The plains

[1Jerseydevil]

Yes to the SE. I wasn't positive of the compass so refrained from saying.
I guess if you put it in 1 or 2' elevations would be correct, like I said from a "flea's" perspective it's difficult to notice subtle change.
It's also probably the way I look at the image, at first glance it looks like the Rocky Mts. LOL

Most roads and of course fire cuts are plowed and are "deeper" than the surrounding terrain which is why I imagine they show up so well? I'm familiar with some of the property boundary lines on Haines property [Sim Place] and know that these lines are NOT plowed, just cut brush and trees, the terrain is "level" with the surrounding land. Yet the boundary lines show. This is partly why I asked if vegetation is having some influence on the imagery.

 

[Boyd]

I'm just not very familiar with that area. If you see something on the actual LIDAR image (like the one I attached to my previous post), I would say there must be a variation in the elevation or maybe just the texture of the land. But if it's actually a "line" then that is vector data that I have gathered from other sources and overlaid on he LIDAR. Basically, this is the same line data used in my maps here:

http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/294/
http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/276/

 

[1Jerseydevil]

[quote="Boyd, post: 110405, member: 127But if it's actually a "line" then that is vector data that I have gathered from other sources and overlaid on he LIDAR. Basically, this is the same line data used in my maps here:

That may explain. Even when you turned the white lines off in your post to me you can still see the road system around the FAA complex, and surrounding area. Some of the Haines property lines show while others don't, this was confusing me. So any "shadow" that is showing a road, property line or fire cut is an overlay even if not highlighted by a white line?

BTW, I use your map version of the Pines on my GPS. Thank you for all the effort you do. About the only thing I like with the Garmin version is the public and private land shading. Your detail is superior. Thanks.

 

[Boyd]

Thanks, glad you find my maps useful. I wanted to include land ownership on the topo, but it just cluttered things too much. This was largely a personal choice, but I felt that showing forest cover was more of a priority. I used boundary lines, but they can be more confusing. But the original goal was to make my map in the style of a USGS topo and this is how they do it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by shadow and white line, but maybe a picture will help? The LIDAR based terrain with no additional features is shown on the left and the webpage on the right.

Some lines are the edges of different images which have been "stitched" together (LIDAR missions flown on different dates). I assume that's what the vertical line in the middle of this image is? There's a horizontal line right about at the northern tip of the "diamond" that surrounds the tower. That is actually the boundary between the Woodmansie and and Oswego Lake USGS 24k quadrangles. Generally speaking, I download my data one quad at a time, so these artifacts may be created by the USGS servers when they split the imagery for download. Or maybe they actually shoot the LIDAR imagery one quad at a time? It's a mystery!

 

[1Jerseydevil]

Your 2 images are showing exactly what I'm talking about. The image on the left shows all the roads and firecuts in and around the FAA complex. The image to the right shows the exact same but this time you highlighted with the white lines.
I am not talking about the black lines.

 

[Boyd]

I'm a little lost I guess... sorry. Not sure if there is still a question? The image on the left is just the LIDAR data. Anything on the right that's different is vector data that I added. It isn't a "highlight", those are actually lines. I could change them to black, put them on a white background and they'd look like the roads and trails on the Garmin maps in my link above. It is the same vector data, just rendered in a different style.

 

[1Jerseydevil]

We're saying the same thing but just walking down different trails I guess. I understand your enhanced vector lines. If you look at the image on the left which is the raw LIDAR as you say, you can clearly see all the roads and fire cuts as shadows [lines] some of which you did not enhance with your vector lines.
So what I'm saying is since the LIDAR can "see" elevation change of you say 1 foot and since most roads and fire cuts are plowed lower than the surrounding terrain the LIDAR is showing as an elevation change which happens to be straight lines as that's what they are? I've been on many of these lines so I "know" they are really there.
What I said before, there are some property lines that are NOT plowed, just the trees cut and brush hogged, the actual land elevation not changed in any way, but I can see the "shadow" line in the LIDAR image. This is why I asked if vegetation is having some impact on the image.

 

[Boyd]

I just don't know the answer. Based on all I've read, it would mean there is something different about the ground itself. Going back to your earlier analogy, a flea on the ground may think he knows what the world looks like, but we might not agree with him.

