I personally don't mind paying a reasonable price for an app but I
despise (and won't) rent an app.
Same here.
After I posted that, I ran a better search in the app finder for
a. gps tracking apps
b. that are free
c. without ads
d. and without in-app purchases
Coming from a GIS background I use the free open source QField program
for logging tracks:
https://docs.qfield.org/how-to/tracking
https://github.com/opengisch/QField
Apart from this, OSMAnd can also be set for track logging via plugin: https://osmand.net/docs/user/plugins/trip-recording
The GooglePlay store carries the OSMAnd+ variant, which is meant to
raise funding for the project and therefore does not match all your
criteria from above. The F-Droid store, OTOH, provides the OSMAnd~
variant, which is also current and feature-identical, just without
the payment-inducing ones. GooglePlay also has a free version (just
named OSMAnd); but this version has some less features compared to
OSMAnd+ and OSMAnd~.
https://f-droid.org/de/packages/net.osmand.plus
Having said this: The OSMAnd project /is/ worth supporting. One-time
payment of 30$ or 30¤ will get you lifetime unlimited maps and the
like in OSMAnd+ (and not only in OSMAnd~), as well: https://osmand.net/docs/user/purchases/android
The problem with OSMand is their free topographical maps for the USA
are far and away vastly inferior to those of the USGS geospatial PDFs. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/
May I ask which of all teh programs above you prefer for two tasks:
1. Drawing a desired track onto a map (to later hike in the wild)
2. Following that drawn track (while hiking in the wild in real time)
On Sun, 25th Feb 2024 04:34:35 -0500, Sten deJoode wrote:
The problem with OSMand is their free topographical maps for the USA
are far and away vastly inferior to those of the USGS geospatial PDFs. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/
Being a community driven project OSM obviously just needs more contribution of users from US. Year after year I hear people from US complaining about
the poor quality of OSM maps compared to the professional US Topo ones. If people don't get a move on, eventually, this situation will never change.
In Europe (and especially so in Germany) OSM maps are often more detailed
and especially more current than (usually really good) official/professional topo maps.
In Europe (and especially so in Germany) OSM maps are often more detailed
and especially more current than (usually really good) official/professional >> topo maps.
This indeed seems to be a US-only/mainly problem. OSM maps - at least
the versions in OsmAnd+ - are nearly always more up-to-date than official/professional maps like TomTom, HERE/NAVTEQ, Google, etc.. At
least that has been my experience in The Netherlands, Germany, Austria
and (especially) Australia.
Which is why if anyone knows of better on-the-ground off-trail
routing software (ie "Head North 400 feet to get back on track"),
it would be a boon to those who hike hefty terrain where there
are no trails (other than game trails, which often isocline).
But in mountainous areas, there is nothing wrong with the OSM maps other
than the USGS maps put them to shame as easily seen with your own eyes.
Then, outdoors, while it's almost impossible to follow any track
given there are no trails and the forest and cliffs and swamps
get in the way, I try to stick to that desired route as much as
is possible.
Which is why if anyone knows of better on-the-ground off-trail
routing software (ie "Head North 400 feet to get back on track"),
it would be a boon to those who hike hefty terrain where there
are no trails (other than game trails, which often isocline).
But in mountainous areas, there is nothing wrong with the OSM maps other
than the USGS maps put them to shame as easily seen with your own eyes.
It probably has more to do with discrepancies between visual styles of
map rendering than with actual wrong or missing items in OSM map data.
OSM carries too much information to be shown at the same time. Therefore,
a myriad of map visualization styles exist for OSM. They not only differ
in the map elements selected for display, but also in attribution of map features, and the like. If no existing style shows everything as expected,
it is always possible to create a new style with a special selection of features, attribution and so on.
With OSMAnd, a couple of default map styles are supported. Choose the
one most suitable to your needs. For hiking "Touring view" and "Offroad"
are good choices: https://osmand.net/docs/user/map/vector-maps/#default-map-styles
Then, outdoors, while it's almost impossible to follow any track
given there are no trails and the forest and cliffs and swamps
get in the way, I try to stick to that desired route as much as
is possible.
Hiking trails can often be downloaded from specialized portals, like Waymarked Trails, if you do not want to create them step by step,
yourself:
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=5729371&type=relation
Which is why if anyone knows of better on-the-ground off-trail
routing software (ie "Head North 400 feet to get back on track"),
it would be a boon to those who hike hefty terrain where there
are no trails (other than game trails, which often isocline).
After loading a track into OSMAnd for navigation you have several
methods for further adjustments: https://osmand.net/docs/user/navigation/setup/gpx-navigation/
If you tell OSMAnd to navigate by track, you'll be able to set up normal voice navigation as well as navigation by beep tones: https://osmand.net/docs/user/navigation/guidance/voice-navigation/#beep-modes
Where does OSM get their topographic information?
Hopefully not from Google as Google's publicly available topo maps are
horrid in terms of lack of elevation detail.
https://osmand.net/docs/user/map/vector-maps/#default-map-styles
Neither of those "sound" useful for an area that has no trails or paths.
