#11  
Old 06-21-2013, 02:29 PM
Timber's Avatar
Timber Timber is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Alexandria, VA
Years Playing: 33.4
Courses Played: 63
Posts: 385
Niced 8 Times in 7 Posts
Default

That ground cover vegetation height map is impressive!
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-21-2013, 02:44 PM
TempleOfDoom TempleOfDoom is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mammoth Lakes, CA
Years Playing: 23.2
Courses Played: 243
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 575
Niced 16 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Great job. It's about time Zephyr had a map. It seems to me that the elevation drop on hole 10 should be more than the drop on hole 9. Though 10 is one of the few pins that moves out there, so it's possible the position on the map is one that is set up the opposite hill side.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-21-2013, 07:42 PM
pineappaloupe pineappaloupe is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Courses Played: 11
Posts: 31
Niced 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by knettles View Post
It's a little thing, but I would suggest changing the lines of the flight path from blue to red. The blue blends in too easily with the green foilage. Afterall, that is the most important part of the map.
Good input. I honestly chose blue because one of the highlights of this course are the views of the giant impossibly blue Lake Tahoe from Hole 9 and 15.
I can change that easily and save all of my old color choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TempleOfDoom View Post
Great job. It's about time Zephyr had a map. It seems to me that the elevation drop on hole 10 should be more than the drop on hole 9. Though 10 is one of the few pins that moves out there, so it's possible the position on the map is one that is set up the opposite hill side.
There are a few explanations for this. If the GPS points were off by 3m along the length of the hole that would have a big change in the elevation. I suspect it is because the basket is both under larger trees, and in the corner of that steep ravine. The ground probably obscures 1/3 of the sky. I made a note when i collected that point that the accuracy was bad. And it probably always will be until I get my hands on a better GPS unit.
The elevation calculated in Google Earth was even worse because their base DEM is way off, it shows that the basket is above the tee.....

Last edited by pineappaloupe; 06-21-2013 at 07:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-21-2013, 07:58 PM
pineappaloupe pineappaloupe is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Courses Played: 11
Posts: 31
Niced 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny53691 View Post
I am in the beginning stages of a potential 9 hole course. The trouble that I'm running into is that it's hard to get a great map. I work for the local Auditor, but our aerial shots from early last year have a bad shadow from trees issue where I can't even hardly tell where the trees are. I've done some ground work, but I'd like to have a map that could help out a little more. Sadly, I going between the auditor's page and bing maps and trying to figure out stuff from there. Any other suggestions on where to check if the map is current and better?
I was able to use some 6" resolution imagery last week and the shadows were really bad too in some places. And the imagery also has a perspective. Unlike the LiDAR data which is compiled to always be looking directly down on every pixel (projected coordinates, UTMs).

I would think the imagery from the auditor is georeferenced better than Bing or Google. I know that the LiDAR I have is as good as it gets because I worked on the project that ground truthed it, and we were measuring our center points to 10cm and the trees in the plots to 1cm. And if you look at that LiDAR on Google earth and choose the 2010 aerial imagery, it matches the LiDAR. The more recent imagery does not. In the case of GE, the difference is 3m or so.

Go find a manhole cover that is visible im both images and go get the best GPS point possible. See how that point is relative to both sources.
Honestly it is impossible to know unless you know something about who collected the data or people who work with the data. I got lucky because I know the people who worked with the 2010 stuff are super nerds. They didn't send us to the middle of nowhere with a full station for nothing.

Last edited by pineappaloupe; 06-21-2013 at 08:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-21-2013, 08:30 PM
sansho's Avatar
sansho sansho is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Lake Tahoe, CA
Years Playing: 8.4
Courses Played: 48
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 180
Niced 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Wow this is some impressive stuff! So glad Zephyr is getting a map. First time I played it, I had no guide, and navigation was a bit of an issue.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-23-2013, 10:28 PM
pineappaloupe pineappaloupe is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Courses Played: 11
Posts: 31
Niced 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Here is the new map. The only feedback I got that I could implement now was on the color of the hole lines. Red is much better.
I changed the labeling, removed the word hole and just used the number in a circle. Little stuff like that can take a surprising amount of time. Picking a font that is not generic, making sure it fits in the background. And then how to place the labels on the line. Once I decide on the font and label style (circle), I can move them around to be somewhere other than on the line.
Most of the work was spent on refining the base image. There is a lot going on to produce that DEM because of how the ground hits are classified. The buildings are not classified as ground in this dataset. And really thick trees somehow lead to gaps. So I had a bunch of 'no data' points the DEM and the DSM. So when you subtract the two, you get even more 'No Data'
I want trees that are as close to solid green as possible, those little gaps make some of them look like donuts. Get it to look somewhat stylized and not so much of a raster. I might try to see if I can get the cell size under 2m. Most cell sizes for this type of data are 5m.
I also reoriented the map so that the course is vertical. This is in preparation for the final product which will be rack cards.

