View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
dick Member
Joined: 03 Nov 2005 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:45 pm Post subject: Coastline |
|
|
In the guide and other forum topics it is suggested that the coastline of the contour maps is better than that on the Mapsource. I generally use European Roads and Recreation v 4.00. I happened to check the area near Eastbourne and, at higher levels of detail and zoom have found what appears to be a new promontory rising to 50m or more at N50 45.702, E0 17.655. Is there a reason for such an error? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Wildlifewriter Founder member
Joined: 04 Aug 2005 Posts: 948 Location: Norn Iron
|
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It certainly looks a bit suss...
It's years since I was in Eastbourne - but I remember a pier running out to sea at or around that location. It was a fairly substantial pier, too, with a concert hall or something at the far end.
Could be wrong, of course.
-Wlw _________________ A brussels sprout is for life, not just for Christmas |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GSV3MiaC Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The proposed V2 SMC mapping will/would use the NASA 'Water Body Data' shapefiles, where some poor s*d has drawn around every rock and islet to the 3-arcsec accuracy of the SRTM DEM dataset (and used the ocean level as a mask to zero elevations).
These are MUCH more accurate than even the 'detailed' coast outlines from V1.2, although they do exhibit 'steps' (of 3 arcsec) rather than smooth outlines, if you zoom in far enough. See the sample on the other thread.
Comments over on that thread please. I'll look at Eastbourne separately if someone gives me lat/lon. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dick Member
Joined: 03 Nov 2005 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lat/lon are as per my initial posting above. I find it shows up when zoom set at 500 ft on my PC. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GSV3MiaC Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, Ok, I finally twigged you said EAST 0 17' etc. .. Yes, there is an artefact there, caused by voids in the original data and what the Blackart algorithm did to fill them in. That's why you always should review the 'void' data.
I've uploaded a .jpg to
http://www.quik.clara.co.uk/maps/eastb1.jpg
The (proposed) version 2 example (sorry, this is a screen capture from gpsmapedit, the V2 contours are no way ready for mapsource yet) is at
http://www.quik.clara.co.uk/maps/eastb2.jpg
Note that the voids have been patched (by NASA), so the problem has gone away. note the contours are probably more pleasing too. Oh, and you havea real cost. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|