Electronic maps

As Pete says, at this point I don't think we can require all measurers to produce the map as a 1-page PDF file but I sure think we should encourage this. The Nichols boys who measure all the courses in the Binghamton, NY area are working with NY Certifier Jim Gilmer to do exactly this. In this day and age, it just doesn't make sense to produce a fine document, mail it in by U.S. mail and have it scanned back into electronic form with resulting degradation of any photographs. Let's work toward encouraging everyone to do the whole process electronically but not require it.

Alan

Let's not forget that we already have the course maps posted electronically, available to all with computers.

A shift to electronic maps through the measurer-certifier-vice chair-registrar-USATF chain should not require more work for everybody to do. Just keeping track of everything can get a lot more complicated.

Requiring all in the processing chain to do things in two ways would add to the load.

I believe that electronic maps can be a big help from the measurer to the race director, but if we are to try to go full-electronic the whole process, and every job in it, needs to be examined very carefully.

Scanning the maps in the old-school way keeps the format consistent from one to the next. As it is now, all 27,000 maps on the USATF site are exactly the same size, and will all print out on a single sheet with no dorking around with the printer.

I do not relish the idea of converting 27,000 files into PDF.

Besides that, some of us are color-blind. Don't ask me to find an orange golf ball.

Odd - I printed out a couple of cal course maps from the USATF search site the other day, and each took 2 pages - 97% of the map fit on one page, then I got a teeny bit of runover on the other.

Which two maps?

Stu wrote:
Scanning the maps in the old-school way keeps the format consistent from one to the next. As it is now, all 27,000 maps on the USATF site are exactly the same size, and will all print out on a single sheet with no dorking around with the printer.

The end user doesn't care what the format is. The end user only cares that when he hits print, it prints correctly. PDF will do that as well as, or based on Jim's recent post, sometimes better than the current format.

I do not relish the idea of converting 27,000 files into PDF.

No one suggested that you do that, nor wants you to do that. No reasonable transition plan for creating NEW map files in PDF format rather than PNG format would include converting all the existing files. There's no need to.

When I use browser Safari go to the USATF web site and print a course map, the map is two pages. Most of the map is on the first page.

When I use browser Firefox go to the USATF web site and print a course map, the map is one page.

My G5 imac computer runs Mac OS 10.4.8. The two maps I tried are ND02039PR and ND05046PR.

Dale Summers

While there are a few advantages to fully electronic maps, they represent a bit of a headache for those of us in the chain of custody.

Starting with the measurer, who must produce not only a map, but extensive documentation supporting it which he submits to the state certifier, currently in paper form. At present, the certifier can separate the map from the supporting documents by removing a staple, issue a certificate and forward the whole lot to his Vice Chair. The Vice Chairs re-check the process and forward only the maps and certs on to me.

I typically get between 30 and 100 certs at a time. When I get them, I scan the maps and certs, update the course list and file the paper copies. Once a month I upload the maps to the USATF site.

My end, on the surface, would seem to be simpler by going electronic. I'd open my e-mail folder and find the latest batch, save them to the hard drive. I'd have to update the course list from the screenshots of the certs, rather than the paper copies.

The state certifiers and Vice Chairs would have a lot more fun, moving individual pages to new folders, and basically doing everything electronically that they now do manually. It doesn't always save time.

The change-over period would be the toughest, and i wouldn't expect anyone to like it at first.

Steve Nichols, father of the Nichols boys who measure courses, sent me his comment on the suggestion that the files be PDF files:

Alan,

Interesting discussion! We create the map and other information in
electronic form anyway, so the question for us is when (if ever) the
quality is degraded by having to print it out and then scan it back in.
Since the certifier (Jim Gilmer in our case) needs to add the
certification number, it turned out that using a high quality JPEG
format file rather than a PDF format file works best for the map. (Many
tools including Windows Paint can be used to modify a JPEG fie.
Modification of PDF files is much more difficult.) A PDF format file can
easily be produced after the certification number is added if that is
the final desired format. As a measurer, I will always keep a copy in
the JPEG format because it allows us to easily make modifications in the
future when remeasuring a course.

The current PNG format files on the USATF site are very low quality when
compared to the original submission, at least for the courses that we
have measured. I suggest two changes:

1) Allow the final maps on the USATF site to be stored as JPEG files
rather than PNG files.
2) Allow the files to go through the process entirely in electronic form
if that is acceptable to the measurer and certifier. If email is used,
then this would also eliminate mail delays resulting in a much faster
process.

Steve

The problem with JPEG is the file size. JPEGs are huge files, typically 10 times the size of the PNG files we use now.

When the measurer and certifier are going back and forth with the map they can use whatever format they both agree to. When the final version of the map is produced, it is saved as PDF and sent to the registrar. JPEG file size is not an issue if it is just used between measurer and certifier.

PDF files can be created that are of similar quality as files created in the PNG format, and the files will be of similar size. The advantage of PDF is that the measurer is not forced to use 300dpi if his map doesn't need it. He can use, say, 180dpi with greyscale or color, and the final size of his PDF file will be no larger than the current imposed limit of 300kb.

For maps that do need 300dpi (some people like 3-point fonts, nothing wrong with that) the map can be saved as PDF with no apparent quality loss and very little file size increase compared to PNG.

Here's an example of a file that does need 300dpi, saved in both PNG and PDF formats. I doubt anyone can tell the difference.

http://www.dukerdog.com/PA01023WB.png

http://www.dukerdog.com/PA01023WB.pdf