The only trails are game trails. Gullies. Cliffs. Swamps. Creeks. etc.
Hiking trails can often be downloaded from specialized portals, like
Waymarked Trails, if you do not want to create them step by step,
yourself:
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=5729371&type=relation
While I'm sure most people follow established trails, I shun them.
I pick a point on another ridge a mile LOS away and head toward it.
Sources can either be new data
freely donated by individuals/companies/... who created it, themselves.
Or it can be data, that either never carried a restrictive copyright or
ran out of it, already: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_datasources
Hopefully not from Google as Google's publicly available topo maps are
horrid in terms of lack of elevation detail.
Google topography is commercial and therefore cannot be used as a source
for OSM. (Which needs to be royalty free.)
With "topographic information" you mainly seem to refer to the natural
part of the topography. And in this mainly contour lines and hydrographic soil data.
The OSM project concentrates on the artificial/cultural aspects of the topography (streets, buildings, names, and the like). To create maps containing natural topographic background information from the geographic
OSM data, there's some low-res data available. Users and applications
that need more detailed natural topography include it from other sources.
Reasoning behind this is concentration on geographic data, that can be
easily reviewed (and if necessary: corrected) by the participants of the
OSM project.
Contour lines, soil and hydrography data and the like are, OTOH, especially suited for a combination of remote sensing and modeling or need inventory
by specialists (often with tailored equipment and very specific laboratory analyses, for instance for soil and aquiver mapping).
Contour lines with high resolution, for instance, can be easily calculated from high-res DTM data. If the latter is freely available (nowadays usually from airborne laser scanning with meter or submeter resolution), it is
just a matter of computing power and/or time to create the former. Here
in Europe free availability of this data is not a problem. I can't assess
the availability in the US, though. Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) is globally available, but just with resolution of 30 meters, which isn't
too great.
Programs like OSMAnd usually combine selected and attributed data excerpts from the central OSM database with contour lines from another source. If
you get higher resolution contour lines from a better source for your area you can use it to overwrite the standard set. Be aware though, that high-res contour line vector data may require quite some computing power to render on-the-fly.
For the US, TopOSM may be a good source for OSM based maps with enriched natural topography:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TopOSM
It seems to be an ongoing project, though. So you might be well-advised to confer with them directly.
While I'm sure most people follow established trails, I shun them.
I pick a point on another ridge a mile LOS away and head toward it.
If this was the case, you'd have no use for a program explicitly created
for the navigation along artificial lines, like OSMAnd. In the scenario
you described first, OTOH, you wanted to follow a pre-defined track. (It doesn't matter that this track would be hand-drawn by yourself and would perhaps not follow any real lane or trail.) And you wanted to get routing information whenever you leave this track (too much) or whenever you have
to take a major turn of direction. If you still want to go this way, but
find no source for better suited contour lines for your area, you may
need to use a two-fold approach: Use OSMAnd for navigation commands along your predefined track and use another program for the visualization of
your current position on (raster) USGS topo maps. If you just rove the
wild with a rough idea of direction and target, you can forgo navigation completely...
I think you don't notice how terrible the OSM topographic maps are because you have nothing better to compare them to outside of the United States.
With "topographic information" you mainly seem to refer to the natural
part of the topography. And in this mainly contour lines and hydrographic
soil data.
You are correct that I am referring to what I need to know when I'm hiking. Boots on the ground.
I need to know cliffs. Gullies. Ravines. Gulches. Steep slopes. Hogsbacks. Ridges. Of course roads & structures also are nice to have on those maps.
The OSM project concentrates on the artificial/cultural aspects of the
topography (streets, buildings, names, and the like). To create maps
containing natural topographic background information from the geographic
OSM data, there's some low-res data available. Users and applications
that need more detailed natural topography include it from other sources.
That then is probably the reason why OSM topographic maps suck so bad.
Do you see the difference in the zoomed-in section I showed you above?
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:56:14 -0500, Sten deJoode wrote:
I think you don't notice how terrible the OSM topographic maps are because >> you have nothing better to compare them to outside of the United States.
Our topographical maps (official as well as OSM) hereabouts are good enough to notice few discrepancies in comparison to sub-meter level laserscan DTM. Currently, some of our official (digital) land parcel maps - depicting the ownership of the land - are less accurate when doing in-depth analysis of
all available sources. Non-essential topographical borders out in the woods and fields are usually correct in the sub 5 meter range. That's <0.2 mm on your USGS topo map...
With "topographic information" you mainly seem to refer to the natural
part of the topography. And in this mainly contour lines and hydrographic >>> soil data.
You are correct that I am referring to what I need to know when I'm hiking. >> Boots on the ground.
Walking trails is /also/ "boots on the ground". The trail would be part of the OSM vector data, though, because it is either artificially created or else identified by someone as relevant for connecting 2 points.
I need to know cliffs. Gullies. Ravines. Gulches. Steep slopes. Hogsbacks. >> Ridges. Of course roads & structures also are nice to have on those maps.
