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 - Boyd

Pages: 1 ... 251 252 [253] 254
General Discussion / Re: Is US TOPO Better????
« on: February 06, 2009, 01:37:25 PM »
Haha, ya got me there! Whatever works for you is fine with me. I have no interest in starting a "my computer is better than yours" debate. I was just responding to deercamp's question, "my other thing is that i have a mac and want to know if the tutorials are for them also". And the point is that you can do mapmaking on a Mac, but you will need to install Windows on it, which is what I've done.

I suppose your advice would be to get rid of the Mac and build a computer?

General Discussion / Re: Is US TOPO Better????
« on: February 06, 2009, 06:03:40 AM »
Except for an IBM server tower I bought in the 80's every single computer I have owned has been built by me.

Do you build your own laptops, or just not get out too much?  ;)

General Discussion / Re: Is US TOPO Better????
« on: February 05, 2009, 05:00:39 PM »
i thought when i downloaded the ma topo from maps on this site that it was going to look like
boyds in the above post.

Sorry, but if you want a map that looks like one of mine, it will probably have to be one of mine  ;)

Seriously, I feel mapmaking is an art and each person should find their own style. After you master the basics of getting a working map in your GPS, then you can start thinking about customizing the appearance to suit your own taste. That's what I did anyway, and will continue doing.

I do all my work on a Mac as well - Macbook Pro 2.4ghz core 2 duo with 4GB RAM. But I boot into Windows XP for all my mapmaking. It's unfortunate, but all the tools you need are only available under Windows. I am the most avid Mac person you will ever meet. I have used Apple products exclusively since my Apple ][ in 1978. But when it's time for mapmaking, I restart and hold down the option key :) (I also have Parallels but it's still a little too buggy and slow for my taste).

my question is, how do i color in the lakes, rivers and streams a nice shade of blue?

Sounds like you got an answer, but just to expand a bit... if you don't like Garmin's default blue (personally I don't), you will need to use a custom line and polygon type. You will find info on this here, starting on page 29: http://www.cgpsmapper.com/download/GM8DocV2.pdf

Or you can use Mapwel which has a lot of powerful features - see my thread here for some info: http://forums.gpsfiledepot.com/index.php/topic,152.0.html

One downside however. As soon as you define a line or polygon as a custom type, the lines will ALWAYS display ON TOP OF the polygons.

General Discussion / Re: Is US TOPO Better????
« on: February 04, 2009, 04:29:46 PM »
The US TOPO is available for $ 89 and I'm wondering if its better than the "homebrew" version

Coming into this thread a little late... but I like my Topo better than Garmin's. You can do SO much better than Garmin if you try. Keep working at it and you will not be disappointed!  :)

Interesting - those are really lines instead of polygon edges? If they are polygons I don't think it matters because on Garmin the polygons don't have borders. So if they are showing up on your GPS, I guess they must be lines.

In GM you can use the search function and only select lines in the dialog. You should be able to isolate those lines if you search for the correct thing, then delete them. Use the digitizer tool to select one on the map, then right-click to view the properties. That should give you an idea of what you need to search for.

O.K., I used Global Mapper to combine the .shp files and i have them in my NHD folder.  when i veiw them in GM, they look like this. 

For example, this is Lake Winnebago, the largest water body in WI.  (see attached file)

When veiwed in Mapsource, the lines across the water are labeled as "roads", and the Garmin Legend Hcx shows the same, lines where there should be blue...

 ???I'm a little disappointed in my work, as my PC just spent 2 days processing .mp's to .img's... LOL

I didn't run the .shp files thru postgis, I tried that program and it crashed my PC...

Is that the cause??

Thanks, Shnick

Map Making Support / Re: Topo Map Contour Interval
« on: February 03, 2009, 04:11:13 PM »
For my map of South Jersey I used a 5' contour interval. Around here we have Forked River "Mountain" with a dizzying summit of some 200 feet  ;) (actually the view is pretty impressive from there). The 5' interval reveals a lot about the terrain as opposed to the Garmin maps which have very few contour lines showing. Personally I think you need to fine tune this to the terrain to acheive the best results and make your map more distinctive.

Map Making Support / Re: Towards a more photographic look
« on: February 01, 2009, 07:16:40 PM »
Definitely post your map when complete if for no other reason than to be in awe :)

I have placed the first release of this map version online now if you'd like to download. For more info and download link, see the following: http://forums.njpinebarrens.com/showpost.php?p=60512&postcount=66

Map Making Support / Re: IDL Runtime
« on: January 31, 2009, 04:39:59 AM »
There's no way to turn off the basemap on the Nuvi; it's always active. I suppose you could delete the file... but that may very well brick your unit.  :o

Map Making Support / Re: IDL Runtime
« on: January 30, 2009, 01:07:27 PM »
The only thing the basemap has that Ibycus' maps don't is that it will autoroute on the limited roads it does have.

