Discussion: High res google maps started by Brendan Heywood

  • Public discussion Niblo
  • Started: 1 years ago on Jan 12, 2013

This is a public discussion in Niblo .


Showing all 5 messages

Brendan Heywood started this discussion 1 years ago

High res google maps

hi David,

I just noticed that google maps around here has had an upgrade and now you can see pretty clearly each boulder. You reckon it's worth splitting up the guide into each boulder and locating each one?

David Nott replied 1 years ago

You know what, I did that initially (not locate them but split them up) but all the feedback I've gotten suggests it's a bit confusing to have all these sub-boulders in the area. Most people still look at the CCA guide, which has only the areas (no boulder is named) and each problem just has a number against the area. So I'd be more inclined to yes locate the problems (can you group them somehow without having to assign them to a sub-area?) but not have 14 boulders with 27 problems (or whatever it turns out to be). Timely that you ask as I just moved a few problems from sub-boulders in niblo to the main area, I just couldn't delete the boulders themselves as they contain some data.

David Nott replied 1 years ago

To be a bit more concise, I guess I'm coming to the point of view that google maps type overhead topos are the naturally linkage point for boulder problems. That way, people don't get confused that you've 'missed' some boulders because they're 'hidden' in a sub-area (i've had that comment quite a few times). And therefore the natural organisational structure (to me) is the sector, rather than trying to organise problems by boulder.

Brendan Heywood replied 1 years ago

Yeah it's a tricky and I can see merits to both ways. In general (being a nerd) I try to model them the best way semantically, and then that gives me guidance on how to fix the display of them so they are more usable. My gut says they should be separate but then that can break down when you have boulders problems that aren't on boulders, like along a long cliff line like at KP.

At the moment individually located routes don't really show up anywhere and aren't that useful (yet). That's why I tend to split them up. When I started writing that code I came from a bouldering perspective and wanted to be able to locate each problem on google maps and give it a direction so it can draw a little arrow, instead of just a pin. But it turned out that 99% of the time (ie for roped routes) just locating the area is enough and I never got around to finishing that code. Maybe I should.

Also what is your impression of 'guide view' when the boulders are split up? eg: https://www.thecrag.com/climbing/australia/queensland/cedar-creek/guide

This too needs work - it doesn't have any maps at all.

Do people you talk to ever use guide view, or do they print the PDF or just use the list view?

David Nott replied 1 years ago

I haven't really asked, re: guide view. In terms of my impression when the boulders are split up, I think it's useful - now - but might be much less so later on once maps are implicitly coded into the guides. Once there's that overview google map, there won't be a need (hopefully, in most cases) to have a description against each boulder that says where it is compared to other boulders.

Sign up for free to join this discussion on theCrag.

Already got an account? Login to add your comment

Showing all 5 messages