I'm new to Manifold and am taking my time learning its functions which at my current rate I plan to have down in a couple of years. One thing I have noticed, both in my own experimentation and in reading the posts of others is that cartography still has a way to go until it is the beast tool for making high quality maps. From what I've noticed, there's a lot of interest in this aspect of Manifold from other users and the Manifold Team, as it has always been the case will rise to the occasion and make their product a first class cartographic tool.

As a biologist I use a Mobile Mapper CE GPS for field data collection, with Arc Pad as the data collection software. I've never heard anyone mention this, but it would be great if Manifold were to develop software for handhelds that would allow the data to be collected in Manifolds native format. It would be great to become less dependent on shapefiles!

I don't see this happening, ever.

I've used PDA's running HGIS for several years in the field, and despite claims to the contrary (http://www.manifold.net/explore/faq.html), cannot find a manifold-capable micro pc that compares

in cost. I've never used ArcPad. Maybe I'm just used to it, but the system I use works OK, albeit

relying on shapefiles.

J.

I mentioned in a previous post yesterday....why don't you have a look at the ultra mobile PC form factor.

We are testing the OQO model E. I have Manifold loaded on to it, along with 25Gb of Multivision oblique air surveys and it works a treat.

See the attached image for an idea of how big the machine is. It will quite happily fit in your pocket. If you stick a sim card into it you also have instant 3g web connectivity through the mobile phone network.

Attachments:
OQO.bmp

I'll second the promise of UMPC for mobile GIS. I've got 2 more weeks I have to wait before my Samsung Q1U comes and I can start tinkering with Manifold on it.

I'd wait another month though as some new, more powerful UMPCs are about to be released.

Plus, check out some of the interesting field data collection being done over at Scancontrol integrating smart phones and Manifold: http://www.scancontrol.com/

Before we go and spash a load of cash on the OQO, can you fill us in on the 'more powerful UMPC's'??

OQO is definitely up there, but the price tag is definitely up there too.

Samsung will be releasing an update on the Q1 Ultra (Premium).

Asus should be releasing an update on their R2 line. The R2E is supposed to be available, but they should be releasing another by mid-year.

The HTC Shift release is imminent or already out in some locations.

HP is rumored to be getting one ready for release.

If I were facing an imminent purchase decision I'd try to track down a Q1 Ultra Premium or Asus R2E or HTC Shift, in that order. R2E is probably the most rugged and has the built-in GPS. Main thing with any is to spend the time up-front optimizing them for XP. Check the forums and throw as much RAM as possible at them and dump the crapware.

If you want the cellular modem built-in, I'd be looking long and hard at the Samsung.

Here's a good resource: http://www.umpcportal.com/

Thanks for the heads up on that. I'll go and check this stuff out. One thing I have found with the OQO is that it takes a while to open a map. Once it's open though it's fine.

The other thing I like about the OQO is their new model with a daylight screen, but this only comes with a 65GB solid state flash drive and the price point is around £2k which is a lot!!

I'd be interested to hear your other experiences. I don't get mine for a couple weeks and when I do I'll share too.

I checked out the OQO specs and was surprised to see its only got 1GB RAM. Thats probably the problem with loading the map. Is the RAM wired to the board or can you upgrade it yourself?

I'm curious about the Samsung as well. How is the new version of the Q1 working out for you? My biggest concern is how readable the display is outdoors - any opinions? I've also been looking at the otter box for this unit - anyone have a chance to try this on the Samsung - does it add any ruggedness and is it very rain proof.

Thanks

We've got an Asus UMPC and the onboard GPS (SiRF) is not compatible with Manifold. Well, I could not get it to work after hours of trying different things. I did not try an external GPS antenna, but I would assume that would be the best bet for manifold.

Phish reunion - March 6, 7, 8, Hampton, Virginia.

I have the older Samsung Q1 and I really like it. It works very well with Manifold as well as Mapinfo for me.

(I use both the GPS Console in Manifold, and the Geographic Tracker in Mapinfo, I like them both. The only thing that I would suggest for the Manifold GPS console is a symbol denoting your position, or maybe a full map screen crosshair or anything that would give you that "You are Here" comfort.)

The new Q1 Ultra is very nice but I think the keyboards in the upper corners are of limited use for intense data entry. The letters on the keys can also be hard to read if you have middle aged eyes. My boss has one and uses it on occasion. The screen is much better than the older version.

For a reasonably good selection of tablets and UMPC's you might look at

www.tablekiosk.com

or

www.dynamism.com

The Getac 840XT ruggedised UMPC is something that I am going to look into.

We have also bought Xplore Technologies rugged tablets, and are very happy with them. ($3700.00)

Daylight and Direct sunlight viewability is an issue with most UMPC's including the Samsungs.

Get one with at least two USB ports, and make sure that you will be happy with the placement of the ports when you are using it. The new Samsung has a less than ideal USB port location scheme for mapping from the drivers seat.

I much prefer the USB GPS antennae over the Bluetooth. This is just personal preference, and I have also worked in areas that have a great deal of RFI and it sometimes interfered with the Bluetooth interface.

The one thing that is not taken into account with regards to a PDA or a Ruggedised PDA over a UMPC or Ruggedised tablet is survivablility. I have taken falls that would totally destroy the screen even the most rugged of Tablets or UMPC's but the PDA came away with only a couple of nicks and dings and scratches.

