GPS and Maps

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from
the wonderful person alanmo <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Small world - was walking around Titterstone Clee 2 weeks ago and plan
to be up Brown Clee at the weekend. I am also a councillor on SCC:
what do you think of the ROW cuts?

Haven't heard about any ROW cuts .. please enlighten me by email. It
could explain why my contacts at SCC aren't talking to me much of late.

Quoted message said:

I am stuggling with the IT teckie stuff and will have to find an idiots
guide!!!

I'll be happy to explain (by email) if you tell me what you're
struggling with. Or if you are really around Brown Clee at the Weekend,
contact me by email and I'll feed you coffee and tell you which routes
to avoid (but I'm tied up Saturday).

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Rudi Winter <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Nick \(Scots\) said:

You can buy 1;25k OS digital maps.

Wot? Just the map images to read with any picture viewer? No program
that just messes things up and hence no upgrade fees? That sounds too
good to be true! ;-)

Yeah, if that's an option I want some of that too. All the 1:25k digital
data I have seen has been tied to a particular viewer, encrypted (with
various degrees of success), and set up so that you can't print anything
bigger than A4 from it. Doubtless you can rent the underlying raw
pixels, probably about £10 per square inch, knowing the OS (payable
annually).

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

"Roy" <roy> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So am I correct in the comment I posted that to create a route in
Tracklogs you have to start from scratch every time (as opposed to
selecting previously traced paths in Anquet)? It looked that way
from the demo I downloaded. Otherwise Tracklogs looked very smart to
me.

Not at all. You can modify an existing track (or one uploaded from
your GPS) very easily. Moving an existing trackpoint or creating a
new one is just a click and drag operation. From the evaluations I
did before I bought
Tracklogs, I found it by far the easiest for entering and modifying
routes.

It struck me as much more time consuming than the Anquet system IF you
tend to re-use paths in new routes (and indeed wandering around some
areas such as the North York Moors I do find myself covering the same
ground fairly often).

I don't know Anquet so can't comment on that, but I don't see any
difficulty in reusing old tracks in Tracklogs. Another new feature in V3
is that Copy/Paste now works for the selected Trackpoints and Waypoints
which makes it even easier to copy bits from one file to another.

One V2 feature which got dropped (hopefully it will come back) is the
ability to view all tracks in a folder at once, which is quite nice for
seeing where you have been/not been in a given area. What I have started
to do is to copy/paste all tracks in a given area into one composite file
which gives the same effect. If you do this at the time you are uploading
from the GPS, you can reduce the number of points in the track as well.

John

"alanmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the advice. I went for Garmin 60C rather than Mio due to
battery life, waterproof, rugged construction, etc. Have used it
with
downloaded routes from Walkingworld and it worked a treat. Print
maps
and laminate or use waterproof paper not just in case of getting
lost
but to identify landmarks, etc.

So does the 60c have a map onscreen ? Since it sounds more outdoor
proof than the Mio.

Nick

Hi Nick

No detailed map just paths, routes and waypoints when walking. OK for
navigation when driving on roads.
Age means I now need reading glasses so anything that reduces need for
maps is actually a bonus. Have read great reports about Mio though.

Alan

On 3 Oct 2005 11:50:36 -0700, "alanmo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

| Hi Nick
|
| No detailed map just paths, routes and waypoints when walking. OK for
| navigation when driving on roads.
| Age means I now need reading glasses so anything that reduces need for
| maps is actually a bonus. Have read great reports about Mio though.

I use varifocals which allow me to read maps, use a gps, look where I am
putting my feet *and* admire the countryside.

--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person "Nick (Scots)" <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

"alanmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the advice. I went for Garmin 60C rather than Mio due to
battery life, waterproof, rugged construction, etc. Have used it
with
downloaded routes from Walkingworld and it worked a treat. Print
maps
and laminate or use waterproof paper not just in case of getting
lost
but to identify landmarks, etc.

So does the 60c have a map onscreen ? Since it sounds more outdoor
proof than the Mio.

It will only have a map on-screen if you load one - the 'Atlantic
basemap' is pretty much useless. The road/driving maps are OK for ..
well .. roads. If you want tracks and footpaths, roll your own.

If you want contours there is a full (UK/Eire) contour mapset on the SMC
website (along with Munro/Marilyn summits, all UK trig pillars, and a
few other odds and ends). You can fit pretty much the whole set into a
60C, iirc, just in case you go up in Eire and come down in East Anglia.
8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

Rudi Winter said:

alanmo said:

Are the Explorer based ones so much better than Landranger for setting
up paths, waypoints, routes, etc?

I keep forgetting which is which: one of them is 1:25k, the other is
1:50k. In a hilly area with loads of contours (and crags etc) the
1:25k is needed really. In other areas, 1:50k may be ok.

Other way round. .

1:50k is fine in hilly areas. 1:25k is better in more urban / pastoral
areas as it shows more tracks / field boundaries which are largely
irrelevant in upland ares.

druidh

GSV Three Minds in a Can <[email hidden]> wrote:

[alanmo <[email hidden]>:]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have today tried the demos and am very tempted by Tracklogs, which
appears fully compatible with Garmin.

Quoted message said:

Yes, but I'm p!$$ed at them since they want 40% (of everything I've
spent so far) to move my considerable stock of 1:25k mapping to their
new V3 release.

I normally hate metoo postings, but I can't help it:
ME TOO!
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Rudi Winter <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Nick \(Scots\) said:

You can buy 1;25k OS digital maps.

