Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/20/2005 7:34:05 PM EDT
More importantly, who has the bandwidth to download 50mb of maps?

I've got a 7.5mb medium map (1:75000) of the route from the Pit to Brooklyn.
Plus a set of 6 maps (1:24000) that give a lot more detail. These are all topo.

Format is TIFF, they were 2.5x larger as bit map files.

I can email them to anyone who can take it .

If you can host them others could try to download and make their own prints.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:55:57 PM EDT
50Mb is not an issue for anyone with (true) broadband. For example, I already downloaded more than 50Mb at once without problems. Uploading is another story because Comcast does not give us simmetrical bandwidth. I'm longing for a 100Mbps fiber optics connection...

However, depending on the resolution you are thinking about and print size you may have to go to a Kinkos to get such files printed decently.

Also saw that REI has a kiosk where you can select and print hi-res topo maps but must be from their database.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:57:35 PM EDT
My e-mail won't accept that large of a file. But if you have a thumb drive or burn them to cd I should ba able to print them out.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:59:27 PM EDT
I've managed to reduce these down to 11mb by going with jpeg.

Still, printing them will be a pain.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:02:40 PM EDT
how many are you printing?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:09:53 PM EDT
Paging hippynik. Paging hippynik!
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:12:04 PM EDT
There are 6 maps equivalent to 1:24000 and should be readable on 11x17 paper. They may not stitch together very well... These files are 1.5mb each.

There is one map equivalent to 1:75000 scale for an overall view, same file size. Should also be readable on 11x17.

Two map sets should be all that's needed. One for the navigator and one for backup.

I can't put them up on photobucket without them downsizing.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:14:46 PM EDT
IM sent
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:18:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rossi:
50Mb is not an issue for anyone with (true) broadband. For example, I already downloaded more than 50Mb at once without problems. Uploading is another story because Comcast does not give us simmetrical bandwidth. I'm longing for a 100Mbps fiber optics connection...





Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:27:39 PM EDT
Inbound to our resident graphics expert
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:45:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By Rossi:
50Mb is not an issue for anyone with (true) broadband. For example, I already downloaded more than 50Mb at once without problems. Uploading is another story because Comcast does not give us simmetrical bandwidth. I'm longing for a 100Mbps fiber optics connection...



blog.vollmondlicht.com/images/english_monterey.jpg




Translating...

Symmetrical bandwidth means you have the same bandwidth for upload or download. Comcast, for example, gives us around 3Mbps (best effort) download but only 700kbps or so for uploads. This is called assymetrical. They assume that we do much more downloads than uploads. Not far from reality but it sucks if you wish to upload a large file. Verizon DSL works the same way but does not get to the 3Mbps download bandwidth.

New FTTH (fiber to the home) networks can (easily) deliver around 100 Mbps symmetrical, that is, we have a very nice bandwidth both for download and upload. This is already reality even here in the Seattle area. There's a development, Issaquah Highlands, where each house has its own dedicated fiber and sky is the limit... :-)

Ergo my preference for fiber optics...
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 9:18:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 9:25:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
How would that compare to my 21k I am currently at?



So you posted this last week?

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 9:36:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
How would that compare to my 21k I am currently at?



If I sent you those pics that would be 15,180,800 bytes, or 121,446,400 bits.
At 21,500 bits per second it should take 5,649 seconds, or 94 minutes to download.
With cable it takes 38 seconds, best speed, maybe a minute typical.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 9:56:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tumbleweed:

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
How would that compare to my 21k I am currently at?



If I sent you those pics that would be 15,180,800 bytes, or 121,446,400 bits.
At 21,500 bits per second it should take 5,649 seconds, or 94 minutes to download.
With cable it takes 38 seconds, best speed, maybe a minute typical.



That's the optimistic side. Considering that TCP/IP and assynchronous transmission have headers and also that's considerable packet loss the 94 minutes can easily get to one day for a 15Mb file. I remember trying to download 1Mb files with my old (and retired) 28.8baud modem and I would have dinner or go out and that thing was still downloading the file when I came back. Suddenyl realized I'm quite old... my first modem was a 2400/1200baud model... [
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 10:11:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rossi:

Originally Posted By tumbleweed:

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
How would that compare to my 21k I am currently at?



If I sent you those pics that would be 15,180,800 bytes, or 121,446,400 bits.
At 21,500 bits per second it should take 5,649 seconds, or 94 minutes to download.
With cable it takes 38 seconds, best speed, maybe a minute typical.



That's the optimistic side. Considering that TCP/IP and assynchronous transmission have headers and also that's considerable packet loss the 94 minutes can easily get to one day for a 15Mb file. I remember trying to download 1Mb files with my old (and retired) 28.8baud modem and I would have dinner or go out and that thing was still downloading the file when I came back. Suddenyl realized I'm quite old... my first modem was a 2400/1200baud model... [



Don't feel too bad so was mine. I can still remember how excited I was when I upgraded to a 386 with 1 meg of memory and a math co-processor!
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 10:57:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 9:10:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:

Originally Posted By Rossi:
New FTTH (fiber to the home) networks can (easily) deliver around 100 Mbps symmetrical...



Like this, for $1,566.72 a month?




Actually a bit less than that. The lucky folks living in communities offering FTTH are paying between $100 and $150 for "triple-play", that is, voice, video and high speed data.

How about that?
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 1:19:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 1:28:34 AM EDT
why not print them at Kinko's?
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 10:20:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tumbleweed:
More importantly, who has the bandwidth to download 50mb of maps?

I've got a 7.5mb medium map (1:75000) of the route from the Pit to Brooklyn.
Plus a set of 6 maps (1:24000) that give a lot more detail. These are all topo.

Format is TIFF, they were 2.5x larger as bit map files.

I can email them to anyone who can take it .

If you can host them others could try to download and make their own prints.



I have a similar problem of sorts. When I print a map from Mapquest.com my printer doesnt print the background so the map is useless. I have an HP printer, I don't remember the model number but it's one of the higher end printers. It must be some kind of formatting problem but I don't know how to correct it.
Top Top