In reply to DM1CM:
" It would be great if there was something on the pop-up summit
information windows to indicate that a track was available for a
summit."Implemented…
Thanks Rob! The SOTA Mapping Project is a huge time sink for me and I am sure this will add even more for me to explore.
Rob - (MapMan)- You seem to be able to perform miracles very quickly…
Like Pat KI4SVM who is uploading plenty of tracks, it is up to the SOTA activator community to provide the GPX files and I hope they do.
For UK activations is it possible for you to add one of the UK Ordnance Survey Open Source mapping sources to the drop down list of options available (Landscape, Outdoors etc). I found this one at:
http://maps.the-hug.net/index.php
I’m not sure how the OS Open Source map system works or if a similar link to this mapping or even better ones, (such as Bing OS Maps) could be made to work with the project.
Over to you when you get the chance…
A map can be better and more absorbing than a good book.
To quote the late Alfred Wainwright (famous fell walker and inspirational writer): “I have thrown many books away but never a map”.
Now what would he make of your project if he were still with us?
73 Phil G4OBK
In reply to G4OBK:
Phil,
I’m going to use this opportunity to come clean on the recent OpenMaps additions to the SMP. In typical 1CM mode - jump first, ask questions later - I set about implementing them, thinking “Open” meant open - as in anybody is free to use them whenever they will. So I blitzed some code in a few hours, made it all look nice and presented them in the Mapping Project.
Today, I’ve been reading the “fine print” on access and copyright of these map types, and find that, although the OpenStreetMaps are fairly open-access, there are tighter restrictions on the OpenCycleMaps series. These latter include the “Normal”, “Transport”, “Landscape” and “Outdoors” map styles.
These OpenCycleMaps are built on the OpenStreetMaps system, but incorporate mapping imagery/map tiles generated by one guy operating a company ( Gravitystorm Limited / Thunderforest) in London. Now, free access of a sort IS granted to his maps, but for hobby projects such as this one, it’s limited to: use of ONE map style only (!) and a total of 150K map tiles served up in any one month. That’s equivalent to maybe 5K to 10K views per month: that’s probably just enough views to cater for the numbers visiting/using the SMP in an average month. The next step up from that in terms of pricing is a hefty GBP95 per month for TWO map styles and 1.5M map tiles each month, which this penniless pensioner simply can’t afford!
So this restriction, on one map-type only, means I’m going to have to throw out the other three. I reckon we keep the “Outdoors” one, OK?
As to incorporating the UK Ordnance Survey OpenSource mapping: this is probably too fraught with difficulties vis-Ã -vis Google Maps to implement easily (there are issues with copyright and T&C’s on both sides); plus there are the usual problems with converting OS map tiles to standard Web Mercator tile format. Also, since it’s UK only, it would not be something the greater SOTA community could make much use of.
And I doubt the venerable Mr. Wainwright would want anything to do with an intraweb-based thingummyjig…
73, Rob (RankAmateur)
DM1CM
In reply to DM1CM:
Hello Rob,
seems it is just the right time to ask for another improvement of the SMP. Apart from viewing it at home, downloading GPX-files for my GPS receiver (a Garmin Oregon 450t) is my main use of SMP. Up to now this was mainly summit lists, hopefully it will extend to tracks as soon they are available. I already started uploading tracks of summits I have visited.
Unfortunately the summit lists are not perfect for use without editing them afterwards:
So I would vote for the following data structure:
To be at least a bit on topic:
Regarding OpenCycleMaps outdoors seems to be most colourful display of tracks. But the normal display also shows shelters. So I do not know whether to prefer outdoors or normal.
73 de Michael, DB7MM
In reply to DM1CM:
Thanks for the explanation about costings Rob. No one wants to pay, least you! We’ll forego the extra maps then. I think the Outdoors presentation is the best of what was there anyway. Fb on your explanation re OS and the red tape. Hopefuly things may change over time.
73 Phil
In reply to DB7MM:
Hi Michael,
Excellent feedback! - thanks a lot.
