My choice is the one on the left, second choice the one in the middle. The additional context is useful for locating the area within the larger map posted at JPL, which is difficult with the one on the right.

I also vote for the one on the left. Nice to have a bit more context, and the one extra mouse click required is not a big deal. But it's fabulous any way you do it...

John

And ET gets a guilt-free pass for attachment size, so I vote for the 400x200 as well

I'm just piping up to say that I am in such a hurry when reading that I actually prefer not having to click to enlarge -- I just sort of scroll back and mentally mosaic the images to see where we've come from and figure I'll know where we're going when we've gone there. Which is to say I like what Tesh has been doing. But really what I like most of all is the fact that Tesh provides these maps in any form!!

I vote for the 400x200 too, context is very useful.

Purely a selfish point of view, but the 400x200 would be perfect for my backseat driving, as I do like to see what's "up ahead". But again, HUGE thanks to Tesh for taking the time and trouble to make these maps and files for us. I'd be lost without them now...

Ooook, so let's go with 400x200. Here's how I would love to see it in a post but it will still be a wish, unless someone find a way to adjust the attachment settings to avoid resizing in certain situations.

I think this fits perfect, you see the context around the current position. And as long as we are on a eastwards trek the horizontal format is perfect. When we leave Endeauvor sometimes to the south ... ok, will take a little time.

Very fine, and also, very much thank for you maps the last years, Tesheiner.

I agree with most of you regarding the 400 x 200 one. I would also like to see the whole picture from Victoria to where it is now added every 10 or 20th drive or monthly on those???

Keep up the good work Tesheiner.

Speaking of the route map kml version, is there a kml file somewhere which actually shows the relevant HiRise images between the current position and Endeavour, or is it necessary to manually download those images and align their corners with the appropriate coordinates? I've hunted around for such a file a couple of times without any luck, and simply selecting the latest route map kml just overlays the map on the low resolution background default.

Yes. Hunt back, way back in this topic. We all are viewing the route on top of the HIRISE overlays.

I'll need to make an update to that soon. How long have I got?

You've got about a year before we are off the present image

So here we go with another map update, now for sol 2328.
Click to view attachment

The GE version should be posted soon. Some technical problems in the meantime... (I'm getting an error while attempting to attach it)





Stay tuned...

Thank you Eduardo, I love this new version (and I vote for it)

Still struggling to post the proper KML file...
Meanwhile, here's a "beta" version. There are no changes to the map itself but I've added a description box with some hints to the people who periodically asks for the missing background map.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Thank you, that was quite helpful. Looks like we'll be running over some interesting "fractures" in a few drives.

Sol 2329.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

I opened the beta version, but didn't see your description box. I was, however, able to read the link off the thumbnail in your post, and I grabbed the .zip from Emily's blog.

For months I was wondering why my Google Earth didn't have the same resolution as what was being posted.

Thanks.

Likewise.

You have to click on the text in the sidebar to get it.

Phil

Map update for sol 2330.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Sol 2333.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Another 80m on sol 2334.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Here's the update for sol 2335.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

I'd suggest upping the picture size to 400x400 pixel images before resizing occurs.

I think we probably all had something like 800x600 monitors 5 years ago, whereas now I'd guess the resounding majority of us sit behind 1920x1080 (or similar) monitors.

I don't know what that would mean, expenses-wise, for the site, but my guess would be that it wouldn't make a huge difference to the costs (I am a happy contributor, btw).

The resized maps are not too pleasant to look at, with the scrunched-up hardly readable text (before clicking on it), so that is why I'm suggesting a 400x400 pixel limit.

Im still on 1024x768

Those would be the members who live within running distance of a PC World without security cameras or doors that are locked at night, then...

Yeah I still have one that small on my blackberry, but I've been thinking of upgrading.

Me too

I'm on 1024x768 too.

The point about auto-resizing if the image is bigger then a value is not about monitor size but image size in kB. A 200x200 thumbnail is quite small and a 400x400 would be four times bigger in terms of kB and the forum pages would take 4x the bandwidth to download.

Last bump was quite small, just a few pixels on the map, but I thought it would be ok to post an update including the name of our current site Cambridge Bay.
Sol 2336.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Searching for the last time I posted the whole picture on this thread, I found it was more then two months ago.
Here's it, covering the terrain from San Antonio ("Twin Craters") up to Santa Maria. The previous map covering the route from Victoria to San Antonio can be found here.
Click to view attachment

Thanks, Eduardo!

Always fascinating to correlate the view from overhead with the view from Oppy...a new land unfolding before our eyes almost every sol.

Sol 2347. Less than 200m to the pavement.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Sol 2348.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Chit chat posts moved to the drive discussion topic: From Cambridge Bay to the "parking lot"

Let's try to remember to keep this topic for route map updates.

Sol 2349.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Is each grid square 100 x 100 meters?

Yup.

Here's today's map update corresponding to sol 2353.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Here's the latest map update, with another km mark just behind: 23km. It's a "draft" version since it still has to be adjusted with the help of the navcam pics.
Sol 2355.

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Edit: Updated, because it was off by around 4 meters. It's not a big issue on a single move but this error when accumulated drive after drive may be significant.

I played around with Google Earth as well as Eduardo map from post #2833 and try to find when and where we'll cross the 13kms in strait line from Eagle. You'll find here what I've got.

Click to view attachment

Anyway there's a problem. Using Google rule, it's easy to calculate distance and as you'll see here, the "probable" 13 km from Eagle circle is close from 2 remarkable lines on Eduardo's grid: the vertical 2 km East and the horizontal 13 km South. Unless Maths are different on Mars, Pythagoras is not going to be happy with that! So, either Google rule is corupted, or Eduardo's grid is wrong or, more probably, I AM wrong. Anyway, I thought I'd better post this either for Eduardo to double check is grid or to know from you if we can trust Google rule. Thanks

Note: the probable circle has been set by assuming the route will continue at the same heading (which is close to the "blue" projected official route) as the one from Cambridge to sol 2356 and not shown here since we were not there yet on post #2833 . Note that the distance from Cambridge to this point is (says Google rule) 1 km (1003m to be precise).

What I can say about the grid is that it is based on the fact (?) that the background picture has a resolution of 1m/pix. That picture was taken by HiRISE and is labelled PSP_009141_1780. Note that the original picture taken by the camera has a different resolution (26.9cm/pix), but the "map projected" one has 25cm/pix and my route map uses the latter one at 1/4th size.

An "error" in the map projection process? I don't think so. Perhaps it is related to the fact that the images used on GE have a significant "emission angle" so they are slightly distorted.

Perhaps Phil Stooke or Tim Parker could provide some light to this topic.

Climber--how great is the discrepancy? Putting a flat grid on a sphere leads to small discrepancies on a small scale and major discrepancies on global scales.
You are correct Tesheiner---"Perhaps Phil Stooke or Tim Parker could provide some light to this topic".

I'd say Pythagorias is easily your friend in this case
Hypothenuse² = horizontal² + vertical² = 169+4=√173
13153m instead of 13000m

Don't forget that the map-projected images take into account only an idealized smooth surface - these are not orthophotos corrected for relief distortion. Meridiani Planum is smooth but not perfectly flat, and a discrepancy of a few hundred meters after 13000 m is probably quite reasonable. If you only look at one map-projected image it's easy to think it must have perfect geometry, but try overlaying one image on top of another and you'll find discrepancies at this level.

Phil

I should have said Philthagoras is your friend...

Sol 2358.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Here's a (late) update related to sol 2361. I was off the town with no way to "work" on due time.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Sol 2363.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment