The Mountains of Scotland - new website

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Simon Edwardes, Feb 7, 2006.

  1. If you who have visited my website "The Mountains of England and
    Wales", you may be interested to know I have set up a similar website
    for Scottish mountains (see links below).
    You can register (free) a username on the site, and log your Munro,
    Marilyn and County Top bagging exploits, and see the results against
    map backgrounds.
    My grateful thanks go to Chris Crocker for letting me use data from his
    database as a basis for mine.
    (Also posted on Relative Hills of Britain newsgroup)

    Cheers, Simon

    The Mountains of England and Wales:
    http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/
    The Mountains of Scotland:
    http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/Scotland/Scotland.php
     
    Tags:


  2. theo

    theo Guest

    "Simon Edwardes" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    news:[email protected]
    > If you who have visited my website "The Mountains of England and
    > Wales", you may be interested to know I have set up a similar website
    > for Scottish mountains (see links below).
    > You can register (free) a username on the site, and log your Munro,
    > Marilyn and County Top bagging exploits, and see the results against
    > map backgrounds.
    > My grateful thanks go to Chris Crocker for letting me use data from his
    > database as a basis for mine.
    > (Also posted on Relative Hills of Britain newsgroup)


    I enjoyed entering my Munros but in the England and Wales section I
    encountered some difficulties. In the Wainwright section two windows appear,
    showing *Map Key* and *Table Notes*. They're in front of the map and I can't
    close the windows.

    --
    "Beannachd leibh"

    Theo
    www.theosphotos.fotopic.net
     
  3. What's the sheep background got to do with Munros ?

    Estimating GPS points to 10 figs is poor accuracy.
    Where is the source for these ? Mapping software ?
    NASA contour maps?

    Nick
     
  4. theo

    theo Guest

    "theo" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Simon Edwardes" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    > news:[email protected]
    >> If you who have visited my website "The Mountains of England and
    >> Wales", you may be interested to know I have set up a similar website
    >> for Scottish mountains (see links below).
    >> You can register (free) a username on the site, and log your Munro,
    >> Marilyn and County Top bagging exploits, and see the results against
    >> map backgrounds.
    >> My grateful thanks go to Chris Crocker for letting me use data from his
    >> database as a basis for mine.
    >> (Also posted on Relative Hills of Britain newsgroup)

    >
    > I enjoyed entering my Munros but in the England and Wales section I
    > encountered some difficulties. In the Wainwright section two windows
    > appear, showing *Map Key* and *Table Notes*. They're in front of the map
    > and I can't close the windows.


    It's ok now.

    --
    "Beannachd leibh"

    Theo
    www.theosphotos.fotopic.net
     
  5. Nick (Scots) wrote:
    > What's the sheep background got to do with Munros ?


    I can't draw midges.

    > Estimating GPS points to 10 figs is poor accuracy.
    > Where is the source for these ? Mapping software ?
    > NASA contour maps?


    Where a trig pillar marks the summit, the grid ref comes from the OS
    own data. Where I (and others) have visited a summit, the grid ref is
    taken from a GPS reading. But in many cases they are estimated from OS
    1:25000 maps (from their Get-a-Map service), blown up, and calculated
    using the pixel offset from the nearest OS gridline. This has proven
    to be close enough on the ground when using my GPS receiver (usually
    within 15 metres, often better). This is definitely an improvement on
    the 6 figure grid refs usually quoted on mountain lists. The problem
    sometimes has not been the estimated grid ref, but rather the fact that
    OS spot heights are sometimes not at the highest point.

    Cheers, Simon
    ---------------------
    The Mountains of England and Wales:
    http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk
    The Mountains of Scotland:
    http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/Scotland/Scotland.php
     
  6. Nick (Scots) wrote:

    > Estimating GPS points to 10 figs is poor accuracy.


    As Simon said, in the case of trig points they aren't estimates. Neither
    are actual GPS readings taken at summits (they may not be absolutely
    correct, but they're not estimates). Likewise grid refs taken from mapping
    software (Anquet etc.) are not estimates, they are what the software reports
    (again probably not that accurate, but not estimates - 50k GRs can sometimes
    be way off, but 25k GRs are usually pretty close).

    But the key point is that 10 figure grid refs is what GPS receivers use, so
    that's what the GRs should be listed as, even if the last figure is a 0 or a
    5. Some people have problems entering a 6 figure GR into a GPS, and that
    would be hopelessly inaccurate anyway. An 8 figure GR would be best IMO,
    but a GPS requires 10, so you have to pad it out no matter what the 5th
    digits are.

