major Highway you would normally enter 001 in the Type box and 00 in the subtype box. My take on this is that TypViewer does not think there are any subtypes that can be used with the 001 prefix.

Someone more knowledgeable about this than me will have to give you the real answer though. Again, for my own maps, I just use the safe and standard types no larger than 0x29. You can choose any of them that you aren't already using, define any line style that you like, and then enter "Ski Trail" (or whatever) as the English description.

I also don't understand why anyone would want to use "overhead cable" to specify "ski trail"… ;)
Title: Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
Post by: vt.flatlander on April 17, 2016, 06:00:53 AM
I will go back to QGIS and assign a different code for those lines. I have some other edits to make anyway.
Thank you.