Yes, I may be clumsy, but I also work in rough terrain or on hard surfaces, so consider what you are going to be doing with the unit carefully, and pick one that will survive the work you are going to do with it. People drop stuff.

You would also be surprised how much abuse your equipment will take in your vehicle if it is not properly mounted.

Also make sure the screen resolution will be adequate for your needs.

That part is very important!

The only thing that I would suggest for the Manifold GPS console is a symbol denoting your position, or maybe a full map screen crosshair or anything that would give you that "You are Here" comfort

Already there... In http://www.manifold.net/doc/working_with_gps_receivers.htm see the "Show a reticule at the center of the map:" discussion.

Thank You Dimitri!

I had not seen that before, nor had I thought of that one.

That helps quite a bit.

Is it just me or do you have to constantly refresh the reticle to keep it on your current position (center of the screen)?

If it isn't just me, then I would suggest that the reticle is refreshed with each positional update.

The issue isn't a huge one, but it is a little misleading if you are moving fast and the reticle is moving across the map based upon the first position it was fixed at.

A slightly larger reticle would be helpful also. (Middle Aged Eyes)

It's not just you. I found the reticule a bit useless for those reasons, I ended up just putting a drawing in that I would add a point at current position to with the GPS console whenever I wanted to check my position.

Should send a feature request I guess, maybe manifold aren't aware the reticule doesn't really work for live gps use.

Thanks Mike,

I am glad to find out that I am not as intarded as I thought I was.

In comparing Manifold's GPS Console with Mapinfo's (Blue Marble's) Geographic Tracker, I find that I prefer the moving map in Manifold to the moving symbol in Mapinfo, however I prefer the ability to choose my symbol (reticle) style and have the reticle depict the current GPS position. I generally make a garbage layer in Manifold that I have it draw a line in so I can track my whereabouts, this works well, but it can make a mess.

I have written some utilities for Mapinfo with Mapbasic that lets me map on the fly then update the proper layers based upon a feature code. After the feature is logged, (it doesn't matter if it is a line or a point) you are prompted for a feature code. After inputting the code, the program is run that compares the code to a feature style table that contains the proper mapping layer, point or line style, and layer structure for the mapped feature. This data is then appended to the proper layer. The user is then asked for the GIS attribute data, and then all is well and you can continue mapping.

I did this so the user would only have to worry about mapping, and not changing layers with each different feature. I am also working on some nesting code so you can shoot a point feature while mapping line features without stopping.

I hope to replicate this in Manifold someday, but I will continue to work with it and train others in its use.

Something I found today using GPS in the field. Select Show Reticule and Track Position in the World Pane. Then to see your current position just click the Back arrow on the main tool bar (the one that normally goes back to the last zoom position). Don't know why it works this way but it drops the reticule onto the current position. Would still be great to have one moving with the current position but easier than going back to the World Pane.

I've mentioned this before. I would also suggest the actual PDOP value captured and displayed. The three values presently used do not give any kind of quantifiable information for people who want to know the quality of the GPS signals and geometry.

You have a variety of choices:

1. Use a GPS device - much field work is the collection of points that are identified by a waypoint ID. GPS devices are very light and it takes very little time to keep a small notebook of entries for each waypoint ID. It is often easier to make entries back in the office using a full-sized keyboard than it is to use a small PDA interface in the field.

2. Use a smart phone in an application like ScanControl - this tosses relatively small forms into the smart phone and utilizes DBMS replication to synchronize the phone with the centralized DBMS, from which all GIS applications fold.

3. Use a UMPC running real Manifold.

4. Use any web-capable device (PDA, smart phone, UMPC, etc.) connected via a browser to a web application.

The Manifold approach is explained in a FAQ/form letter that's been circulated. It still makes sense (highlights follow below):

Hope this helps!

-----

Manifold.net does not offer limited-function "PDA" versions of Manifold, using either Windows Mobile or proprietary PDA operating systems. Instead, we offer two alternative approaches for handheld usage in the field:

As a first approach, we recommend using standard Manifold on very small, handheld "UMPC" devices or ultrasmall tablet computers - these can run standard Windows and standard Manifold.

This approach has several very important benefits:

1. UMPCs and tablets have far greater capabilities than PDAs. This allows richer user interfaces for greater productivity than a PDA. Also, many UMPCs and tablets have integrated GPS and cameras which are often very useful for mobile applications. Manifold works especially well with GPS.

2. UMPCs and tablets usually have larger screens with better resolution than PDAs. This allows better use of mapping technology to avoid errors and to provide richer displays.

3. The cost of standard Manifold is usually less than the cost of PDA software sold by other GIS vendors, yet the Manifold package does far more. The combined cost of Manifold plus a modern UMPC can be less than the cost of a PDA with legacy PDA software and accessories.

4. By using standard Manifold, any advances in the main package are automatically available in the handheld version. You don't have to wait a year or more until the GIS vendor decides to update some special-purpose PDA version.

As a second approach, if you must use non-Windows hardware we recommend creating your GIS application as a web application using Manifold IMS. Users can then connect to that Manifold web application using any free Internet browser on their PDA.

