Non-road maps

[sabre23t]

Okay. Here's some thoughts and proposals.
1. A PHYSICAL map layer
2. A ROAD map layer
3. A TRAIL map layer
4. A TOPO map layer

Looks like a sensible well thought out proposal to me. Though, I can see layer 1 and 2 (Physical and Road) to be just combined as it is now, and only separated when really needed.

I can also see a "limited" topo map being one of of the topo map layer, basically topo maps of only the hills and "empty" area of the road/physical maps. When I see empty area in our map I always wondered whether there's a hill there. But loading a full topo map, makes the rest of my road map too busy.

[chinwy]

Sounds like game to me too.

The only time topo (contour) lines starts to cause problems in urban builtup area. That is where finding a suitable interval becomes important. In the open country, where there is almost no POI and the one straight road on the display, detail contours adds to the variety. Cant recall what resolution I set mine to. Will have to look back on maps.

I would vote to keep the first 2 layers saperate and not need to goback and redo the job again another day. Just putting in the rivers and streams can already be a handfull.

Which ever choice it is, a new set of polygons need, eg rubber, oil palm and coconut estate. This is were I tried to jump the gun in my early attempts and now have to redo the whole stuff again.

[weiaun]

Thanks for the comments.

1. With regards to the TOPO issue:

I think one of the beauties of having open/free maps and having layers is that we don't have to just have one 'edition' of the TOPO layer which suits everybody. We can have several 'editions' of it - different sources of data, different resolutions, different coverage areas - as long as we stick to some conventions (which levels to use, transparency, etc). Different people can maintain their favourite TOPO editions of the TOPO layer, and different users can decide which is most suitable for their needs.

MFM in this sense is a seismic shift from MSM as once the sources (.mp / unlocked .img) files are available it would be possible now to create various compilations to suit different users, perhaps maintained by different people.

Hence I think it's very important at the inception of the new MFM, to come out with some standards that contributors (tracks/POIs), mappers (.mp) and compilers (img/mdr/tdb/etc) could agree with to allow MFM to blossom in the future and not just be a free competitor of MSM.

2. Separation of layer 1 (physical) and 2 (road)

This is probably the most crucial question - the reason for this is that this is going to take the most work initially and if it is not separated, it would be difficult to maintain layer 3 (trails) without causing a lot of duplication (of mapping effort, and mapping elements). It will be more difficult to separate once MFM matures.

May I suggest some further key advantages of separating layers 1 and 2:

a. Updating/contributing will be more efficient.

It will greatly simplify the work flow of updating maps if mappers dealt with mainly one source of updates for one particular region. The sources of road maps are mainly tracks. Whereas the sources of the physical maps could be Google Earth, tracks, JUPEM maps, etc. It would be easier if mappers who update maps could focus. (Danger: we could get more driving-on-water errors). By breaking up the task of updating maps into more bits, more people could be involved instead of a few over-worked unpaid hobbyists.

In fact, I just thought that it might be worthwhile to create a 5th layer for POIs only - especially for the hoards of POIs like people's favourite restaurants, shops, that would absolutely clutter the map if all were included. Example 'editions' of this 5th layer would be like 'the best satay in Malaysia' maintained by a satay enthusiast. Contributors can contribute whatever they want, and best of all, users can pick and choose the best 'editions' (it can be more than one) that they are interested in.

[Comment added 3/10/08 - I've just realised that malfreemaps already has a separate POI layer]

This efficiency might become more crucial if, in the near future, we can hopefully expand to include other ASEAN countries. It might be as easy as just dividing up the ASEAN map into sections and just letting the community, armed with standards and conventions for interoperability, fill it in.

b. Future use

Separating out layers 1 and 2 would allow custom maps - like what I have in mind for recreational users. Other examples would be a very basic road map (only layer 2). Perhaps, there could be future unanticipated uses for a separate layer 1 and 2.

In simple terms, layering would allow different sorts of map users to stay as part of MFM.

c. It should not be difficult to separate AND it will be very easy to combine

Most of the separating could be done just by selecting elements by 'type' and moving them over to a new map. Only a few elements are actually contentious - in that it would require some discretion (perhaps using some of the principles I discussed in my earlier post) to decide which layer it belongs to. Combining the layers (if in the future this was thought to be better) would be so simple: select all - copy - paste - done.




Sorry for being so wordy, but I am excited by the open-ness of the new MFM and the fact that we can start afresh. It would be sad if we limit the scope of our maps by heading down the same technical path as MSM.

Please do consider my suggestions.

wa

[chinwy]

Logical enough for me. Good to know from past experience, we can plan to succeed and not to fail from the start.

[chinwy]

Sample of my topo work. My have to redo the entire job again. Some alaignment errors now that I have found out why the raster maps did not align.

[weiaun]

A nice piece of work - must have taken a lot of effort converting raster to vector. Is it a beautiful place? Should visit one day.




How do you guys decide on what levels to use and what kind of elements do you put on which levels? I've tried explore this a bit by looking at how other maps do it. Don't know if this will be useful but here's what I found ...

Malfreemaps levels

Malfreemaps Levels.png

Garmin City Navigator levels

Garmin City Navigator Levels.png

Garmin Topographic map levels

Garmin Topo Levels.png

(continued in next message...)

[weiaun]

(continued from previous ...)

The Scottish Mountaineering Club levels

SMC Topo Levels.png

Good night

[chinwy]

Not that difficult. Just getting it align was painful. Need Ozie to help. Google map of that area not clear.

Small weekend town. Good food. Fresh air. Great outdoors - tramping, MTB or 4x4. Old underground tin mines suppose to run some 100's of km in its haydays.

Unfortunately, the place has been raped by people with selective brain problems at ALL levels. Imagine - the mapping room in the mines archive ripped open and all its maps left to the elements to destroy!! OR the mines complex strip clean of every bit of scrap iron for besi burok, even the metal cemented in the drain gets chipped off. At one stage the the WW2 memorial also get strip off its brass inlays. REAL SICK. Fortunately, the place has other attraction.

PM me if you want to go there.

[antyong (retired)]

The ideas are good yet we have to be well-organized to ensure that there is no duplication of objects in each of the later. Furthermore, there are technical limitations. Polygons have to be included into the map map. So a separate physical map with rivers and lakes cannot be placed on top or beneath the main routing map. If you look closely at my Titiwangsa range polygons in the MSM mapset, you will see the limitation.

The best workaround is to separate the layers at work (mp file level) and then combine them before compilation. I am doing this for urban polygons right now. It should be not difficult to extend the same principle on to other data. However, the large amount of data for topo lines is a problem. Most users don't need them.

We have to figure how to allow options for different layers. It will require some thinking but it will also be fun and interesting

Btw, don't worry too much about map level setting. I'll have to decide on the level setting to ensure consistency with the other map layers.

[rcmaps]

Not sure if this will work for you guys.

Have a look here for my rationale for how to "organise" the Laos and Vietnam maps.

I quite prefer the map layering process in organising maps too as this gives flexibility to users to choose to display features they need or like.

Recently, we have come across very detailed 20m contour lines for both countries and have decided to split the mapset into 3 parts,
Laos_Vietnam Roads and others (7Mb) - this is likely to grow as we add Thailand and Myanmar (WIP) to this mapset soon.
Laos Contours (86Mb)
Vietnam Contours (In progress - most likely 100Mb+)


I would suggest that the contour lines be in a separate mapset as most users may not need the topo lines, it does slow up screen re-draw significantly depending on how you organise the topo levels and details to determine draw and display prioriy in the mapset. Size of each img tile is also important.

Hope this is helpful.