Help
Been a while since I released a new version. I'm starting work on version 5.0, and wanted to get some feedback as far as things you might like to see (anything not in 4.0? Any little annoyances? etc). (Updated data is of course a given).
Page 1 of 1
Ibyucs Topo 5.0? Any suggestions?
#2
Posted 01 May 2012 - 07:31 AM
Ok here is one to consider.
Water bodies, in particular large ones like the great lakes.
Using mapsource to view ibycus 4.0/3.2, they do not appear until you zoom to 5km. In vers 2.1 they were there at 100km level.
I can understand leaving out small water is a good idea, but is there a way to include large ones at higher zoom level, they make it easy to get oriented on a map.
Perhaps in a similar idea, when zoomed way you i see very large highway number markers, and no labels for large cities. Also seems to include some lines perhaps contours or drainages that are less useful at big zoom. Your 2.1 had some cities marked at these zooms and somewhat different lines - not sure these lines are really helpful.
Certainly no biggy but since you asked!
Water bodies, in particular large ones like the great lakes.
Using mapsource to view ibycus 4.0/3.2, they do not appear until you zoom to 5km. In vers 2.1 they were there at 100km level.
I can understand leaving out small water is a good idea, but is there a way to include large ones at higher zoom level, they make it easy to get oriented on a map.
Perhaps in a similar idea, when zoomed way you i see very large highway number markers, and no labels for large cities. Also seems to include some lines perhaps contours or drainages that are less useful at big zoom. Your 2.1 had some cities marked at these zooms and somewhat different lines - not sure these lines are really helpful.
Certainly no biggy but since you asked!
#3
Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:26 AM
Perhaps merge the "old roads" layer into the main map, and tweak the old roads to not display when zoomed far out (at which point the whole screen fills up with red roads, most of which are very minor ones). If they were only visible when zoomed in, then I'd see no reason to not have them always displayed.
More minor roads, trails, cutlines, etc. would be awesome. (This is the main selling feature, to me, of your most expensive competition.) But something tells me there's a lot of work involved in collecting that extra data, so I'd totally understand if you don't tackle that one.
The 4.0 maps are awesome, by the way. Have I mentioned that before? Yeah probably.
More minor roads, trails, cutlines, etc. would be awesome. (This is the main selling feature, to me, of your most expensive competition.) But something tells me there's a lot of work involved in collecting that extra data, so I'd totally understand if you don't tackle that one.
The 4.0 maps are awesome, by the way. Have I mentioned that before? Yeah probably.
#4
Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:35 AM
PS, I applaud your earlier decision to leave out auto-routing, due to the hard work involved in getting it right. I think I know exactly what you mean by that, because the aforementioned [expensive competition] did include auto-routing, and those maps route badly in the presence of one-way or divided roads.
However... If the task of adding auto-routing to that level of quality is a simple matter of flipping a switch, maybe consider including it after all. We can always take it or leave it when sending maps to the unit, and a simple warning about the quality would suffice.
Auto-routing and back roads together would be an incredible combination.
However... If the task of adding auto-routing to that level of quality is a simple matter of flipping a switch, maybe consider including it after all. We can always take it or leave it when sending maps to the unit, and a simple warning about the quality would suffice.
Auto-routing and back roads together would be an incredible combination.
#5
Posted 01 May 2012 - 02:21 PM
Love the 4.0 version! Its the only version I have used but I think it is great.
#6
Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:12 AM
Viajero Perdido, on 01 May 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:
However... If the task of adding auto-routing to that level of quality is a simple matter of flipping a switch, maybe consider including it after all.
I believe the answer is it is not. If you apply automatic routing generation to the maps, it will result is a huge amount of errors that will prevent the maps from processing and these all need to be manually corrected.
I'm not sure I agree at all on the old roads. I find it quite rare that they are anywhere close to the correct locations.
One suggestion is to include a custom TYP with the package. I use one of my own on these maps that substantially lightens up the vegetation polygons making viewing much nicer on the high resolution devices.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1