Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forums Search:  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - vt.flatlander

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Map Making Support / Re: cGPSmapper hangs
« on: May 12, 2016, 12:45:35 PM »
How long did it take to compile a tile with a resultant .imp of 20MB??

My first map project of the state of Vermont has 6 tiles . The total Final_mp files before compilation are 1.17GB . It take cGPSmapper approx. 2 hrs to compile. My next map project of the state of New Hampshire is also 6 tiles with a total Final_mp files of 1.9GB. It takes 3 times as long to compile.  Both have a max resulting .img of 12KB for any one tile.   

Map Making Support / Re: cGPSmapper hangs
« on: May 10, 2016, 05:38:30 PM »
Sorry everyone
I need to offer some clarification on this. My first map build was my home state of Vermont which is a 38MB file in BaseCamp.
My second map build is New Hampshire . Version 1 ended up at 28MB.
However if you look at the Split folders before compilation my VT Split folder is almost 1GB. The NH Split folder is 1.4GB.
 Both maps ended up with only six tiles total. Both maps work perfectly in BaseCamp.
I dont know enough about what is happening during the compilation process that causes the final map to be 38MB for VT and 28MB for NH.
Version 2 of my NH map is identical to version 1 except I am using contour data that was derived from the DEM files as previously mentioned.  The contour shapefile grew in size to 1.31GB as compared to my original contour shapefile in version 1 of 345MB. I was expecting the file to grow but not by 1GB
Am I somehow over my limit in tile size ? What info is available to explain how far you can go before you have to reduce the tile size.  My NH total Final_MP files under 2GB  before compilation.


Map Making Support / cGPSmapper hangs
« on: May 10, 2016, 11:09:35 AM »
I recently completed a map of New Hampshire and was not happy with the contour data so I went ahead and created my own 20ft vector data from the National Map DEM files using QGIS. 

For what ever reason cGPSmapper gets to 34% of processing through the "lines" elements (109,557ea.) of the first Final_MP file(566KB size) then just hangs there. Granted the file sizes have grown but the entire map is under 2 gig which I suspect would take approx 2 hrs to process.

What did I miss in creating my own contour data that cGPSmapper is having trouble with?
All that remains in the attribute table of my new vector file is NAME and MP_TYPE so no extra fields for the .exe to have to process through.

Map Making Support / Any way to fix missing contours ?
« on: April 30, 2016, 09:12:50 AM »
I completed a topo of New Hampshire but I am less than happy with the fact that some parts of the map have 20 foot contours lines that just dead-end. The original TNM data is not as nice as I would like it to be and there is no State data set that I could find.
See attached.
Is there some method to fix this?


[/quote] One thing that I find generally helpful though, I have a list called "blank" that doesn't contain any waypoints/tracks/routes. That gives me a clean view of the map at least. :)

I do this also.

General Discussion / Re: Future of Garmin and dedicated GPSr ??
« on: April 28, 2016, 07:31:35 AM »
I have been doing some reading and my have to come out from under the rock I have been living under. :)
I suspect when the time comes when my Oregon 600 fails on me I will have to consider what the (then) current cell phone technology has to offer in regards to stand alone GPS use.
I may even consider buying an older version iPhone5 or the like just to see how well it works without cell coverage. Looks like about the same price as I paid for my current GPSr.

I have a small number of maps in BaseCamp .When switching from one to another I notice that some maps open to a previous location and zoom level but others do not. I have to zoom way back to find the map.
What is BaseCamp looking at/for to determine what is displayed in the map screen?

General Discussion / Re: Future of Garmin and dedicated GPSr ??
« on: April 26, 2016, 05:38:10 PM »
Thanks for all the info here.
I honestly have no knowledge of cell phone use,plans,or features so this in very informative.
I was not aware that phones have GPS receivers in them and could be used without service. How rugged is a typical cell phone as opposed to something like my Oregon 600 ?

General Discussion / Re: Future of Garmin and dedicated GPSr ??
« on: April 26, 2016, 07:58:47 AM »
Thank you for the feedback.

200 pounds (~$300) buys a very powerful device nowadays. And it will make calls, send texts, deliver Emails and a whole lot more.

For me, the future is the smartphone.
What are the typical additional monthly costs for having cell service?
I realize I'm in the minority these days not having a need for a cell phone. Coverage in my area is poor and unreliable.
What kind of accuracy and reliability can one expect from cell phone service in remote locations regarding GPS use?

General Discussion / Re: Future of Garmin and dedicated GPSr ??
« on: April 25, 2016, 09:16:50 AM »
Interesting thread over at gpsreview.
I am 56 yeas old and still prefer a printed street map to get around(when I do travel outside my normal circle).
For me the GPSr is mostly used for recording where I go when I am in the field. When heading out  I bring in order of priority a compass(plus a backup),paper map and GPSr. I use the GPSr to help me get in and out of places in the dark but during daylight I only glance at it to get a better position as to where I am on the map.
I paid $215.00 for my Oregon 600 from Cabela's on sale and I used my Club points to get it so it was essentially free. I have only used free maps from this site and am now using my own. So my investment has been minimal.
At this point I would be sad not to have my handheld along with me so if it failed I would buy another.

General Discussion / Future of Garmin and dedicated GPSr ??
« on: April 25, 2016, 06:14:00 AM »
I have owned only three individual Garmin GPSr's over the past ten years and have been happy with what each successive unit has provided. My current unit is an Oregon 600 which I am building my own basic topo maps for. It has been fun and educational but I'm wondering if I should start focusing on what other technologies have to offer in respect to map building and GPS use.
I'm probably in a very small minority of persons who don't actually own a cell phone so I have no experience with such devices in regard to using them for purposes other than communication.
Thoughts from anyone?

Map Making Support / Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
« 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.

Map Making Support / Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
« on: April 16, 2016, 05:03:08 PM »
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 ?

Map Making Support / Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
« on: April 15, 2016, 12:03:01 PM »
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.

Map Making Support / Re: Map viewed on PC vs iMac looks different.
« 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 ?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6