This approach has several very important benefits as compared to PDA versions of GIS software:

1. It can be an extremely low cost strategy, because the Manifold software to deploy such an application costs only $225 per web server with zero cost for client software on the PDA. A single web server can usually support many thousands of handhelds connecting to that application.

2. The same application can be accessed from the field or from other computers. This makes it easy to test and debug the application and also to have other members of your organization use that application.

3. The application is resident in the web server, so it is easy to maintain. Updates need be made in only one location and they are automatically available to all field units. No need to distribute new versions of software to all of the PDAs.

4. The data used by the application is resident on or controlled via the web server. That makes the data easy to update and maintain without having to distribute changes to many PDAs.

5. Different users can have different interfaces or different capabilities by using different permissions in the web site. A supervisor, for example, might be allowed to make some changes while lower level personnel could not.

6. Data seen on the PDA client can be exactly up-to-date at every instant, because the the web application can be continuously updated.

7. The web application can connect to corporate IT databases to include current, up-to-date information and error corrections taken from other databases. That can't be done in "PDA-only" applications.

8. Users can make changes in the field (such as correcting errors, adding new data, snapping photos that are instantly uploaded for a location) that can drive updates in the main DBMS right away.

9. Web applications can use vastly larger data than can fit into a PDA. This allows much richer displays, using zoomed in/out satellite imagery, for example, than could ever be possible within a PDA-only approach.

None of these approaches really work for someone like me who may spend all day collecting GPS data while hiking through heavy brush, and may on a bad day accidentally drop his gear into a river. My needs are for a mobile mapping application that works on a resource grade hand-held GPS devise such as a Trimble DX or Thales Mobile Mapper CE that is rugged, self-contained, waterproof, and by using DGPS can collect gps data at <1 meter positional accuracy in the field. Packing around a laptop computer and GPS with Manifold, or a flimsy PDA that gets >30 feet of positional accuracy doesn't cut it for wetland delineations or other field mapping situations.

To the best of my knowledge there are only a few software vendors: ESRI, Trimble, and Carlson (there may be others) who make field mapping gps software that is really up to the job. There are a lot of us field biologists and other outdoor professionals who need such an application and ESRI, for what it's worth, offers a seamless approach from GPS data collection to GIS analysis and mapping. ArcGIS is capable of creating projection files that ArcPad can actually read. My current solution which is ArcPad for GPS data collection and Manifold for GIS/Cartography is awkward since ArcPad cannot read Manifold prj files, making interchange cumbersome.

I'm not dissing Manifold by any means, I love the product for GIS work and wouldn't be on this forum if I didn't see it in my future, but I believe this is a big gap that has to be filled if Manifold wants to attract users like me who routinely collect data in the field on a resource grade GPS, then import it into a GIS for basic analysis and map production. There are a lot of us out there and from my perspective the course of least resistance is to go with ArcPad/ArcView. I would love to see Manifold develop a similar total mapping solution so that I, and many others can get on a different path of least resistance. I would be more than happy to beta-test your product!

We use Korec's FastMap software with a Trimble GeoXT. Here in the UK we can tie ourselves into the Ordnance Survey's virtual reference system to get us about 50cm accuracy with a single GPS receiver in real time.

Korec are at http://www.korecgroup.com/

You can also use FastMap with differential correction or postprocessing systems. FastMap is desiged expressly for the efficient capture of GPS data and information so it's worth a look.

My needs are for a mobile mapping application that works on a resource grade hand-held GPS devise such as a Trimble DX or Thales Mobile Mapper CE that is rugged, self-contained, waterproof, and by using DGPS can collect gps data at <1 meter positional accuracy in the field. Packing around a laptop computer and GPS with Manifold, or a flimsy PDA that gets >30 feet of positional accuracy doesn't cut it for wetland delineations or other field mapping situations.

I'd be curious to hear details on what you do in the application. That would help re-focus this thread a bit since it launched in March of 2008 to discuss use on handheld devices... the usual case is that when people ask about "handhelds" they mean PDAs and other handhelds and are not specifically referring to dedicated, proprietary GPS devices.

There are thousands of proprietary GPS devices available now and they cover an incredible range of features, including a very wide range of built-in or default software. As far as I know, essentially all of the retail devices include some sort of software with them and at a minimum they all seem to include some default recording mechanism within the device such as the ability to record waypoints, with various devices offering better or lesser attribute acquisition as well.

You are not alone in a desire to carry about a ruggedized GPS and not a PDA or some other generic handheld. Lots of people do that today to support field mapping in Manifold. For example, they'll use a handheld GPS with WAAS (sub 2 meter accuracy) and simply enter waypoints. After all, defining a plot of land is just a matter of walking the boundary and clicking a waypoint at each point that defines a kink in the boundary. People do this to map stream paths, roads, locations for georegistration of aerial images of forest stands, delineate archaeological sites, etc.

Techniques vary, of course, but most people seem to find it easiest to just click a waypoint and use the device's default auto-incremental naming system to give that waypoint an identifier. Those folks doing very dense mapping use methods like solid state voice recorders (about the size of a zip drive) to quickly provide a verbal note as to what each waypoint identifier means. They seem to find that faster for data entry than to use whatever method the device utilizes for specifying attribute info. Once they get back to the office they find they can enter attribute information much, much faster using a full-sized keyboard and mouse than they can in the field no matter what software is running on a small device.

