Using theLISTmap vegetation info for offtrack routes?

[Tortoise↑↓]

I was playing on theLIST last night, and discovered the vegetation layer.
http://www.thelist.tas.gov.au/app/content/home
(LISTmap)
Wondering if anybody has used this as the basis for picking an offtrack route to avoid the worst scrubby bits. Maybe it's not reliable enough for it to be useful. Has anybody tried it?

Eg I'm still hoping to visit the Hydro Hut (Windemere), and there's a lot of detail there that looks like it might help as a starting point anyway. Perhaps too good to be true?

[icefest↑↓]

Interesting idea. I've personally used topo and orthophoto imagery for route planning.
I'll attempt a comparison with my verdict on using the vegetation layer.
I'm assuming you mean the TASVEG layer. I'll use TASVEG 3.0, as it looks pretty and has a nice key.

I'll look at the delta of Pebbly Creek, into Lake Pedder, just south of Terminal Peak (because I've planned a walk though here and done it over the past summer).
First, we have the topo:

Not too much visible as far as vegetation goes. A marshy delta with some scrub around the northern arm of the delta.

We also can use the Vector generated topo:

Even less detail. Nothing extra over scanned topo.

State Orthophoto:

Much more information. We can see the band of scrub around the northern arm, but can also see the remains of a bushfire in the northeastern corner of the delta. We can also see that the scrub around the southern branch of the delta, appears to go all the way to the lake. We can also see the clear difference between low scrub and the higher trees on the northern branch of the delta.

Google Satellite:

Pretty much identical to state orthophoto, but with a better contrast (but much worse coverage over other areas of Tasmania)

Lastly we have TASVEG 3.0




Here, we can see a bit more vegetation, and with the key, have a idea of what is growing where. We can see the higher vegetation and know what is growing where. There is a bit more detail then on the topo maps, with some vegetation shown on the bottom branch too.

Summary
It looks like a good tool for vegetation identification. There is a definitive advantage to using it over both vector-generated topo and print topo, as it enables better identification of vegetation difficulty and type. There are some limitation of all of these as compared to state orthophoto, with the main problem being inadequate borders and detection. Google Satellite is better most of the time but only has Landsat images of some regions (probably Landsat 8, so 30m pixel size, when in color).
I will probably use start using TASVEG in combination with satellite images, using TASVEG to recognize vegetation types, but relying on the aerials to plot route.
Usually this will involve a rough plan with print topo - to enable elevation and rough landmark route recognition - followed by the more detailed off track vegetation assessment.

-icefest

[Tortoise↑↓]

Thanks for checking it out, Icefest.
I'm afraid i'm in technological overload, so can't follow all your comments but will continue to pop my toe in the water for places I'm planning to go - and add Google satellite. One day hopefully there'll be more working memory happening (for me, not the computer).

It'll be interesting to see how you find using it (TASVEG I guess - it looks the same as what I was looking at) some more.

[icefest↑↓]

Which bits don't you understand? I'm happy to explain/detechnicalise.

[Tortoise↑↓]

Which bits don't you understand? I'm happy to explain/detechnicalise.

Hey icefest. Thanks heaps Not ideal for a technophobe to be learning Mac from PC, smart phone from dumb phone at a time of brain overload and emotional exhaustion...

But I managed to go back and find TASVEG on purpose instead of by accident (but how did you get the bits you wanted out of the long list in the legend?) And i figured out much of what you mentioned are in fact other views I can see if I get the layer bit right, which is half the time.

Now all I need is a bunch of Etrex30-for-dummies-lessons, and i'll declare myself to have graduated from preschool in the technological world.

I really appreciate your willingness to help, and will call upon your explanations when I've got this phone working, and I stop wanting to put an axe through my Mac. Actually, that was yesterday. There are some things I have since discovered all by myself!!

[GPSGuided↑↓]

I'd ask how current are those mapped data? And how well do those data translate to ease of penetration on the ground? Doesn't it all varies? It'd be great if they differentiated scrub and pine needle covered forest floors.

[icefest↑↓]

Hey icefest. Thanks heaps Not ideal for a technophobe to be learning Mac from PC, smart phone from dumb phone at a time of brain overload and emotional exhaustion...

But I managed to go back and find TASVEG on purpose instead of by accident

Well, in case you need to do it again, this is how I do it:

Click on the "layers button on the top right


Then click on "add Layer"


Then scroll down to plants and animals and select TASVEG 3.0 (under communities) by clicking on the red plus on the right, next to it.


Close that window by clicking the "X"


In the right hand column, click on the three horizontal lines to expand TASVEG 3.0 and get the full legend


Now, you can adjust the transparency of TASVEG 3.0 with the transparency slider

And i figured out much of what you mentioned are in fact other views I can see if I get the layer bit right, which is half the time.

You can change layers by clicking on the basemaps button on the top right:

(but how did you get the bits you wanted out of the long list in the legend?)

I just found them by matching the patterns and then took a screen clip of them and inserted them here using the [img] tag.
If that's too hard you can single click on one region and you should get a pop-up that looks like this, and has the vegetation name, type, source age and community group.
For the buttongrass moorland on the pebbly creek delta:


As a useful adjunct, you can set transparency to 100% and then click on the screen to get the vegetation name and type and a highlighted border, like so: (you'll need to wait for the outline to load for about 10 sec after clicking)

Now all I need is a bunch of Etrex30-for-dummies-lessons, and i'll declare myself to have graduated from preschool in the technological world.

Anything specific you need help with? Failing that, we can go on a walk together next time I'm in Tas and I'll be happy to help you use it in anger.

I really appreciate your willingness to help, and will call upon your explanations when I've got this phone working, and I stop wanting to put an axe through my Mac. Actually, that was yesterday. There are some things I have since discovered all by myself!!

Have fun! I can't help with the mac issues.

I'd ask how current are those mapped data?

The TASVEG 3.0 data from the area is based on imagery from 1988.

And how well do those data translate to ease of penetration on the ground?

I wasn't quite clear enough with this. In my experience visual data from sat images was best for identifying pure buttongrass (which was much easier to penetrate). Any slight change of color around a creek was incredibly difficult to get through.
The lower branch of pebbly creek was a nightmare. 30 min for 30m. This was an area that TASVEG 3.0 and topo said was easy buttongrass. The growth is visible on sat image: (Faint darkening around the creek)

Doesn't it all varies? It'd be great if they differentiated scrub and pine needle covered forest floors.

Theoretically they do. A bit. Maybe.
Here is part of the key:



Tell me if I missed any questions (or if you have any more).

[Tortoise↑↓]

Will get back to you on that when I've checked that all out properly. Thanks heaps for the effort.

[GPSGuided↑↓]

Nice one Icefest! Thanks.