Re: [OSM-talk] Aerial Photographs (was: People's Map)
Couldn't the process of obtaining aerial photographs be made much cheaper with RC planes? I am not sure if it would work but setting the RC plane on auto pilot and attaching a camera with continuous shooting mode might make the process simpler. Also refering to this linkhttp://diydrones.ning.com/profiles/blogs/705844:BlogPost:13430, a commentator said:Just wanted to make it clear that we (Pict'Earth) are willing to help anyone from the DIYDrones group to get their UAV imagery processed and published in OAM, just let us know. If you can fly with a logging GPS and a digicam, our Win32 software will get you part of the way and we can help with the rest of the manual bits until we get it truly automatic. On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Blumpsy blum...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: There is an interesting paper from our dear friends over in Redmond: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=75312 From the article: Our mission, in contrast, involved an ordinary four seat Cessna ($160/hour rental, including pilot), three feet of PVC pipe, a consumer digital camera ($300), and two people: one pilot and one to operate the camera shutter and change the batteries (Figure 2). In post-processing, we identified 25 ground reference pairs, and used 60 photos to produce a 208 megapixel image at a resolution of 0.15 m/pixel The camera in Figure 2 looks exactly like the one I have sitting right next to me: a Canon Power Shot A640 with 10MP. I found it rather entertaining to have an operator to press the trigger and swap batteries. For this, there is surely a more elegant solution (PSU and gphoto2) Anyhow, maybe one or the other finds this interesting and inspiring. Cheers Blumpsy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Aerial Photographs (was: People's Map)
I see. Thanks for the clarification. On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Eric Wolf ebw...@gmail.com wrote: RC airplanes aren't cheaper for two reasons: 1. RC airplanes (and any civilian-operated UAV) has significant flight restrictions - distance and altitude. Flying at low altitude (under 500 feet MSL), you end up with a higher spatial resolution but you have to stitch together many more images to cover the same extent as a single image taken from an aircraft flying at, say, 2000 feet MSL. Selecting good shots and correcting the imagery for hundreds of images ends up costing more than the difference in operating an RC plane and a regular aircraft. 2. RC airplanes crash - often - and they aren't cheap. Sure, regular airplanes are more expensive but they don't crash as often. A decent RC rig will set you back $1000+ - not counting the camera. I used balloons and blimps to do low-altitude aerial photography in my MS thesis. They are much cheaper than RC planes to operate because they don't crash (as easily). But you also don't have as much control. They work really well for taking low-altitude obliques for general documentation processes. But for creating a basemap of aerial imagery, you need to get above the 500 ft MSL barrier put in place by the FAA. To do this, you have to be in an airplane piloted by a licensed pilot. Surprisingly, hiring a light aircraft - like the one used in this study - is not really all that expensive. -Eric -=--=---===---=--=-=--=---==---=--=-=- Eric B. Wolf 720-209-6818 USGS Geographer Center of Excellence in GIScience PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Keith Ng khensth...@gmail.com wrote: Couldn't the process of obtaining aerial photographs be made much cheaper with RC planes? I am not sure if it would work but setting the RC plane on auto pilot and attaching a camera with continuous shooting mode might make the process simpler. Also refering to this link, a commentator said:Just wanted to make it clear that we (Pict'Earth) are willing to help anyone from the DIYDrones group to get their UAV imagery processed and published in OAM, just let us know. If you can fly with a logging GPS and a digicam, our Win32 software will get you part of the way and we can help with the rest of the manual bits until we get it truly automatic. On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Blumpsy blum...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: There is an interesting paper from our dear friends over in Redmond: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=75312 From the article: Our mission, in contrast, involved an ordinary four seat Cessna ($160/hour rental, including pilot), three feet of PVC pipe, a consumer digital camera ($300), and two people: one pilot and one to operate the camera shutter and change the batteries (Figure 2). In post-processing, we identified 25 ground reference pairs, and used 60 photos to produce a 208 megapixel image at a resolution of 0.15 m/pixel The camera in Figure 2 looks exactly like the one I have sitting right next to me: a Canon Power Shot A640 with 10MP. I found it rather entertaining to have an operator to press the trigger and swap batteries. For this, there is surely a more elegant solution (PSU and gphoto2) Anyhow, maybe one or the other finds this interesting and inspiring. Cheers Blumpsy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] People's Map
