Hello again Field Guide administrators and editors:
My mentor, retiredjerry, has suggested that I send you my first postings to the Field Guide so that you can review them and make sure I'm on the right track.
Example of trailhead post (picture to be added later)
Example of a trail junction post
Example of a trail post
Thanks,
John
Additions to the Field Guide
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14398
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Additions to the Field Guide
Always good to have another field guide editor, thanks
Re: Additions to the Field Guide
Looks good, alright!
Only criticism, hopefully constructive, is that I'd find larger topo maps far more useful. That one on the lookout trail wasn't too legible at the size it'd be reduced to. (As a cartographer, I don't think a map can ever be too legible! )
Only criticism, hopefully constructive, is that I'd find larger topo maps far more useful. That one on the lookout trail wasn't too legible at the size it'd be reduced to. (As a cartographer, I don't think a map can ever be too legible! )
Karl
Back on the trail, again...
Back on the trail, again...
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14398
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Additions to the Field Guide
Constructive critcism - good
What do you mean, map should be bigger?
As displayed on field guide page or as it appears if you click on it?
How many pixels should it be?
What do you mean, map should be bigger?
As displayed on field guide page or as it appears if you click on it?
How many pixels should it be?
Re: Additions to the Field Guide
The size on the FG page is just fine, as its only purpose there is to indicate that it's available. But the enlarged size you get when you click on it ought to be much bigger than in that example.retired jerry wrote:What do you mean, map should be bigger?
As displayed on field guide page or as it appears if you click on it?
How many pixels should it be?
How big? Depends mostly on how much territory is being covered. In this case, a 200% zoom seems like it would nicely display that info. So it was 504px × 346px, but looks better (other than the fuzziness) at 1,008px × 692px. You really want to be able to read stuff like the scalebar and contour numbers. They can be the test. Then bump it just a bit more to accommodate folks who won't wear their cheaters.
Over 80% of all monitors today are 1080px (or more) vertical. It's easily safe to go up to nearly that scale. And, most browsers will scale down the image to whatever size their client space is, so it never really hurts to go larger. The user can then click on it once more to get it at full size, and pan around at will.
The competing interest is storage, bandwidth, and download time. Seems that using an 80% quality/compression setting, and disabling color subsampling, when saving the online version usually gets that into the reasonable realm. What's your opinion on this map of Silver Star? Too big to download or view?
Karl
Back on the trail, again...
Back on the trail, again...
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14398
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Additions to the Field Guide
That looks good to me - 1200 x 1400 pixels?
When you download it, it must give you a warning message that the file is large?
I generally just ignore that message.
Does it make any difference? Are we sensitive to file sizes or is that just a random message?
And I should get NG Topo so I can make better maps than with the free Mapsource that came with my GPS
When you download it, it must give you a warning message that the file is large?
I generally just ignore that message.
Does it make any difference? Are we sensitive to file sizes or is that just a random message?
And I should get NG Topo so I can make better maps than with the free Mapsource that came with my GPS
Re: Additions to the Field Guide
The final size is really a function of what the smallest elements you want to see might be. In that case, I could've cropped in a lot, but I included more context outside the actual trail, which expanded the final size a good deal. But it also let's the viewer see more about possible approaches to the TH, possible extensions to the hike, etc. If a trail lends itself to landscape output, that's always preferable for online display. (I also tend to shoot for output dimensions that fill up an 8.5x11 page, so I can print them out and take 'em along.)
I'd guess the warning you're getting is from your browser. I haven't seen one of those in a long time. I hate warnings. On a typical cable or DSL connection, that size file is only seconds away. Folks still on dial-up probably know better than to click on things that size unless they really want them.
Where filesize can make a difference is in the hoster's bill for bandwidth. I don't know how this site is financed, but have been amazed at the potential bandwidth hit it must take by accepting all the photo uploads as it does. (I keep most of mine on another server, to shift that cost away from here!)
I have decidedly mixed feelings on NGTopo, myself. It's one of the clunkiest mapping apps I've ever used, and feels terribly outdated. (No panning tool?!?) But with some practice and patience, you can output something reasonably useful. If Garmin Basecamp punched up its output options just a bit, that'd always be my goto choice.
I'd guess the warning you're getting is from your browser. I haven't seen one of those in a long time. I hate warnings. On a typical cable or DSL connection, that size file is only seconds away. Folks still on dial-up probably know better than to click on things that size unless they really want them.
Where filesize can make a difference is in the hoster's bill for bandwidth. I don't know how this site is financed, but have been amazed at the potential bandwidth hit it must take by accepting all the photo uploads as it does. (I keep most of mine on another server, to shift that cost away from here!)
I have decidedly mixed feelings on NGTopo, myself. It's one of the clunkiest mapping apps I've ever used, and feels terribly outdated. (No panning tool?!?) But with some practice and patience, you can output something reasonably useful. If Garmin Basecamp punched up its output options just a bit, that'd always be my goto choice.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...
Back on the trail, again...
Re: Additions to the Field Guide
Karl's point is well-taken, but I did get the message recommending that uploaded files be no more than 150 KB. However I have changed it based on Jerry's comment that he "ignores" that message, so if you now click on the map it will expand. The uploaded version is about three times the recommended size now.
In future, I'll do this with pictures as well (not make them giant, but maybe double what they are now when expanded) unless one of the admins says we really have to restrict our sizes and abide by the 150 KB. It really, in the end, depends on the server capacity and I have no idea what that is.
John
In future, I'll do this with pictures as well (not make them giant, but maybe double what they are now when expanded) unless one of the admins says we really have to restrict our sizes and abide by the 150 KB. It really, in the end, depends on the server capacity and I have no idea what that is.
John
Re: Additions to the Field Guide
Wow, 150k, huh? Yeah, that's cutting it tight, especially if the contours are dense. It'd probably be a bit underhanded, but another option to lighten bandwidth would be posting them on any number of photo-sharing sites.bobcat wrote:150 KB. It really, in the end, depends on the server capacity and I have no idea what that is.
I know the trip reports are popular, but I suspect the availability of maps is an even stronger draw to the broader community.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...
Back on the trail, again...