On Friday 20 May 2011 21:30:37 Fred Labrosse wrote:
On Friday 20 May 2011 21:03:56 Fred Labrosse wrote:
All,
Not really a devel question but the website said to email this list so
here it is.
I have been using viking for a while, so far using openstreetmap maps.
This was great to
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:30:37PM +0100, Fred Labrosse wrote:
On Friday 20 May 2011 21:03:56 Fred Labrosse wrote:
Obviously, I hate doing that, as soon as posting I found it. GeoRef is the
type. Still trying to understand what I need to specify, but I'll find it.
If your maps aren't
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:30:37PM +0100, Fred Labrosse wrote:
On Friday 20 May 2011 21:03:56 Fred Labrosse wrote:
Obviously, I hate doing that, as soon as posting I found it. GeoRef is the
type. Still trying to understand what I need to specify, but I'll find it.
If your maps aren't
On Friday 20 May 2011 22:44:30 you wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:30:37PM +0100, Fred Labrosse wrote:
On Friday 20 May 2011 21:03:56 Fred Labrosse wrote:
Obviously, I hate doing that, as soon as posting I found it. GeoRef is
the type. Still trying to understand what I need to specify,
But probably implies local adjustments? That would explain some
discrepancies in scale I am seeing. In theory I should have 5 meters
per pixel but end up having to say 7 for a better match.
All these local adjustments will render my automation quite difficult.
Ideally, I would like
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 08:19:46PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
So probably viking converts lat/lon to UTM, and then just uses the
georef map as if it is the right zone.
Viking displays the map in every UTM zone. In practice this is rarely an
issue since most people don't have maps that cover more
Viking displays the map in every UTM zone. In practice this is rarely an
issue since most people don't have maps that cover more than one zone.
Probably true. USGS DRGs are free, so if I were more together I'd have
more of them and would suffer aliasing.
pgphz0eP2LW3p.pgp
Description: PGP