Although you write about specialized GPS devices, I wouldn't be too quick to discount more mainstream computing devices. If you are willing to do a bit of trade-off to be slightly more careful and not drop them into a swamp you can get astonishingly better value, performance and phenomenally more efficient workflow. That can count for much. Also, if you can live with WAAS accuracy (sub 2 meter) you can save enormous amounts of money, tens of thousands per unit in some cases, which could be a factor for many folks in a tough economy.

Some of the new devices have become astonishingly powerful and rugged, like SSD supported ultrasmall "notebooks." These have become so powerful that they can not only run real Windows and full Manifold, they can actually support the voice recognition capabilities of things like Vista. Even an ASUS R2H (a very old unit by modern standards) can now be used with a headset for voice data entry utilizing Vista built-in voice capabilities. Quite literally, you can use Instant Data in Manifold with the built-in GPS device to walk around and without a keyboard enter in attribute information by voice as you collect GPS points. Devices like a Samsung NC10 put the ASUS R2H to shame, and are so inexpensive you could trash one per month and still take a long time to get up to the cost of some of the dedicated GPS devices.

[The GPS device in the ASUS R2H works with current Manifold Release 8 builds. The problem with earlier builds was that the GPS device in the ASUS is extraordinarily slow to communicate so it wouldn't be recognized. Current builds know that some GPS devices take a very long time and so they wait much longer for them to come to life.]

By the way, it seems to be that most people find working on a very small display not particularly useful in a purely graphics mode. We hear reports that such applications rapidly evolve into using text forms with the data then being synced to the desktop using a variety of fully automated methods.

I'd be curious to hear what you are doing and how that workflow might or might not be possible to do in a different, possibly more efficient, way leveraging the native capabilities of the devices you are using.

Hi Dimitri,

Thanks for the quick and thoughtful reply, that's one of the things I like about this forum. When I started this thread, by stating "hand-held devices" I wasn't specific enough about what my needs are in field data collection. Most of the field data that I collect is for wetland delineations, which are reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of State Lands. Both agencies require <1 Meter accuracy for all field data, which are presented on paper maps in reports and require a statement about how the data was collected, what equipment and software were used, and the accuracy of the final map. In some instances, where environmental factors such an overhead tree canopy or a canyon result in unacceptable accuracy, I hire professional surveyors.

Oftentimes it is as you say, simply a matter of walking a boundary and collecting data, which can be collected as a continuous stream, or stopping at critical points and averaging anywhere from 20 to 100 vertices to increase accuracy. However, due to accuracy requirements, the unit must be WAAS/EGNOS enabled and the data collection software must allow for the averaging of line/polygon vertices or points. Also, ther needs to be a way to collect RAW files for post-processing.

As far as display goes, you're right that these high-end GPS units are hard to read. Most will allow you to upload a rectified bitmap image, but the display quality is so poor, due to the small screen that I just upload vectors for basemaps and carry a good printed map for orientation in the field.

Speaking only for myself, although I know a lot of field biologists who would echo my sentiments, for field data collection, simple functionality is best. As far as software goes, most of the GIS capabilities are Manifld are not necessary in the field, but we do need the following: fairly low memory requirements (exactly how much I'm not sure, but this is another reason I don't upload bitmaps), a good field form with multiple fields for collecting data, point and vertice averaging, DGPS, and the abilitiy to collect RAW files for post processing. I post-process using Mobile Mapper Office, but I believe ArcGIS has an extension for this as well.

A big problem I have with ArcPad, aside from the +/- $700.00 cost and its low compatibility with Manifold, is that it's buggy (surprise!). I often have to reboot the entire unit by shutting it down and re-starting it because it either locks up or goes brain-dead when I'm trying to collect data, usually a line or polygon. That's not cool.

As I stated in my last email, there are a lot of us field biologists in government agencies and consulting who require a high degree of precision and ruggedness in our data collection tools. I'm satisfied with the performance of my Thales Mobile Mapper CE, which is far less expensive than its Trimble equivalent. The weak link is the data collection software, but as long as ArcPad remains the default (it came bundled with my GPS), people are going to continue to use the ArcPad/Arc GIS combination. I think it's an avenue that Manifold should at least consider.

As always, I recommend that folks interested in this or any other feature expansion make sure to send in suggestions are advised in http://www.manifold.net/info/suggestions.shtml

The need for sub 1m (DGPS) accuracy, the very high cost of such devices (the Trimble GeoXT running in the several thousands per unit, for example) and the interest in RAW files to allow more explicit post-processing tends to restrict the constituency. But then many things in GIS overall (and Manifold specifically) are there for subset constituencies so that's not a bar, although it should encourage advocates to be vocal to make up for possibly fewer numbers than folks interested in more consumer sub 2 m (WAAS) conventional GPS devices.

I think what might more argue against more speciality support from Manifold is that technology and economics are moving so fast that events may overtake the discussion. Although it is true that the traditional GPS industry is strikingly slow moving compared to mainstream hardware, it does nonetheless move forward at a fast enough pace that by the time a chopped version of Manifold could be prepared it would likely not be necessary in that the GPS devices could run the non-chopped version.