    Besides, how many people actually follow the GOTO arrow to the actual grid
    ref? Even in thick fog you can see a summit within 10m. Once you get that
    close you tend to stop looking at the GPS anyway, so the 5th digits tend to
    be irrelevant in practice.

    Speaking of actual accuracy, I have a local "test" trig that I often pass,
    so I always stop to take a reading. It's almost always within 3m of the OS
    stated grid ref.

    Likewise, grid refs that I've marked myself tend to have similar accuracy,
    on the same day at least. Whenever I get back to my car the ending GR tends
    to be within 2-3m of my starting GR (I always mark the start and end grid
    refs), although the error would probably be greater on other days. When I
    have multiple waypoints for a particular summit, I tend to average them for
    better accuracy. It still isn't 1m accuracy, but it's better than 10m
    accuracy.

    Who knows, if Egnos ever gets up and running, we should get even better
    accuracy.

    Paul
     
  7. 214Fells

    214Fells Guest

    Paul Saunders wrote:
    > Besides, how many people actually follow the GOTO arrow to the actual grid
    > ref?


    Me!!! Particularly useful for finding trig's that are hidden in
    vegetation. Also good for very flat, feature-less summits e.g. Foel
    Wen.

    You're most probably correct that 10-digit GRs are overkill but from
    personal experience I find that 6-digit GRs are rubbish.

    A big thanks to Simon as I download the 10-digit GRs for summits in the
    area prior to all walks.

    David.
     
  8. In message <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders
    <[email protected]> writes
    >Nick (Scots) wrote:
    >
    >> Estimating GPS points to 10 figs is poor accuracy.

    >
    >As Simon said, in the case of trig points they aren't estimates. Neither
    >are actual GPS readings taken at summits (they may not be absolutely
    >correct, but they're not estimates). Likewise grid refs taken from mapping
    >software (Anquet etc.) are not estimates, they are what the software reports
    >(again probably not that accurate, but not estimates - 50k GRs can sometimes
    >be way off, but 25k GRs are usually pretty close).
    >
    >But the key point is that 10 figure grid refs is what GPS receivers use, so
    >that's what the GRs should be listed as, even if the last figure is a 0 or a
    >5. Some people have problems entering a 6 figure GR into a GPS, and that
    >would be hopelessly inaccurate anyway. An 8 figure GR would be best IMO,
    >but a GPS requires 10, so you have to pad it out no matter what the 5th
    >digits are.
    >
    >Besides, how many people actually follow the GOTO arrow to the actual grid
    >ref? Even in thick fog you can see a summit within 10m. Once you get that
    >close you tend to stop looking at the GPS anyway, so the 5th digits tend to
    >be irrelevant in practice.
    >

    The summit is sometimes the only time I use my GPS on the entire
    journey! Quite often I get to tops of hills where it is almost
    impossible to work out which tussock of grass or heather is the actual
    summit. I tend to go to the ten figure grid ref point and then decide
    whether that will do. Sometimes, of course, it will do - other times
    there is another tussock that looks marginally higher so off I go (often
    to find the tussock I have just left also looks marginally higher) and
    then mutter to self 'that'll bloody do - stop being so obsessive'.

    So - there you go - 10 figure grid refs are useful.
    --
    Martin Richardson
    272/284 Munros - 4% to go 34/34 'Furths'- 0% to go
    56/89 Donalds - 37% to go 494/1554 Marilyns - 68% to go
    376/525 Hewitts - 28% to go (E=178/178; W=137/137; I=61/211)
     
  9. Jhimmy

    Jhimmy Guest

    "Simon Edwardes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > If you who have visited my website "The Mountains of England and
    > Wales", you may be interested to know I have set up a similar website
    > for Scottish mountains (see links below).
    > You can register (free) a username on the site, and log your Munro,
    > Marilyn and County Top bagging exploits, and see the results against
    > map backgrounds.
    > My grateful thanks go to Chris Crocker for letting me use data from his
    > database as a basis for mine.
    > (Also posted on Relative Hills of Britain newsgroup)
    >
    > Cheers, Simon
    >
    > The Mountains of England and Wales:
    > http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/
    > The Mountains of Scotland:
    > http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/Scotland/Scotland.php


    Thanks Simon, I've used your England and Wales Marilyn pages all the time,
    now it'll be the Scotland pages as well.

    Jhimmy
     
  10. Thanks Jhimmy, and thanks to those who followed up on the usefulness of
    10 figure grid refs.

    Please note there is an error on the Marilyns index page in the England
    and Wales site - it is showing my Marilyn totals rather than those of
    the the logged-in user. I'll fix it this evening.