Wot? Just the map images to read with any picture viewer? No program
that just messes things up and hence no upgrade fees? That sounds too
good to be true! ;-)

Yeah, if that's an option I want some of that too. All the 1:25k digital
data I have seen has been tied to a particular viewer, encrypted (with
various degrees of success), and set up so that you can't print anything

Should I be reading something between the last two lines there? ;-)
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

druidh said:

Rudi Winter said:

alanmo said:

Are the Explorer based ones so much better than Landranger for setting
up paths, waypoints, routes, etc?

I keep forgetting which is which: one of them is 1:25k, the other is
1:50k. In a hilly area with loads of contours (and crags etc) the
1:25k is needed really. In other areas, 1:50k may be ok.

Other way round. .

1:50k is fine in hilly areas. 1:25k is better in more urban / pastoral
areas as it shows more tracks / field boundaries which are largely
irrelevant in upland ares.

I'll happily take your advice that 1:50k is no good in urban or pastoral
areas either (it's not my main walking territory), but in, say, the
Rhinogydd 1:50k would be completely useless. Even 1:25k doesn't do
the topography justice! Of course, if you just follow a ridge, you
don't need a detailed map, but I suppose that's equivalent to following
a farm track in low land (in terms of navigation).
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

The message <[email hidden]>
from [email hidden] (Rudi Winter) contains these words:

Quoted message said:

I'll happily take your advice that 1:50k is no good in urban or pastoral
areas either (it's not my main walking territory), but in, say, the
Rhinogydd 1:50k would be completely useless. Even 1:25k doesn't do
the topography justice! Of course, if you just follow a ridge, you
don't need a detailed map, but I suppose that's equivalent to following
a farm track in low land (in terms of navigation).

It could be what you grow up with. All my early walking was done with
nothing larger scale than the old 1". I even bought a few more 1" maps
of Scotland when the 1:50000 was first introduced as I preferred what
was familiar. Nowadays of course I have trouble reading the small print
and am thankful that the 1" was superceded.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 53 summits
New - 27 (Marilyns 13, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 26 (Marilyns 10, Nuttalls 17, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

alanmo said:

Small world - was walking around Titterstone Clee 2 weeks ago and plan
to be up Brown Clee at the weekend. I am also a councillor on SCC:
what do you think of the ROW cuts?

What ROW cuts?

Cuts in budget or path closures?

Richard Webb

Rudi Winter said:

druidh <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

I'll happily take your advice that 1:50k is no good in urban or pastoral
areas either (it's not my main walking territory), but in, say, the
Rhinogydd 1:50k would be completely useless. Even 1:25k doesn't do
the topography justice! Of course, if you just follow a ridge, you
don't need a detailed map, but I suppose that's equivalent to following
a farm track in low land (in terms of navigation).

Been impressed by the clarity of the harvey's maps. Less clutter and
more focus on the important bits for the walker.
--
Mike
Some pictures & bad html here http://www.prog99.com

Mike said:

Rudi Winter said:

druidh <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

I'll happily take your advice that 1:50k is no good in urban or pastoral
areas either (it's not my main walking territory), but in, say, the
Rhinogydd 1:50k would be completely useless. Even 1:25k doesn't do
the topography justice! Of course, if you just follow a ridge, you
don't need a detailed map, but I suppose that's equivalent to following
a farm track in low land (in terms of navigation).

Been impressed by the clarity of the harvey's maps. Less clutter and
more focus on the important bits for the walker.

I agree - and I'd use them more if they had greater coverage. I do find
it hard "converting" between the two styles.

druidh

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:44:01 GMT, druidh <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Been impressed by the clarity of the harvey's maps. Less clutter and
more focus on the important bits for the walker.

I agree - and I'd use them more if they had greater coverage. I do find
it hard "converting" between the two styles.

I like them too. I use the Anquet Harvey's for the Lakes.

I read somewhere that the Harveyy maps were much like the 1:50k but
blown up larger. Dunno about that, but they're nice. All of a sudden
I'm seeing them in Waterstone's too: previously I just saw them online
(although I know orienteers and other discerning users have been using
them for years).

Wet fishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

"Is our children learning?"
g.w.AT [guessthisbit].com

On 4/10/05 20:48, in article [email hidden],

Peewiglet said:

I like them too. I use the Anquet Harvey's for the Lakes.

I read somewhere that the Harveyy maps were much like the 1:50k but
blown up larger. Dunno about that, but they're nice. All of a sudden
I'm seeing them in Waterstone's too: previously I just saw them online
(although I know orienteers and other discerning users have been using
them for years).

Rather annoyingly the Harvey's maps - despite all of the good things about
them - often don't have all of the small paths that are on the 1:25 osmaps.
This means that, for example, in Snowdonia I often find myself carrying
both!

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

To mail simply put back the dots ...

If anyone is interested I'm selling my Garmin MAP76S GPS for £200 as new -
see Amazon.co.uk for details. Have bought the MAP76CS (Double the price) and
not worth it !! but the colours are nice.
Brian (Edinburgh)

Peewiglet said:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:44:01 GMT, druidh <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Been impressed by the clarity of the harvey's maps. Less clutter and
more focus on the important bits for the walker.

I agree - and I'd use them more if they had greater coverage. I do
find it hard "converting" between the two styles.

I like them too. I use the Anquet Harvey's for the Lakes.

I read somewhere that the Harveyy maps were much like the 1:50k but
blown up larger. Dunno about that, but they're nice.

Harveys were originally 1:40,000 scale, and consequently on smaller sheets
of paper.

But that size was a bit hard to read for some people, and a strange scale to
adjust to when 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 are the two OS normal sizes.

The more recent ones are 1:25,000, and the first at this size were just
enlargements of the earlier 1:40,000 types.
I'm not sure if the 1:40,000 types are still available.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/