When I put together the Summits GPX export routines, I wasn’t quite sure what to put in the various fields, so I thought I’d just put SOMETHING in them and wait for somebody to get back to me to suggest a better way of organizing the information. Which is what you’re doing now…
Your suggestions have now been implemented - let me know if the results are OK.
73 Rob
DM1CM
In reply to G4OBK:
Phil - yes, let’s keep ham radio software free! I’ll leave the four OpenCyleMaps map styles in the SMP for a day or two longer - perhaps a few users could suggest which of these they would prefer to have as a single choice?
73 Rob
In reply to DM1CM:
My 2 cents:
From what I’ve been able to see, the classic OpenCycleMap appears to be more readable to me (at least on a desktop monitor). Furthermore, the displayed information seems to have the same level of detail as the Outdoor version.
73 de IZ1KSW
Gab
Thanks for investigating that, Rob. I think the Normal OpenCyleMaps style seems to offer the best general alternative view. The Outdoors one is a bit cleaner on the terrain but seems to get there by leaving stuff out. Of course, in different areas the balance may swing another way…
73, Rick M0LEP.
In reply to DM1CM:
Excellent feedback! - thanks a lot.
I have to thank you!
Your suggestions have now been implemented - let me know if the
results are OK.
Perfect on all platforms I use. Now it’s really fun to get the summits onto a Garmin. Just download, unpack and copy the file.
73 de Michael, DB7MM
In reply to DB7MM:
Now it’s really fun to get the summits onto a Garmin. Just download, unpack and copy the file.
Which Garmin are you using? I have the etrex 20.
What, in detail, is the procedure for putting the summits onto the unit?
Thanks
Paul HB9DST/AA1MI
In reply to HB9DST:
Hello Paul,
I am using the Oregon 450 but steps are the same with your Etrex 20. Perhaps other activators are also interested in, so I have created a new topic describing the procedure here http://www.sotawatch.org/reflector.php?topic=8587
73 de Michael, DB7MM
In reply to DB7MM:
Hi Michael,
That procedure works like a charm – mni tnx!! I’m still learning how to use my new toy, so this saved me an enormous amount of time.
73, Paul HB9DST
Good to see lots of tracks being loaded into the Mapping Project (SMP), the vast majority of which have evidently been produced with the aid of a GPS unit.
One thing I’ve noticed is that the level of detail in some of the tracks is MUCH higher than in others. So, just to take a couple of recently added tracks, we have:
a track to DL/AM-002, length = 6.981 km, points in track = 100, average distance between points = 69.8 meters;
a track to OM/PO-043, length = 7.182 km, points in track = 382, average distance between points = 18.8 meters;
a track to W5O/SO-001, length = 6.451 km, points in track = 2960, average distance between points = 2.18 meters.
So, the third example has an accuracy on the ground which is 32 times better than the first example, right? Well, possibly/probably… see e.g. Differential GPS - Wikipedia .
The point I’d like to make here is that the third example is TOO precise for hiking/SOTA purposes - there’s WAY too much information, too many points and, incidentally, too much disk space on the database server being used to store such a high level of accuracy. If anybody here feels they really need navigational accuracy down to the level of 3 or 4 footsteps on the ground, might I suggest they hire a guide to lead them to their summit, or take up another, safer hobby!
So, I’m going to make a special plea to those OM’s who are recording tracks for the SMP, using GPS devices which have a setting for “track recording interval” - do please set this to something reasonable like “10 (20?) meters”, “30 (60?) feet”, “30 seconds”, “Less Often”, or similar to reduce the amount of information recorded.
If this doesn’t happen, or people forget to do this, and upload routes which are considered too precise, or contain too many points, then code will be implemented to reduce the number of trackpoints in such routes to a level where the overall accuracy of the track will be on the order of 10 or 15 meters. That means deleting something like (to use the example no.3 above) four points out of every five from the track. Otherwise we end up with a database bloated with a lot of (mostly) redundant information.
73, Rob
DM1CM
Now to the OpenCycleMaps issue: to recap, we are only permitted to use ONE of the “Normal”, “Transport”, “Landscape” and “Outdoors” map styles provided by the originators of OpenCycleMaps. Users were invited to give their opinion as to which of these four we should keep.