    Cheers, Simon

    The Mountains of England and Wales:
    http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/
    The Mountains of Scotland:
    http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/Scotland/Scotland.php
     
  11. Martin Richardson wrote:

    > The summit is sometimes the only time I use my GPS on the entire
    > journey!


    Same here.

    > Quite often I get to tops of hills where it is almost
    > impossible to work out which tussock of grass or heather is the actual
    > summit. I tend to go to the ten figure grid ref point and then decide
    > whether that will do.


    If it was taken from a map then it probably won't, particularly on that type
    of summit. On Waun Lefrith for example, the OS 50k, 25k and Harveys maps
    each put the summit in a completely different place, quite far apart. I've
    put all three in my GPS and they were all wrong. I've found what I think is
    the correct spot, but my companion reckoned I was wrong. Oh, and someone
    else has built a cairn in a different spot, and that's wrong too! Where the
    hell is the true summit of Waun Lefrith?

    > Sometimes, of course, it will do - other times
    > there is another tussock that looks marginally higher so off I go
    > (often to find the tussock I have just left also looks marginally
    > higher) and then mutter to self 'that'll bloody do - stop being so
    > obsessive'.


    You spelt obsessive wrong, it's spelt - S - A - D !

    But I do the same...

    > So - there you go - 10 figure grid refs are useful.


    Never said they weren't. :)

    Paul
     
  12. "Simon Edwardes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Nick (Scots) wrote:
    >> What's the sheep background got to do with Munros ?

    >
    > I can't draw midges.


    Ok,what about a softened landscape photo of glencoe etc.

    >> Estimating GPS points to 10 figs is poor accuracy.
    >> Where is the source for these ? Mapping software ?
    >> NASA contour maps?

    >
    > Where a trig pillar marks the summit, the grid ref comes from the OS
    > own data. Where I (and others) have visited a summit, the grid ref is
    > taken from a GPS reading.


    Good, as you may no the OS trig location may be diff. to the wlaked trig with a gps.
    Also it's 10 figs.

    >But in many cases they are estimated from OS
    > 1:25000 maps (from their Get-a-Map service), blown up, and calculated
    > using the pixel offset from the nearest OS gridline. This has proven
    > to be close enough on the ground when using my GPS receiver (usually
    > within 15 metres, often better). This is definitely an improvement on
    > the 6 figure grid refs usually quoted on mountain lists. The problem
    > sometimes has not been the estimated grid ref, but rather the fact that
    > OS spot heights are sometimes not at the highest point.


    Yeah. My council GIS intranet site is very inacurate in terms of where a house siteplan
    (it's location) is but the actual site dimensions is acurate since they are digitally
    surveyed.

    The OS digitally survey new construction developments etc or pay you for digitally
    surveyed data
    you have done on a project.

    My FUGAWI digital maps are 'contour data' poor.

    Nick
     

  13. > Besides, how many people actually follow the GOTO arrow to the actual grid ref? Even in
    > thick fog you can see a summit within 10m. Once you get that close you tend to stop
    > looking at the GPS anyway, so the 5th digits tend to be irrelevant in practice.


    Well I do. If I'm in cloud and want to descend to a certain point eg a bealach to then
    descend and handrail a stream, then I put the grid ref, 6 figs into my Geko, of the
    bealach
    after using the side of the compass to measure/divide the grid box into 10 (1;25k).
    I goto that point, checking the ht as well. I can then backup any bearing and mapwork.
    I have used this twice 'for real' in winter whiteouts to backup descending.

    > Who knows, if Egnos ever gets up and running, we should get even better accuracy.


    WAAS - I got one waas sattelite the other day with my new Etrex Camo (lost my geko)
    It's down to 3m I think. DGPS has a signal emanating fom the Forth estuary, I think.

    Nick
     
  14. "Simon Edwardes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Thanks Jhimmy, and thanks to those who followed up on the usefulness of
    > 10 figure grid refs.


    Keep the 10 figs please.

    Nick
     

  15. >>But in many cases they are estimated from OS
    >> 1:25000 maps (from their Get-a-Map service), blown up, and calculated
    >> using the pixel offset from the nearest OS gridline. This has proven
    >> to be close enough on the ground when using my GPS receiver (usually
    >> within 15 metres, often better). This is definitely an improvement on
    >> the 6 figure grid refs usually quoted on mountain lists. The problem
    >> sometimes has not been the estimated grid ref, but rather the fact that
    >> OS spot heights are sometimes not at the highest point.


    I need to overlay the free NASA contours maps to improve the accuracy
    of the FUGAWI contouring. Have you overlayed them ?

    Nick
     
  16. Nick (Scots) wrote:
    >>> What's the sheep background got to do with Munros ?


    >> I can't draw midges.


