Bushwalk Australia

I guess it may be a continuous process, but I notice that in the area where I was just planning a walk (near Mt Jerusalem in Nightcap National Park) the WMS topo maps have been updated with extra fire-trails, dams (little blue arrowheads on creeks) and property information (DP numbers). Useful info, except that now I have to remember how to re-do the big download for off-line use.

The quality of the lower zoom levels is definitely worse than it was for the old tiles. Highest zoom level is still OK. I've written to them about this.

Also, not sure I like the extra things they've added either - eg property info can be useful, but mostly it's cluttering up the map!

What would be good would be if they brought back the line describing where exactly the Special Areas around Lake Burragorang. Much more useful than the property boundaries!

tom_brennan wrote:The quality of the lower zoom levels is definitely worse than it was for the old tiles. Highest zoom level is still OK. I've written to them about this.

Agree the quality at everything but the highest zoom is much worse now. Disapointing surely it couldnt have been costing them that much $$ in bandwith.

What would be good would be if they brought back the line describing where exactly the Special Areas around Lake Burragorang.

Not for me. I use SIX for mountain biking and prefer not to know exactly here the ridiculous Special Area boundary is.

Grabeach wrote:

What would be good would be if they brought back the line describing where exactly the Special Areas around Lake Burragorang.

Not for me. I use SIX for mountain biking and prefer not to know exactly here the ridiculous Special Area boundary is.

Hahaha, I'm sure there's a few people out their that use the lack of a marked boundary to their advantage!

I agree with Tom though. Given the lot boundaries and numbers are already available on Six as a layer, I don't think they are necessary for inclusion online. The resolution is the main issue I think, but hopefully that can be fixed.

I do note that the old series 2 topos did have cadastral data, but given they were compiled and reviewed by cartographers who could made choices regarding what to place where, (rather than the automated process used today), it was much more pleasing to the eye.

The coloured reserve boundaries (green for NP and yellow for SF) more easily allow for boundary identification, but also distract, clutter and cover some underlying data.

wildwanderer wrote:Agree the quality at everything but the highest zoom is much worse now. Disapointing surely it couldnt have been costing them that much $$ in bandwith.

It's not a bandwidth issue. It's just how they processed the latest batch of tiles. I'm hopeful that the next time they generate, they'll change their process.

They do take feedback, so if you want to see improvements, a polite email to Spatial Services is worthwhile.

Grabeach wrote:Not for me. I use SIX for mountain biking and prefer not to know exactly here the ridiculous Special Area boundary is.

I like that approach...

I know I've had this whinge before, but I think it's ridiculous that bushwalkers aren't allowed into the Special Area, and yet Sydney Water happily maintains firetrails in the Special Areas that would be several orders of magnitude more polluting.