Given the many specialized GPS software packages it could be argued that perhaps Manifold could serve advanced users even better by putting effort into being a better GIS and taking it for granted that whatever is done inside GPS devices is done. If Manifold interacts with simple ESRI formats as well as, say, ArcGIS then it becomes irrelevant if ArcPad or anything else is used on the GPS. The server side direction ESRI is taking ArcGIS is not going to help its popularity. It's tough to call, but it could come to pass that neither ESRI nor Manifold will emerge as a cool, dedicated, speciality GPS device utility.

Anyway, make sure to send in those suggestions!

Hi Dimitri,

Although, as you say, "if Manifold interacts with simple ESRI formats as well as, say, ArcGIS then it becomes irrelevant if ArcPad or anything else is used on the GPS" is true in a logical sense, I think that there are a lot of folks who, if they've just invested in a $5,000 Trimble GPS and $700 ArcPad software are just going to assume that ArcGIS is their best option, because they're staying in the same family (and that's what the friendly Trimble and ESRI sales people recommend).

I know there's a risk for Manifold in putting resources into a small segment of the potential market, especially when you're hoping to emerge as a dominant player in desktop GIS, but I also think it could pay great dividends and strengthen your position amongst resource professionals, hopefully even those in government agencies, who, take it from an ex-federal government biologist, are unfamiliar with anything GIS that wasn't made in Redlands, CA.

So, in light of your feedback, I'm going to take a two-pronged approach, by requesting greater interoperability between Manifold 9.0 and ArcPad, and my great preference, a chopped and specialized version of Manifold for professional GPS.

Thanks again,

Joe Thompson

www.OregonEcoConsulting

Maybe a 3rd option would be to improve the ability to easily customize Manifold so that when GPS units do start running operating systems that Manifold supports, then a user can customize the GUI for use on the small screen. Improvements might be a GUI approach rather than a coding approach to customization. Also, maybe some preset options for the GUI, such as one for a 3"x4" screen with GPS functions.

I guess there is also the question of the future of ArcPad to consider. ESRI are really pushing ArcServer of which a key component is ArcMobile.

ArcPad is licensed by ESRI from a company called Maptel (http://www.maptel.com.au/maptel/index.html) based in Melbourne and so is outside the Redlands umbrella. If ESRI have their own in-house mobile technology fully integrated into Server, I guess there is a good chance that at some point in the future, they may choose to break the ties with Maptel once their own technology matures.

Having said this, I am a great fan of ArcPad and would love to see a Manifold equivalent as I think they could really improve on it with Manifold's strong Enterprise DBMS background (for remote data synchronization) and the like.

Like ArcView 3.x, I believe that ArcPad has a large and dedicated user base. It is easy to use and would survive for a good while whatever line ESRI decide to pursue.

I like Mikes suggestion about being able to customise Manifld to be used with GPS devices. It would be quite a modifcation, because in my experience, the lower the RAM and power requirements the better, when it comes to GPS. We need to be able to collect a lot of data quickly and operate for up to 8 hours without a charge. The application would also have to be able to run on Windows Mobile unless future GPS devises are able to run on Windows Vista or XP (doubtful). So, my guess is that it would need to be its own software. ArcPad includes a desktop version for Windows and one that runs on CE so that you can download the collected data from your hand-held into the desktop version for post data collection work. I never use the desktop version, preferring to upload it straight into Manifold; however, it doesn't work in the oposite direction, because ArcPad can't read prj files created in Manifold (something I've mentioned to sales).

I guess I'll have to look into ArcMobile to see what that is. I'm pretty unsophisticated as a GIS user, since i really just need acurate data collection and the ability to create fairly good quality paper maps. I don't so much like ArcPad as have settled on it as the best of what's available. I haven't upgraded to version 7.1, which may have worked out some of 7.0.1's bad habits, such as locking up frequently and requiring me to re-boot by re-starting my GPS. That aside, I agree that it's a good design, with all of the necessary functionality minus extraneous B.S.

If Manifold were to create GPS software, I would hope that they, like ArcPad, keep it simple, but with all of the necessary features to keep it a professional product. For me, ruggedness, low power requirements, dependability and precision are the most important things to consider.

What you say makes sense. By the way, I get around the Manifold prj problem by just using a prj file created by ArcMap and renaming the file prefix to match the newly created shapefile. Its easy as I very rarely deal with more than one projection.

I do the same trick with prj files. This should be an easy fix for 9.0

As a surveyor I use Microsurveys MSCAD2008 on my PC/Laptop and Field Genius on my JetCE device.

Field Genius program allows a seamless way to collect data in the field and it just loads into MSCAD without a hitch (well, we all have them occasionally).

MSCAD creates a cut down PC file for Field Genius that has all the points/ lines etc of its parent. When read back into MSCAD only the new points/ linework is added. One can also add atributes to the features surveyed. (they're still working on that side and currently rather limited)

I gather Carlson is similar?

Rugged PDA's that are fully readable in sunlight is essential for real field work. And they do get dropped and they do suffer from other daily use. BUT they keep coming up working.

The number of users that trudge the backblocks as opposed to load up data and drive about collecting data would be an interesting comparison.

Rugged, scaled down Notebooks for what ever they call them are a long way removed from a rugged PDA.