    > Ok,what about a softened landscape photo of glencoe etc.


    The sheep is non-negotiable. Firstly, it's an established symbol for
    my original website (The Mountains of England and Wales), which has
    been around now for 5 years, with sheep - I wanted to retain the same
    look and feel for the Scotland site. Secondly, my daughter drew the
    sheep, so it stays.

    > Good, as you may no the OS trig location may be diff. to the wlaked trig with a gps.


    I have used the WGS84 coordinates converted to grid references, I
    believe this gives better results for GPS.

    > I need to overlay the free NASA contours maps to improve the accuracy
    > of the FUGAWI contouring. Have you overlayed them ?


    No, not tried this. I'm considering getting the new Garmin GB Topo
    mapping. I'm watching the thread in this newsgroup on the subject, to
    see what people think of it.

    > Keep the 10 figs please.


    When I got my first GPS receiver about 5 years ago, the unavailability
    of 10 figure grid refs for summits was one of my main reasons for
    starting my own website. So they're definitely staying (along with the
    sheep).

    Cheers, Simon
    ---------------------
    The Mountains of England and Wales:
    http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk
    The Mountains of Scotland:
    http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/Scotland/Scotland.php
     

  17. > The sheep is non-negotiable. Firstly, it's an established symbol for
    > my original website (The Mountains of England and Wales), which has
    > been around now for 5 years, with sheep - I wanted to retain the same
    > look and feel for the Scotland site. Secondly, my daughter drew the
    > sheep, so it stays.


    Okay, but it ain't scottish, so howabout a tartan fleece !

    >> Good, as you may no the OS trig location may be diff. to the wlaked trig with a gps.

    >
    > I have used the WGS84 coordinates converted to grid references, I
    > believe this gives better results for GPS.


    Some trigs are diff. to the OS map in daylight on the hill with no cloud.

    >> Keep the 10 figs please.

    >
    > When I got my first GPS receiver about 5 years ago, the unavailability
    > of 10 figure grid refs for summits was one of my main reasons for
    > starting my own website. So they're definitely staying (along with the
    > sheep).


    I used my Etrex Camo and turned on the WAAS, it was down to 2m accuracy
    tonite with a 3hr Mtb Night ride, round the linlithgow area.

    Nick
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>, "Nick
    (Scots)" <[email protected]> writes
    >I used my Etrex Camo and turned on the WAAS, it was down to 2m accuracy
    >tonite with a 3hr Mtb Night ride, round the linlithgow area.


    But beware that the accuracy is just an estimate not absolute. The
    estimate is based upon assumptions which can be invalid at times.

    --

    Dominic Sexton
     
  19. >> The sheep is non-negotiable. Firstly, it's an established symbol for
    >> my original website (The Mountains of England and Wales), which has
    >> been around now for 5 years, with sheep - I wanted to retain the same
    >> look and feel for the Scotland site. Secondly, my daughter drew the
    >> sheep, so it stays.


    >Okay, but it ain't scottish, so howabout a tartan fleece !


    I could give it a tam-o'-shanter and ginger wig : )
     
  20. Nick (Scots) wrote:

    >>> Good, as you may no the OS trig location may be diff. to the wlaked
    >>> trig with a gps.

    >>
    >> I have used the WGS84 coordinates converted to grid references, I
    >> believe this gives better results for GPS.

    >
    > Some trigs are diff. to the OS map in daylight on the hill with no
    > cloud.


    I think you may be misunderstanding Simon, he didn't get the trig grid refs
    off a map, he got them from a list of precise coordinates from the OS
    themselves.

    To clarify further, there are two versions of this list, one for the
    Ordnance Survey datum, the other for the WGS84 datum. The OS datum list is
    correct for the maps, but since a GPS uses WGS84 as its internal datum, if
    you input the OS datum coordinates, the GPS has to convert them internally
    to WGS84 (even though it displays them in the OS datum). The conversion
    formula in the GPS is relatively simple so there are errors in the
    conversion, therefore it can be as much as 10m out in some cases, although
    usually it's only 3-5m.

    The way to solve this problem is to use the coordinates from the WGS84 list
    instead, which have been accurately converted using a far more complex
    formula. By using software (like GPS Utility or OziExplorer) to convert
    these back into the OS datum, you get pretty much the same errors as the GPS
    would give, so although the result is techincally incorrect when compared to
    the map, it's actually correct for the GPS (to within a metre or two), which
    is what counts in the field.

    Of course there'll still be a difference, but that's just down to the usual
    reception errors.

    Paul
     
Loading...
Loading...