Mapping Standards (new threads)

"White Trails" Images

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:17:33 +0000

We need to decide what we want to do about them. I like them alot, but they seem rather complicated to explain the creation of in the standards page and the submissions page. I could write up an explanation, but we don't want to make it too complicated for people to submit maps. My current opinion would be for us to go through submitted maps and add the "white trails" image later, but that might be a lot of work. Opinons?

we also need to decide on what we're going to call these pictures.

suggestions for future standards

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:28:14 +0000

I think we should further define how subfolders can be used to better organize areas. For example, on the Sunday River map I tried to break down the area into separate peaks. This can make it more difficult to find a trail you're looking for (especially for ones that are not clearly associated with one peak), but without it the trail list can become unwieldy. If this is permitted, should lifts be separated by peak as well?

Another case where I think subfolder organization might help is in managing trail boundaries vs. centerlines. When I want to turn trail boundaries on/off, I usually want to do it for all trails at once, and since they are not in a separate folder from the trail centerlines, which I usually leave on, it is a very tedious process. Is this view shared by others?

I think it goes without saying that planned expansions should be in a separate folder so they can be turned on/off with one click.

We also should consider whether/what kind of points of interest (lodges, bars, tourist attractions) should be allowed in the kmz files.

Standards Version

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:27:43 +0000

Considering that we are currently mapping and posting areas without a set-in-stone document to define out standards, I propose that we create a GEOSAP Standards 1.0 which will be the goal of our work on the standards page. When that page is done, we will post it as GEOSAP Standards 1.0. Any changes to the standards will be reflected in a revision page. When a map is posted, it should be marked as to what standards version it applies to. All work done now should be marked as GEOSAP Standards 0 to reflect the lack of a concrete standard which was followed.

colors

Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:16:24 +0000

This seems like an independent, if not official, source for which green/blue we should use:
http://skiing.about.com/od/safetyforskiers/a/skitrailratings.htm
(click the green square then click "next" within the popup to see the blue square)

… it's pretty close to another site I found:
http://www.alpinemtsp.org/Ski_Safety.htm#How_Trails_Are_Rated

Trying to mimic the first one, I find RGB values of 0,150,0 gets close to the green, and 50,110,200 gets close to the blue. The black is obviously going to be 0,0,0.

Please provide opinions—once we make this decision it will be a *lot* of work to change.

File organization

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:47:00 +0000

I assume we'll start by providing one area at a time, but how many kmz "packages" of the trail maps should we eventually aim to create?

Is it important to be able to download them all at once, or state by state? Is there a way we can have the map on the start page include an interface to download?

What info should be on the state pages?

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:40:50 +0000

I think we should list information about the quality of the files (version info, standards compliance) as soon as we can come up with something that makes sense.

Unless we get to the point of generating our own data, I don't think it adds much to post the published ski area statistics—there are lots of sites out there that have that, and it's more stuff we'd have to keep up-to-date.

Thoughts?

where to put the standards

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:38:05 +0000

David, I just saw your guide to mapping ski areas. It makes the one I started look pretty lame… nice work!

Should I move my info "inside" your page, or do you think a more "rigid" definition should be develped, with your page being a more user friendly, overview-type page?

purpose of the forum

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:55:12 +0000

I'm going to propose that we use these forums to ask questions and host any debates that may arise, but that we use wiki pages to actually write up the standards instead of the forums. I think that it will be more readable that way—any thoughts?