I've never used one, but from looking and reading they just aren't cutout for real bush-bashing field work.

To me the biggest issue with PDA/ UMPC is the data transfer/ interchange.

Maybe Manifold could look at this side and in that way create something that does run on these 'lesser' machines. I appreciate the user base may be small so obviously this affects things.

Most rugged PDA's have Bluetooth that would then talk to a suitable GPS.

As to accuracy - I often wonder how many users get talked into something more accurate than their needs. Sub meter is fairly standard these days for mobile GPS types. Again, how many would that really cater for in the GIS environment?

I appreciate the need for greater accuracy in certain instances, but often its a complete overkill.

How many think about where all this will head in 10? years time - continental drift will cause some interesting data misfits on the ground. But thats getting off track.

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:12.0pt; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-top:12.0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:12.0pt; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:0in; mso-para-margin-left:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} <![endif]-->

As to accuracy - I often wonder how many users get talked into something more accurate than their needs. Sub meter is fairly standard these days for mobile GPS types. Again, how many would that really cater for in the GIS environment?

That's a good question:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers require that all wetland delineation maps be submeter accurate, and that's why it's essential for my work. I don't know how many of us wetland delineators there are, but I suppose there aren't enough of us for Manifold to develop software specifically for my little group. I can, however, think of some of other industries where submeter or even sub-foot accuracy would be important, such as mapping utilities.

A carrot for getting Manifold to consider a mobile mapping application would be expanding their base of users into groups that are currently dominated by ArcGIS. For example, government resource specialists widely use Trimble units such as the DX with ArcPad, and that’s one fact that I think Manifold needs to be cognizant of if they desire a lucrative government contract. I think that they won’t want to break the ArcPad/ArcInfo link, no matter how great or cost effective Manifold is.However, a Manifold mobile mapping/GIS combination at an unbeatable price might be an offer they can’t refuse.

I don't know where that paragraph of gobbledy gook in my earlier post came from, but I can't get rid of it!

For example, government resource specialists widely use Trimble units such as the DX with ArcPad, and that’s one fact that I think Manifold needs to be cognizant of if they desire a lucrative government contract. I think that they won’t want to break the ArcPad/ArcInfo link, no matter how great or cost effective Manifold is

Hmmm... it's as always a balance of what folks want Manifold to do, where the effort should go also given a balance between low-hanging fruit, hard-to-do but desireable objectives, what you get for the effort, how long it takes and all that. It's tough to predict what the best course is. As Neils Bohr (I believe) once said, "Making predictions is always difficult to do, especially about the future!" :-)

Setting aside for the moment ruggedized, high end situations like specialized high accuracy GPS or especially ruggedized PDAs, it seems clear that for generic mobile markets overall the original Manifold strategy that PDA's would "grow up" into things that could run standard Windows, and thus be able to run standard Manifold, appears to have been the right call. It's happened slower than one might have thought five years ago but it's happening fast enough.

Plus there are much bigger screens and widespread 3G cell networks for people to do web mapping stuff in many locations using "stub" programs on small devices. So if you really want something on a PDA you do it using a web browser connected to a Manifold IMS enabled site. The world is getting smaller very rapidly as there are fewer and fewer places without cell service.

So how about the ruggedized, speciality GPS devices and the constituency they serve? The kind of guy who spends $7000 on a GPS device is likely to be fairly conservative in his choices. I agree with the implication of the quote at the top of this post that pretty much no matter what Manifold did it would take a period of years to overcome inertia to break whatever existing link is there.

And then you also have the extraordinary conservativism of the GPS companies, which for the most part are ex mil-spec guys who like to do old-school business. It takes years of very expensive, national account selling efforts to get them to change, even if it is very much in their interest and in their customer's interests to change. Just look how long it took a virtual world of user flames to get Garmin to open up even just a little bit from their former "must buy everything from us" ethos. Likewise, perhaps even more old-school is Trimble.

So it would have to be something that users would buy *despite* the inertia of the GPS vendors, and that's getting into a very small subset market of what is already a niche market. The numbers don't look very persuasive in terms of justifying a big effort to develop for that market segment and then to attempt to bust into it. But there is another way.

Several ways, actually. The default is just to do what Manifold is doing, perhaps adding a few more GPS specific utilities of interest to that market to the standard Manifold product. GPS is a big deal overall, so may as well grow capabilities in Manifold here and there to support users. [Now is the time to get detailed requests into the product planning pipeline...] So that's a no brainer. As GPS devices grow up and acquire the ability to run regular Windows, as they surely will, about as fast as Manifold could develop speciality stuff in a full-court press and market it against headwinds, well, about that same time you could have a GPS device maturity that will run standard Manifold, but now with some additional GPS features as specified by expert Manifold users who know GPS inside and out and have sent in those detailed suggestions to help create their dream GIS/GPS fusion thing.

It's also possible to create utilities that run in the GPS that are very simple forms applications that just acquire data into a local data store for batch upload to a desktop running Manifold. Why do anything except the simplest acquisition in the GPS device if it has limited GUI and limited (small screen, no mouse or real keyboard) ergonomics?