How does one go about calculating the field of view from the elevation and resolution? Would you mind explaining that? Thank you very much. On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:30 AM, D Tucny d...@tucny.com wrote: 2009/4/10 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com writes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aerial_photography_funding_appeals The wiki says about this supplier: About $17 per sq km for basic 2 meter resolution photography. Does that mean that each pixel covers an area roughly 2m by 2m? If so this is not any better than the Yahoo aerial imagery that OSM can already use for many countries. (It could still be worth buying for places not covered by Yahoo.) The aerial photographs used by People's Map are from getmapping.com (in fact, it seems to be run by the same people somehow) and those have a resolution of either 25cm or 12.5cm. That's the kind of detail that would really help with mapping those council estates and car parks. http://www2.getmapping.com/Support/Aerial-Photography-Coverage-%281999-to-2003%29 At this detail level they will sell a 10km * 10km area for 1850 GBP. At least nine such areas would be required to cover inner London (the area of a 'Mini A-Z'). However, this price is for '1 to 10 hard copies' - I don't know how much they would want in exchange for providing photos that can be used in OSM. Since OSM is a competitor to People's Map, they might ask a lot. The reason getmapping has such a high resolution is that they are not using satellites... they capture images from 5500 feet (1676m) according to their site... If they were using a 10 mega-pixel camera, getting a 12.5cm resolution would give them a field of view covering 486m x 324m, or double that for 25cm resolution, they'd have to do a lot of flying just to cover the UK, let alone the rest of the world... In comparison, satellite imagery, which for commercial use currently has a best resolution of 41cm (apparently downgraded to 50cm due to US Government controls) in monochrome, 2.4m in full colour, takes shots that can be 15km wide and hundreds of km long... They do cost a bit to build, launch and manage though... How much does a small plane with camera mount cost to hire for a day? :) d ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] People's Map
Ah. That made sense. A little rusty on the maths. Thanks. :) On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM, D Tucny d...@tucny.com wrote: I didn't actually calculate the field of view in degrees, because that would be harder at this time in the morning ;) working out how much area they would cover is pretty simple though if you are happy to guess what resolution camera they used... I went with a 10MP camera, such as a Canon EOS 1000D, which has an output resolution of 3888 x 2592px... If the resolution is quoted as 12.5cm per pixel, 3888 of them would be 486m :) Then, knowing that the picture has been taken from 1676.4m up, making some more assumptions about the camera being aimed directly at the ground you can work out all the angles involved as you are dealing with a right-angled triange with a height of 1676.4m and a base of 243m (half of the 486m worked out previously), all the information you need :) d 2009/4/10 Keith Ng khensth...@gmail.com How does one go about calculating the field of view from the elevation and resolution? Would you mind explaining that? Thank you very much. On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:30 AM, D Tucny d...@tucny.com wrote: 2009/4/10 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com writes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aerial_photography_funding_appeals The wiki says about this supplier: About $17 per sq km for basic 2 meter resolution photography. Does that mean that each pixel covers an area roughly 2m by 2m? If so this is not any better than the Yahoo aerial imagery that OSM can already use for many countries. (It could still be worth buying for places not covered by Yahoo.) The aerial photographs used by People's Map are from getmapping.com (in fact, it seems to be run by the same people somehow) and those have a resolution of either 25cm or 12.5cm. That's the kind of detail that would really help with mapping those council estates and car parks. http://www2.getmapping.com/Support/Aerial-Photography-Coverage-%281999-to-2003%29 At this detail level they will sell a 10km * 10km area for 1850 GBP. At least nine such areas would be required to cover inner London (the area of a 'Mini A-Z'). However, this price is for '1 to 10 hard copies' - I don't know how much they would want in exchange for providing photos that can be used in OSM. Since OSM is a competitor to People's Map, they might ask a lot. The reason getmapping has such a high resolution is that they are not using satellites... they capture images from 5500 feet (1676m) according to their site... If they were using a 10 mega-pixel camera, getting a 12.5cm resolution would give them a field of view covering 486m x 324m, or double that for 25cm resolution, they'd have to do a lot of flying just to cover the UK, let alone the rest of the world... In comparison, satellite imagery, which for commercial use currently has a best resolution of 41cm (apparently downgraded to 50cm due to US Government controls) in monochrome, 2.4m in full colour, takes shots that can be 15km wide and hundreds of km long... They do cost a bit to build, launch and manage though... How much does a small plane with camera mount cost to hire for a day? :) d ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Price of non-free geodata