So here is version 4.0.



link to PDF:
https://sites.google.com/site/dpdeeg...v4%20color.pdf

I might try to get the KMZ up tonight. Google isn't playing nice with elevation of the points and lines. Their DEM is problem.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-24-2013, 01:58 AM
pineappaloupe pineappaloupe is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Courses Played: 11
Posts: 31
Niced 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

I was able to create 1m cell size ground cover imagery. It is taking me longer to figure out how to properly symbolize the data than it is to create it. I am pretty sure that I can meaningfully classify this stuff starting at 25cm of vegetation height. So i have 0-.25m, .25-.5m, 1-2m, 2-3m, 3-5m, 5-10, 10-20, and everything 20-52m is all just dark green.

Anyway.
Once I nail down my colors for the base images, and decide on some other graphical elements, it is going to take longer to collect GPS points than make a map.
All I need is 1m post-processed points.... spread the word.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-24-2013, 08:50 AM
Kenny53691's Avatar
Kenny53691 Kenny53691 is offline
Noodle Arm
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West of Dayton, OH
Years Playing: 9.5
Courses Played: 77
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,102
Niced 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pineappaloupe View Post
I was able to use some 6" resolution imagery last week and the shadows were really bad too in some places. And the imagery also has a perspective. Unlike the LiDAR data which is compiled to always be looking directly down on every pixel (projected coordinates, UTMs).

I would think the imagery from the auditor is georeferenced better than Bing or Google. I know that the LiDAR I have is as good as it gets because I worked on the project that ground truthed it, and we were measuring our center points to 10cm and the trees in the plots to 1cm. And if you look at that LiDAR on Google earth and choose the 2010 aerial imagery, it matches the LiDAR. The more recent imagery does not. In the case of GE, the difference is 3m or so.

Go find a manhole cover that is visible im both images and go get the best GPS point possible. See how that point is relative to both sources.
Honestly it is impossible to know unless you know something about who collected the data or people who work with the data. I got lucky because I know the people who worked with the 2010 stuff are super nerds. They didn't send us to the middle of nowhere with a full station for nothing.
I'll look into doing that, but I'm more concerned on finding a decent aerial map than I am the exact location. I guess I'll just have to spend a lot more time on the ground down there.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-24-2013, 06:30 PM
pineappaloupe pineappaloupe is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Courses Played: 11
Posts: 31
Niced 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny53691 View Post
I'll look into doing that, but I'm more concerned on finding a decent aerial map than I am the exact location. I guess I'll just have to spend a lot more time on the ground down there.
I like Google Earth because you can see multiple years of imagery and add your own stuff.
Imagery is expensive. Depending on where you live, who paid for it, if it is public record, etc, it might be hard or easy. And when there is the situation where you can get the image but it isn't georeferenced.
See if there is a GIS data clearinghosue in your city/county/region. Lots of universities host that kind of information.
Reply With Quote
 

  #20  
Old 06-24-2013, 06:40 PM
pineappaloupe pineappaloupe is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Courses Played: 11
Posts: 31
Niced 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

OK. I have my imagery all set up. Now I need accurate points. I have my point file set up so that that if given accurate Lat/Long (in NAD 83) I can edit my vertecies. No need to create a new file, I can keep all of my attributes for labeling and getting it to display in Google Earth properly.

If you want to see the points/lines, I have it all in a kmz and am going to open it up to the community.

If you are very interested in editing send me a PM or email.

Notes:
Points are accurate to 10-30ft (see why I need a real GPS unit).
The elevation in GE, is way off. Refer to my contours for real idea of the terrain.
If you can see a feature (basket or tee) on imagery, mark it and label it.
For best results, make sure your view is directly above the area.
All of the points and lines do have attributes, everything you need to identify it.
Don't change my points, just send me what it is, and the new coordinates, in decimal degrees.
Everything that has been verified has a field that is filled in with something like 'Yes. dpd 6-24'. Non verified points have nothing.
Check the description for information.
Let me know if there are any problems with the .kmz.

here it is!
https://sites.google.com/site/dpdeeg...%20editing.kmz
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Zephyr Cove Park toddnick Disc Golf Courses 3 03-24-2017 02:20 PM
HOD 1/7/2016: Zephyr Cove Park Hole 1 in Zephyr Cove, NV fritothedog Hole of the Day 26 01-12-2016 09:30 AM
H.o.D. 12/25/15 - Hole 10 @ Zephyr Cove Park - Zephyr Cove NV namar Hole of the Day 31 01-07-2016 11:45 PM
Zephyr Cove needs help!!!!!! elevated plastic Disc Golf Courses 84 10-06-2015 12:08 PM
HOD 11/11/14: Zephyr Cove Park Hole 8 in Zephyr Cove, NV fritothedog Hole of the Day 35 11-26-2014 08:20 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.