There's yet another way to approach this which I am hesitant to bring up because it sounds so unpleasant, but as it is a very true part of the reality in which we all operate it should be said. The most effective way to deal with any predisposition to ArcPad/ArcInfo in government circles is to simply kill off ESRI.

[A digression...

Given the way the economy is going together with ESRI's decision to bet their lives on even higher priced, underperforming server-side stuff that is a real possibility in 2009. That's especially the case in government.

Government is conservative, but they pay stratospherically high prices for ESRI software, to the eye-popping point that it starts adding up to real money that becomes a very tempting target when agencies are forced into looking for budget cuts. I guarantee you if the choice comes down to chopping headcount or replacing ESRI with Manifold, it will be ESRI on the chopping block, not the agency's personnel.

I see that happening every day. We are booking record deals with government organizations who explicitly state they need to get away from too-high ESRI pricing. As one letter I was copied on today put it "We are currently exploring ways to end our dependency on ESRI products – as they are grossly over priced."

A further peril for ESRI is that government pays very high prices per unit but it doesn't buy many units, so ESRI's revenue is critically dependent upon a small number of buyers procuring a small number of units. It's therefore especially tempting to, say, reduce from getting 100 units to 50 or whatever. Or maybe from 100 units to 10 and then spend the cost of what would have been ten more ESRI units for, like, 90 Manifold seats. :-) When they start looking elsewhere even just a little bit, it can be a big hit to ESRI revenues.

You see this effect in other parts of the economy as well. Exotic, high-priced boutiques are getting killed while Walmart and Costco are having booming sales. Same here. I can't say for sure, but I have the strong feeling that as our business is booming ESRI's business in key segments is collapsing.

... end digression]

Well, if you believe in that effect the way to leverage it is to focus on the main markets and double down on providing maximum quality, performance, capabilities and value in what is likely to be the decisive arena, the mainstream desktop personal, organizational and enterprise GIS markets. And then when ESRI and ArcPad are gone there will be fewer obstacles to doing whatever people want for specialized mobile devices and greater likelihood of earning reasonable profit from doing so. As I said earlier, it is not a pleasant thing to consider but it is a real enough possibility that it should be considered when choosing a strategy for attacking new markets.

Dimitri-

I especially like your Final Solution solution for ESRI. I agree, lets send them the way of the Studebaker.

Is there stuff that could be improved in Manifold to make operating it with a 3rd party mobile application better?

You've already mentioned improving the prj file generation in manifold.

Something I've occasionally wished for which might be relevant is the ability to export a map in one step rather than having to export drawing by drawing.

Perhaps easier export of manifold maps to garmin map image files would help?

What is the best format for manifold to interchange data with another application? It seems the default is shape files which have a lot of problems. Could database formats be a viable option?

Hi Mike,

Part of what I'm seeking to change hasn't so much to do with limitations in Manifold, but in ArcPad, which only works with shapefiles, is too expensive, buggy, and unless you stick with ESRI, it forces you to work with three applications (ArcPad, plus post-processing software such as Mobile Mapper Office, and desktop GIS, such as Manifold). Yes, certain things could be improved in Manifold to make it more compatible with high-end GPS receivers, and that would make someone like me, who is already sold on Manifold happy (or at least a little more content). However, unless as suggested, ESRI goes the way of Packard, I don't think compatibility changes in Manifold will sway vast numbers of users to switch from ArcPad/ArcInfo to ArcPad/Manifold. I do think that a Manifold Mobile Mapping application would encourage this, simply by taking Arc out of the process.

Some have indicated that full Windows operability in GPS devices is not too far off and when that happens we will be able to run full Manifold on GPS devices and then, the whole discussion will become moot. Such predictions are beyond my knowledge of both the market and technology, but I think it's a tall order. Today's resource-grade GPS devices can barely run Windows CE and ArcPad, which is pretty spare. The restricting factors, as far as I'm aware are the need for light weight, small size, and and all-day battery life. I don't know if you can supply the power to run a GPS with full Windows and Manifold without exceeding those restrictions, since you also need to be running the built-in GPS hardware and software, which in itself is pretty energy hungry.

Cheers,

Joe Thompson

www.OregonEcoConsulting.com

I am guessing, but IMO, sometime hence, it is more likely that you will be able to buy a high-accuracy GPS reciever as an accessory card that you will then be able to slot into a laptop.

I don`t have experiance with high accurate GPS Reciever, but i work with Manifold on Laptop

and a data logger with Bluetooth. Connection to Manifold GPS-Console is no problem and you can

do your changes and entries in drawing about the keyboard, not with joystick or anything else

of a GPS-Reciever. For me the accuracy is high enough (WAAS/EGNOS) and i get a DOP out of the

data logger.

I think it`s better to wait for outdoor Atom-Laptops with touchscreen

and windows than to hope that windows will run on a gps reciever...

(a 8.9 " Atom Laptop with XP and touchsreen is see for 530 €, a WIN Mobile costs up 200€

and you only have a 2.8"-screen, buy 2 accus to the laptop and you can work outdoor the hole day)

I think soon or later there are no longer WIN-Mobile PDA`s (my personally opinion)

That would be sweet.