The response has been low, but the choice is pretty clear - 4 users have voted thusly: Normal, Outdoors, Normal, Normal. So, Normal it is, then.
Thanks to those who voted,
Rob
DM1CM
In reply to DM1CM:
or similar to reduce the amount of information recorded.
I would expect any program used for extracting and saving tracks to have a function to simplify the track. On Garmin Basecamp, for instance, there’s a “Filter track…” option that’ll help reduce the track to sensible proportions. Just needs applying before a track’s uploaded…
73, Rick M0LEP
In reply to M0LEP:
Rick, thanks for the input - since I don’t possess any kind of GPS unit, I haven’t, until very recently, been aware of the various levels of functionality offered by such devices. I’ll be busy reading a few Garmin User Manuals as a starter to come up to speed on these things.
Anyway, I wonder how these kinds of filters you mention are applied - whether there is some kind of intelligent weighting of the relative importance of any one point, or group of points (for instance, at a sharp turn in the track, which ought to be kept, no matter what), or whether they would apply (as in my suggested scenario) a “hatchet function” to delete (say) four points out of every five, regardless of their importance?
Then again, a filter - to simplify a track for instance - is, as you say, an option which a user may, or may not, wish to activate. My point here is that the SMP will need, in an effort to reduce data overload, to step in and force a simplification of a track of unnecessarily high level of accuracy if the user does not choose to do so.
73, Rob
DM1CM
In reply to DM1CM:
Anyway, I wonder how these kinds of filters you mention are applied
There’s usually a variety of options, some based on time, some on distance, maybe on changes of bearing, and usually an “automatic” option where you just say whether you want more or fewer points and it culls them in a manner it thinks is appropriate.
force a simplification of a track
Yes, tracks can get stupidly long. Garmin Basecamp (and presumably other similar programs) also has a “track to route” conversion that’ll take a track of hundreds of points and turn it into a route with maybe 50 points total. Sometimes those sorts of functions discard information like altitude, which would make the track rather less useful for SOTA purposes, so it’s worth checking what’s being saved…
73, Rick M0LEP
In reply to DM1CM:
I’ll be busy reading a few
Garmin User Manuals as a starter to come up to speed on these things.
Unfortunately the User Manuals nowadays hardly give any information about the technical aspects and algorithms used.
In contrast to units sold in the 90s post processing of the GPS data is a sophisticated task in recent GPS receivers. Look at my two tracks of DM/BM-069 recorded with the TH-D72 HT internal GPS and the track of DM/BM-161 recorded with my Garmin Oregon 450.
The TH-D72 has much more “noise” on the track points whereas the Oregon produces a much smoother track.
Anyway, I wonder how these kinds of filters you mention are applied -
whether there is some kind of intelligent weighting of the relative
importance of any one point,…
Both filters in the GPS receiver while recording the track and the PC software used for preparing the final data for upload do some intelligent weigthing. Again look at DM/BM-161: point density is less in straight sections and increases in curves.
Then again, a filter - to simplify a track for instance - is, as you
say, an option which a user may, or may not, wish to activate.
Despite all filtering done in the Garmin some postprocessing is still necessary before uploading a track to SMP: Limit the track to either ascent or descent, cut out some sections where I was looking for a good operating position, taking some photographs, etc. and finally try out the automatic filtering in order to reduce number of points.
I wonder whether I should further reduce the number of points in my uploaded tracks.
73 de Michael, DB7MM
In reply to DB7MM:
“Unfortunately the User Manuals nowadays hardly give any information about the technical aspects and algorithms used.” - well, I wasn’t expecting to find any trade secrets there 
“The TH-D72 has much more noise on the track points whereas the Oregon produces a much smoother track.” - one would expect a dedicated GPS unit to produce better results: better antenna, better chipset, and the Garmin features HotFix…
"I wonder whether I should further reduce the number of points in my uploaded tracks. " - in your case, I would say: absolutely not, they seem to be optimally produced!
73, Rob
DM1CM