If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
AVIATIONTOOLBOX: How do you like your maps stitched?
[As I mentioned earlier, I'm going to use this "AVIATIONTOOLBOX" keyword
so that those who'd like to keep up with these projects can do so easily without the annoyance of using a mailing list and others can easily skip/ killfile them. If you have better suggestions, please feel free to send them to me directly or hash it out here. I don't plan to always post to comp.infosystems.gis but I thought this topic would be good to address there.] Recently I've been working a lot on manipulating the FAA sectionals I purchased. http://aviationtoolbox.org/raw_data/FAA_sectionals/ I've been amazed by the hundreds of people who have downloaded this data. There's apparently some interest in it so I'd like to solicit input on some of the projects I'm pursuing with the data. Right now I'm working on breaking up the maps into easily-used subimages. I do this (using GDAL) by hacking off all of the stuff around the maps, converting them to RGB, warping them to match the Wichita sectional, and then cutting them into chunks. The tricky part is that the maps overlap. For the North and South sides, this usually isn't a problem. Different regions however can depict the same geographic area quite differently. Choosing how to display these areas of overlap isn't obvious to me. I've made a couple of example attempts. The first http://aviationtoolbox.org/tmp/chunk_furthest.jpg simply chooses whatever pixel was furthest from the nearest edge in the original map. That does a fairly good job, but there is some information that is just lost - it's near the edge on both maps, so it isn't shown at all. (See the "PINONCANYON0 MSL" area on Denver/Wichita border.) The next http://aviationtoolbox.org/tmp/chunk-blended.jpg is a bit more complicated. The weighting of the pixels fades toward the edges so that the maps blend into each other. Sometimes this looks much better to me, but sometimes it looks like I'm trying to read in turbulence. (See the Dalhart airport/VOR.) The big advantage is that no information is lost. Another possibility I'm going to pursue is prioritizing the colors so that some colors (blue, maroon, black, ...) take complete priority over more "backgroundish" colors. That could make for some strange looking airports (See Miller dear Dalhart.) but I think it might look "cleaner" without information loss. So...anyone have strong feelings about how this should be done? Thank you. --kyler |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AVIATIONTOOLBOX: moving map script (was PocketEfis & PalmEfis) | Darrel Toepfer | Home Built | 0 | August 11th 04 01:34 PM |
Nike SAM sites in CONUS: Any Maps? | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 1 | May 17th 04 03:49 AM |
AVIATIONTOOLBOX: I've added your approach plates. | Kyler Laird | Instrument Flight Rules | 20 | April 19th 04 12:02 AM |
source for edges of FAA sectional maps? | Kyler Laird | General Aviation | 2 | November 29th 03 03:09 PM |