> I think we should adapt a standard here and various levels of dilution/
> grid coarseness could be employed if wanted as well. The grid I am
> proposing is the UTM grid based on the WGS84 geoid/datum.
I'm happy to have the data donated in any format whatsoever. UTM grid
is fine. Lat/long is fine. Road intersections are fine. The database
entry should specify the coordinate system, along with the useable
resolution.
The main purpose for the map is to give the general public a sense of
perspective about CP in the world. This purpose would be served by even
crude 100km-resolution cross-hatching. However, while we are at it, we
might as well make the database scientifically useful.
The CP Web page is currently getting 6000 "hits"/month, or 72,000
accesses per year. The growth rate is about 4000 hits/month/year. A
large number of these hits are from people with no prior CP experience.
Many grade schools are using the CP page as part of their curriculum.
Our URL will be listed in the next edition of "Botany" - a entry level
college textbook. We've gotten "top 5% of the WEB" ratings from two
independant auditors. I could go on and on, but the point is that the
general public is taking our little project seriously.
>From the viewpoint of CP public relations, even a coarse map will be an
eye-opener for many of these visitors. To provide an interested child
with such a global perspective is an incredible educational opportunity.
These kids will be the conservationists of the future.
> Sure, if you have/want such maps but what if you want to go really
> beyond the resolution of the map. I think the better way is to seperate
> location information (as precise as wanted) from the actual maps. A
> simple drawing algorithm (if wanted) can be used to display location
> information on the map.
I agree completely. The data should stored in a separate ASCII format.
The map generation will be a completely independant process. The ASCII
database will be human readable, and easy to update (this is the same
philosophy that resulted in Jan's current DB format).
> But perhaps location data as precise as 100m.
Absolutely.
We will store the coordinates at whatever resolution they are provided.
I apologize for these long, involved discussions, but it is important to
hash this stuff out. I don't want to start a project that will divide
the CP community. This discussion has already gone a long way towards
forging a workable proposal that we can all support.
Once we get a concensus here with the larger group, we'll move more
detailed implementation discussions to private email (I promise :-)).
Thanks to everyone for their interest and input!
-- Rick Walker