More info on LIDAR here, if you're interested. As I said, my site uses the "bare earth" NED variety: http://lidar.cr.usgs.gov/

 

[1Jerseydevil]

I just don't know the answer. Based on all I've read, it would mean there is something different about the ground itself.

Yes I agree, roads and fire cuts, there is something different about the ground itself. However the imagery is also picking up property lines where the vegetation and NOT the actual ground has changed.

http://maps.njpinebarrens.com/#lat=...=-74.42689061164856&z=17&type=h&gpx=undefined
If you can position your Lidar imagery in this area:

In this area along Brownies rd is Haines property. You'll notice multiple horizontal property lines. One set of lines is the old property lines that may have disturbed ground. The parallel lines to the North are new property lines Haines resurveyed maybe 8 years ago. Mr. Haines resurveyed all his property for tax reasons. Lines were found wrong and his actual property is about 300' North and a bit to the West. The new lines are NOT disturbed ground but only vegetation, yet the Lidar is showing the disturbance. This is my "proof" that the vegation is having some impact on the imagery.

BTW, the black lines you have showing Penn State boundary is inaccurate. The property lines Mr. Haines established define his land from Penn State. There is also a sliver of conservation land at the East end of Penn State that crosses over Long Causeway rd.

 

[manumuskin]

Thanks, glad you find my maps useful. I wanted to include land ownership on the topo, but it just cluttered things too much. This was largely a personal choice, but I felt that showing forest cover was more of a priority. I used boundary lines, but they can be more confusing. But the original goal was to make my map in the style of a USGS topo and this is how they do it.

Boyd
If you ever do make LIDAR maps with property lines I'm sure Guy and I will be able to use it to locate stones,The first one we do will be named after you,"The Boyd Stone:! How does that sound?

 

[Boyd]

The new lines are NOT disturbed ground but only vegetation, yet the Lidar is showing the disturbance. This is my "proof" that the vegation is having some impact on the imagery.

Well they can be whatever you like. I'm not going to argue with the Jersey Devil.

As far as the property lines, they came from the NJDEP public open space dataset I already had. I can't cite the exact date, it was somewhere between 2008-2011. Actually, I intended to remove all those boundaries from the online map but forgot to on the Oswego Lake quad. I'll remove them in the next update. When I get around to issuing a new NJ 2013 topo map, I will download the current open space data from NJDEP. Hopefully that will be correct, because I can't research every property line dispute the state has with a farmer.

Al, I was really just talking about state open space land ownership, although I have most of the parcel data for the pines already. Putting that online would be a bit more of a project than I'm up for at the moment. Let me know if there's a specific area you are interested in, although I can't make any promises.

 

[1Jerseydevil]

Well they can be whatever you like. I'm not going to argue with the Jersey Devil.

As far as the property lines, they came from the NJDEP public open space dataset I already had. I can't cite the exact date, it was somewhere between 2008-2011. Actually, I intended to remove all those boundaries from the online map but forgot to on the Oswego Lake quad. I'll remove them in the next update. When I get around to issuing a new NJ 2013 topo map, I will download the current open space data from NJDEP. Hopefully that will be correct, because I can't research every property line dispute the state has with a farmer.

Your working on a new topo map for 2013? Great, what's in mind this time?
As for removing any boundary lines, I would like you to retain them as I'm sure others would. Many are paths and even if they're not it's nice to know what is approx. where. As for showing public property, State forest, WMA and private, would it be possible to use a different shading of green similar to what Garmin does?
Boyd, I didn't mean to annoy you and certainly understand you can't personally verify every foot of the Pines and need to depend on available public info. It's just that I am familiar with the Haines property in this area, and I'll admit I certainly don't know every foot. LOL

 

[Boyd]

Don't hold your breath waiting for the 2013 version, it won't happen for quite some time. But it will just be more of the same, with updated roads, contour lines, etc.

I'm not removing boundaries from the GPS maps. The map at boydsmaps.com does not include public space boundaries because they are not part of the theme. That map shows things that actually exist on the ground, not invisible lines. As I said above, the area around the plains is just a bug - I forgot to remove those boundaries. If you look at the rest of the map you won't see any public space boundaries.

I think a map that uses shading to show public vs private land with shading would have to be a separate project. I've tried it before and it just makes a mess of the forest shading. Part of this is due to technical limitations of Garmin's map format. If you really feel you need it, my very first map has shaded public space and no forest shading. I really wouldn't recommend it today, but you can download here: http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/439/