Actually I believe you'll find that the basemap will continue to autoroute (to the best of its ability) even if you make Ibycus active. On another forum there was some disagreement about whether the Garmin topo maps could route (they cannot), so I played with them a bit on my 60csx and realized that the routing was due to the basemap. This is also the case on the Nuvi. The basemap is always active.

Map Making Support / Re: Towards a more photographic look
« on: January 27, 2009, 06:17:39 PM »
Well there's clearly not any one solution which meets everyone's needs. But I'm very happy with Mapwel. Always room for improvement though! I don't mind waiting 10 minutes for a file to open when I can compile it in 45 seconds versus a 45 minute compile in cgpsmapper. I may be doing something wrong with cgpsmapper, but when I use mixed case road names, they don't display properly on the 60csx. Have read about others having this problem but haven't seen a fix. Mapwel handles this properly (like Garmin's own maps). You get mixed case names on the Nuvi and Oregon, and all uppercase on the 60csx.

And I really don't care about Mapsource which is far from my favorite program. It can't properly display my maps anyway.

Map Making Support / Re: IDL Runtime
« on: January 27, 2009, 01:10:25 PM »
I gave up on this myself, but maybe you will have better luck. See this thread: http://forums.gpsfiledepot.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html

Map Making Support / Re: Towards a more photographic look
« on: January 27, 2009, 10:41:33 AM »
Have built my first complete map of South Jersey with Mapwel now, and am learning as I go. Here are a few new screenshots:

I really have no idea how Mapwel works, but it seems to take a very different approach to compilation than cgpsmapper. It feels like it spends a lot of time putting the data into a structure similar to an .img file the first time you import an .mp file. So it can take quite awhile to open .mp files (as opposed to GPSMapEdit which opens them quickly). At first this put me off, but in the end it pays off big. With a 150MB .mp file, it might take something like 10 to 20 minutes to initially import. So I got in the habit of opening the file, then going away and doing something else for awhile (which is why I'm not sure exactly how long it takes to open a big file). But when you go to compile the .img file... WOW. It only takes a couple minutes - maybe even less to compile that file.

For example... my old cgpsmapper project was much smaller than my new map - complete gmapsupp.img file is about 35MB. That took somewhere between 4 to 6 hours total to compile, depending on how many tiles I broke it into. My new map is MUCH bigger because of all the textured landcover polygons - gmapsupp.img file is 195MB, and total compile time was about 30 minutes with Mapwel. Really - 30 minutes. But you have to add in the amount of time it takes to import each of the .mp files as described above. Even when you do this, it's still probably 3x to 5x faster than cgpsmapper.

The custom types are great, but I can't figure out a way to apply a single .typ file to an entire mapset. Even when you don't use any custom types, Mapwel .img files contain a .typ in the mapset, and I was not able to separate it from the map using sendmap20. I have a question about this posted to the Mapwel Yahoo group, so hopefully there's a solution.

I'm really liking this software and think it was a good investment. If I can just resolve this one issue, it will be perfect for me. But note that I am not doing any "editing" in Mapwel at all. I do all of that in Global Mapper and export as separate tiles using gridding. My preliminary tests show that Mapwel is happier with smaller .mp files, so I am trying to keep them under 100MB. But with all the landcover data in my map, that results in 26 tiles so I really need to find a way to apply a single style to all of them. For the first try I had to individually apply the same style to each of the 26 tiles, which was a pain.

Map Making Support / Re: bmap2mp & cgpsmapper
« on: January 21, 2009, 04:33:14 PM »
.typ files are only used by the GPS itself and are completely separate from the maps. After you've compiled the map and the .typ file (separately), use sendmap20 (free download from the cgpsmapper site). Drop the map(s) into the file window, then drop the .typ file in as well. Send the whole mapset to your GPS and the .typ file will control how the image is displayed. But it has to be bundled with the actual maps as part of a mapset, not sent as a separate file.

Map Making Support / Re: Towards a more photographic look
« on: January 21, 2009, 10:15:46 AM »
Thanks - glad you like the map. I broke down and bought the advanced version of Mapwel because I want to use it on more than one unit, and considering the power I think the cost isn't unreasonable.

Actually, I don't think that using mapwel improved performance on the 60csx... I should have explained a little better. The new version of my map appears to have more detail because of all the different textures, but in fact the older version of the map had more separate polygons, and that's what was choking the older gps'es. I was concerned that using such a large number of custom types might be a problem, but it doesn't seem to be.

Pages: 1 ... 251 252 [253] 254