Scanning and calibrating paper maps for Oziexplorer

Thanks Zebra,

I'll give it a try. I think I still have the digital sections I scanned - otherwise it's back to the photocopier!


Tim

Hi Choc Teapot,
Yes, I found that the edges of the scan were the worst for distortion, usually where the map curls up on the edge of the scanner. So I used a smaller part of the scan, discarding the edges, and fuzzing the new edges. This way, the overlaps of the individual maps looked seamless.
I eventually got mine pretty error-free, with usually only about a mm error on the merges. Took some trial and error, tho.
Panavue program stitches them well, but it costs. The trial version leaves a "Panavue" watermark on the image.
But if, as Greg (Explorer) says, you can get an A1 map scanned for $30, this looks like a better way than spending an evening per map scanning the damn thing.
Gerry

Hi Roscoe,
it depends on what you want and what's available. While a lot of hi-res maps are available commercially (or free) for eastern states, in WA, you can buy the digitized DOLA 50k maps ok (thanks to Explorer), but the excellent CALM 50k maps of the SW of WA are only available in paper form, not digitized (or were when last I checked).
I spent many weeks of nights scanning my large collection of CALM maps, but it was worth it.
Gerry.

Gerry,

The Rasta mapping I have was last updated on 06.03.07. I take it from what you are saying the CALM maps show more or better detail than the topographic Raster map?

Mate I'm not disputing what you're saying I'm just curious as to the difference between the two as the Raster map does show extensive detail. I've been printing off hard copies of areas that I have travelled and used them last year when I was over your way.

As an example I went across from Mt Augustus to Paraburdoo and it was spot on I knew exactly where I was at all times.

Eventually I want to get a laptop with GPS software and I was going to use Raster maps but if there's something better then I'd consider it.

Surely there's got to be a better way than spending hours of scanning in this day and age but I suppose in due course more and more mapping will become available on disc.

Hi Roscoe,
I'm assuming you are referring to the Natmap 250 Mosaic map. My version is about 3 years old. This has pretty good detail, but the 50k CALM maps of the SW show every fire trail, tree blaze, etc, which the Natmap, or even the 50k DOLA maps don't show.
But I wouldn't be using a 50k map out in the country you describe.
Actually, I was using the 250k Natmap driving from Minilya to Mt Augustus (WA), and in one place, for several kilometres, the map showed the road going where it had never gone before. Thought it might have shown the old road, but there were thick trees where the map showed - never ever was a road there.
Interestingly, I have old army maps of the Nullarbor dating around 1960 which are more accurate for some tracks than the current Natmap 250k!
cheers,
Gerry

Thanks for that Gerry had a feeling the extra detail might have been fire trails and the like. Those old army maps are pretty good if you can get hold of them.

Same with the marine ones from the navy, a friend of mine in Gladstone got hold of one for the area out off the coast there, showed a few drop offs and small reefs that weren't on the normal chart...suffice to say we kept them to ourselves!!!

Thanks Trev,


I'll give it a go.


Tim

Hi Jim,
Yes, I've tried the trial version of Panavue, and it works well, warping the image slightly if necessary to match the adjoining page to be merged, so that the end result is a seamless join. Would recommend it.
My Canon Photostich software which came with my digital camera does a similar thing (in fact it does a brilliant job in merging photos, including warping and shifting the colours to match) but it seemed to get totally confused using maps with just a few colours. The end result was a mangled mess!
Gerry

Gerry,

The thing I like about panavue was the ability to help it out by desgnating points on overlapping maps that coincide. By doing this I have found all joins to be totally invisible.

Jim

Yes, even Panavue gets it wrong occasionally, but being able to designate points that coincide allows Panavue to pull the scans together properly. Something that Canon's Photostitch couldn't do.