According to the Malaysian National Mapping Department website, in order to obtain digital geodata, you need an annual license from them at RM200 (€45) for members of the public. The license is renewable yearly. Then you need to purchase the specific geodata. 1:5 scale topographic maps of Peninsular Malaysia = RM960 (€210) 1:3000 - 12500 Town Map in Peninsular Malaysia = RM50 (€11) There are a lot more products on offer from that website: http://www.jupem.gov.my/Main.aspx?page=MappingProducts I would say the prices quite expensive, considering the average wage is just around RM3000/month. On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, whenever I talk about OSM I tell people how free data encourages creativity and makes possible a whole bunch of things that weren't possible before, how OSM can be used to make cool applications even if you're on a very small budget and so on. Fortunately my bluff hasn't been called yet but to be honest, I have no idea about the cost of non-free Geodata. I have some isolated figures - I remember someone on this list being quoted a ridiculous sum by the OS, and indeed ridiculous quotes are quite common. On the other hand I once bought a license to display the whole of NW Scotland at something like our zoom level 11 (raster image) on my web site from Bartholomew (through streetmap.co.uk) for 50 GBP which looked quite cheap to me. But what are the tariffs being paid every day for acceptable vector data? How many Euros per kilometre of road per year, or whatever the quantity of measurement is? I think I could make an even better impact on listeners if I were able to put a price tag to our data and say something like in the last three months alone, mappers have collected data that would set you back so and so many hundred thousand Euros if you were to acquire it commercially or so, but I wouldn't want to use some fantastic number where everbody then laughs and says yeah, that's what it is before negotiation, and after that it's 10% of the sum or so. Bye Frederi -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Why is JOSM upload so slow?
I am currently uploading fixed coastline from JOSM and I notice that the upload is excruciatingly slow. The maximum speech achievable is around 1.5KB/s and the average speed is around 800 byles/s. I am uploading data from Melbourne, Australia. There's nothing wrong with my Internet. My maximum upload bandwidth is 256KB/s. Yet, JOSM notifies me that my current upload will take around 95 minutes. So, why is uploading so slow? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why is JOSM upload so slow?
I see. Thanks for the information. When will the 0.6 API be ready and in use then? Regards, Keith On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Keith Ng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am currently uploading fixed coastline from JOSM and I notice that the upload is excruciatingly slow. The maximum speech achievable is around 1.5KB/s and the average speed is around 800 byles/s. I am uploading data from Melbourne, Australia. There's nothing wrong with my Internet. My maximum upload bandwidth is 256KB/s. Yet, JOSM notifies me that my current upload will take around 95 minutes. The problem is not speed, it's latency. I'm not sure what your ping time is to the server (I'm guessing near 350ms), but remember that any single update done by JOSM will take at least a whole HTTP request to do which is at least 4*RTT so maybe 1.5 seconds. Multiply by number of objects... The 0.6 API wil have a bulk upload stream which can significantly reduce the overhead. Another possibility is do a Save in JOSM and you bulk_upload from a machine closer to the server. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Slippy map not working in Firefox
Both sites is perfectly functional on Ubuntu, Firefox 3.0, at least to me. On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Etienne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone has emailed me to say that the slippy map at www.openstreetmap.orgdoes not work in Opera nor Firefox/Iceweasel on their Linux box. They say that openstreetbugs.appspot.com does not work either. However informationfreeway does. InformationFreeway uses an older version of OpenLayers so I'm wondering if there's something in a newer version of OpenLayers that is the cause of this. Below is some info from them about their environment and the symptoms they see. Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions about what could be wrong? Thanks. 80n Java javascript ENabled in Opera and Iceweasel(FireFox). Java path correct and double-checked for Opera as: /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/jre/lib/i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ # uname -a Linux xxx 2.6.26 #1 PREEMPT Mon Jul 21 09:11:54 AST 2008 i686 GNU/Linux Openstreetbugs.appspot.com = NOT working in either browser. www.openstreetmap.org = NOT working in either browser. I get all the framework and decoration, but just a white oblong where the map should appear. Hence, no navigations work either. No javascript console errors. www.informationfreeway.org = YES! Working fine in both browsers! Is that strange? :-/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