Yes. And if you US citizens would do your homework in the OSM community,
they would have been included in the OSM data for years. The topographical elements you listed are mappable as (single) objects by the community.
They do not have the character of contour lines, which are better acquired from remote sensing data.
The OSM project concentrates on the artificial/cultural aspects of theThat then is probably the reason why OSM topographic maps suck so bad.
topography (streets, buildings, names, and the like). To create maps
containing natural topographic background information from the geographic >>> OSM data, there's some low-res data available. Users and applications
that need more detailed natural topography include it from other sources. >>
Do you see the difference in the zoomed-in section I showed you above?
Why should I watch your sorry US-excuse for doing nothing? I will not cross the sea just to do your mapping tasks for you.
1. Do you see the huge difference that I see in these two zooms?
https://i.postimg.cc/bYtQgB42/test1-usgs-vs-osm.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/4yP4wZGg/test1-usgs-vs-osm-colorized.jpg
The reason I ask is I hear from everyone how useful the OSM topo maps
are & yet, when I use them, I find them lacking in almost every way.
(But I had not known about the 1/3 arc-second OSMTopo maps, which I
don't have yet - but which I will search to find a source of today.)
2. Can you help me compare the "granularity" of the OSMTopo
1/3rd arc-second data versus what I'm currently using, which is the
1 inch on the map = 24,000 inches on the ground?
almost every topographic map in the USA
seems to stem, fundamentally, from the work of the USGS, which has been creating openly available topographic maps of the USA since the 1800s.
The problem now, is *finding* OSM topographic maps based on that data.
Even Steve Coast, the OSM founder, said the problem is getting access to
map data. <https://youtu.be/DE2KvtvFOU4>
That's the question here, which is to get access to the map data that
is alluded to in the statement below which was made earlier in the thread.
"It probably has more to do with discrepancies between visual styles
of map rendering than with actual wrong or missing items in OSM map
data."
It was encouraging when you first had mentioned TopOSM two posts prior.
Unfortunately I'm on Windows (and Android) while TopOSM only runs on Linux. https://github.com/Ahlzen/TopOSM (toposm.ahlzen.com)
From here
https://apa.ny.gov/gis/shared/htmlpages/metadata/usgs_250dem.html
It says the 1-degree USGS Digital Elevation Model [DEM] is also referred to as 3-arc-second or 1:250,000 scale DEM data.
The DEM data for 7.5-minute units correspond to the USGS 1:24,000
(& 1:25,000) scale topographic quadrangle map series for all the USA.
There's no mention though of 1/3rd arc second data.
If it's linear (and it might not be) then 1/3 arc second might be 1:25000?
One program, that can combine USGS and OSM data and export the result to OsmAnd SQLiteDB or OsmAnd tile formats is the free (and open source)
Mobile Atlas Creator (MOBAC) - a Java program running on several platforms: https://mobac.sourceforge.io/quickstart
This might be a way to go, if you don't want to wait, until sufficiently detailed OSM maps and contour lines are available for your area.
"It probably has more to do with discrepancies between visual styles
of map rendering than with actual wrong or missing items in OSM map
data."
I wrote this, because the OSM rendering of your Mount Washington example didn't look too bad.
Detailed contour lines would needed to be included
from a source different than OSM, anyways. But without being rendered
into the OSM map visualization shown, the OSM database may carry much
more detail. Take a look at this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features
Trails, for instance, can be tagged with different attributes like width, visibility, inclination, difficulty, and more. Deer-hunting stands are usually not displayed on maps, but can be captured into the database and rendered, if necessary. Buildings can get height values attached to
enable later 3D rendering. - This list goes on and on.
It was encouraging when you first had mentioned TopOSM two posts prior.
Unfortunately I'm on Windows (and Android) while TopOSM only runs on Linux. >> https://github.com/Ahlzen/TopOSM (toposm.ahlzen.com)
The script language (Python) and the programs for the TopOSM map creation process are all available for Windows. But preparation and configuration efforts are not targeted on normal end-users. And the rendering would take quite some time, especially when a lot of zoom levels shall be available.
I agree. The Mount Washington detail in OSM maps surprised even me.
But the *local* OSM contour map detail is so bad as to be almost unusable.
Detailed contour lines would needed to be included
from a source different than OSM, anyways. But without being rendered
into the OSM map visualization shown, the OSM database may carry much
more detail. Take a look at this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features
From that, mainly I care about OSM elevation (ele) information. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ele
The script language (Python) and the programs for the TopOSM map creation
process are all available for Windows. But preparation and configuration
efforts are not targeted on normal end-users. And the rendering would take >> quite some time, especially when a lot of zoom levels shall be available.
Thanks for that advice. My PC is old, from 2010, so it's not likely beefy enough - but it works well with the USGS topographic maps as does loading
the USGS georeferenced PDFs into Avenza or into PaperMaps.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 04:17:38 |
Calls: | 6,666 |
Files: | 12,213 |
Messages: | 5,335,875 |