I guess I was thinking along the lines of a manifold equivalent of arcpad being written by someone other than Manifold.net As mentioned above, arcpad wasn't initially an ESRI product. There seems to be a few similar products around, and it seems like it is probably not a tremendously difficult programming task, except the bit of making it not crash. The only reason I could think of for requiring manifold to write it themselves is if you need it to read native manifold *.map files, hence my questions about import/export interface.

Or you buy an OQO the model 01+ runs with XP Tablet Edition and the Model 02 runs with VISTA.

Then you have Manifold with all functions on a PDA. But you must have enough money to do this, i think the better alternative will be an ATOM PC.

I know you like so much this thread but I need help please if any one know answer my thread

Routing+Start Point+End Point+Animation

thanks...

Ah, I see. I'd be satisfied with that too, as long as they allowed for import and creation of Manifold .map files. The carrot I envision for getting Manifold to do it is convincing them that it would earn them a bigger slice of the GPS/GIS pie, since, as far as I know, Manifold is't heavily used in such circles.

****Warning - This is blatant self promotion****

Check out www.geodexy.com. We try to be technology neutral and use Manifold, ESRI, and other products, none of which met our needs for a simple data collection utility. This tool is for field data collection (GPS, attributes, and photos) and updating data, not for editing maps in the field - yet.

I suppose this is fine for people who don't require a high degree of accuracy in real-time or the ability to post process, but from what I can see, it's not resource or survey grade software.

The software is not device dependent other than requiring Windows Mobile. It runs on high-end Trimble units or Windows smart phones. Blackberry is coming soon. The software is targeted as a tool for those still walking around with a clipboard and GPS rather than a professional surveyor. It's meant more for something like fire hydrant inspections instead of for property boundary surveys.

The carrot I envision for getting Manifold to do it is convincing them that it would earn them a bigger slice of the GPS/GIS pie

It's natural to infer what will motivate a company but if you can get inside information on what motivates them it is useful to use that inside information to help get your way.

Manifold is unusally transparent in that the company has published inside information for you to use if you want to lobby Manifold to do what you want. Visit the page that gives tips for advocacy and follow the advice it offers: http://www.manifold.net/info/suggestions.shtml

Note that the page emphasizes being highly specific in saying exactly what you want, much more so than building a financial case or market share case. The reason is that creating purely software things that are very well defined is almost free for manifold.net, so in some cases (I want to emphasize the word "some") it is easier to simply do something than to analyze extensively whether it is worthwhile.

That's not a blanket phenomenon of course. Manifold has become very large compared to early years so there are a lot of duties attendent just upon the "hello, world" case of even the most trivial adjustment. It has to be incorporated into the object model, for example, documented, and considered as to what the engineering costs are going to be of supporting it into future editions and so on. So, sure, anything new has to pull its own oar and be a net contributor and is not going to get done without at least some thought being applied. :-)

In the case of physical devices you have the additional fun and games of having some capability utterly dependent upon the whims and expertise or lack thereof of third parties. GPS is a field where vendors are notoriously inept at exposing interfaces to software, perhaps worse even than printer vendors. Even if the OEMs creating chip sets are software-aware, their products often end up in devices manufactured by others who are utterly clueless about what the chip set vendor intended as regards not breaking compatibility.

The ASUS R2H's use of the Sirf chipset is a case in point, where ASUS's hardware design for this commodity chipset rendered it unusable by virtually anything except the custom apps made to work with it. Only recently, after two or three cuts at the problem was Manifold able to introduce a specialized workaround to deal with the atypical exposure of GPS functionality in that device (very, very slow initial interface timing).

But even with hardware devices in play a high degree of specificity can help an argument be more persuasive. For example, "This is the device [model number and discussion of variations of interest] everyone uses so I'd recommend that plus these other three in order of priority" can help narrow down the interest from a constellation of thousands.

Following the tips can help a lot. It's natural to want to use shorthand and to write things like "I'd like to see an ArcPad for the GPS market" but that won't say exactly what you really want in that thing so it is not a particularly helpful suggestion. (It's assumed that operators want something better than a clone of a late 1990's thing when they've accumulated a lot of ideas about what they like and don't like that should be reflected in any new product.)

Better, if you have the expertise to do so, to think very carefully exactly what it is you want and to send in very detailed suggestions as to the top functions you want to have, how you like your dialogs and GUI organized, what you see as essential options to those dialogs and functions, and usually a priority order in which you would like to see things get done from a beginning starter set of functions to more robust and then finally to an ultimate set. That sort of thing can get a lot of traction very quickly.

This system also gets the company, and then in turn the entire user community, the benefit of more expert individuals who have a lot of hands-on experience in the matter. People who are highly experienced and highly expert in a given area tend to have strong opinions about what works and what doesn't and they are usually very good at capturing and describing those important nuances that make the difference between a tool that works really well and a similar tool that is not so appealing. The focus on specific detail tends to bring that expertise into the suggestions process.

General suggestions are always welcome, of course, but as the advocacy page emphasizes they don't have as great an impact on the planning process as highly specific suggestions. If you have a general desire and don't have specific points you'd like to advocate you should still send it in. But if you have personal expertise in an area and it is important to you there is a pathway for you to leverage that personal expertise to increase the impact of your suggestion by getting into specific detail.

Dimitri-

Thanks for the sound advice.

Joe Thompson

Thompson Ecological Consulting

www.OregonEcoConsulting.com