What is the easiest way to import waypoint data which is in either PC5, WPT, FUG, WAY, or WP formats into Mappoint 2004?

Can you get your data into Excel or a delimited text file? If you have columns with lat and lon, it will go into MapPoint easily.

The lat/lon coordinates must be decimal (not degree/secods) and to be accurate it should be NAD83 or WGS84.

best,
Eric

Bit new to this area... I was wondering how the projection could be either NAD83 or WGS84. A quick Google search returned "WGS84 is for most purposes identical to NAD83".

So I'm wondering for what purposes they aren't identical.

I understand this is more a GIS question and less a MapPoint one, but any nuggets of information would be welcome.

Thanks
Stuart (gingerbbm)

It might be off by an inch or two depending on the part of the Earth you are looking at.. for instance it might be off more at the pole and identical at the equator or vice versa.

Eric

An inch or two? I think that's acceptable!

I just tried overlaying a MapPoint image with a MapInfo map in WGS84 projection, but the boundaries don't match up. I also tried using UTM Zone 31 (Northern Hemisphere) too (it's a UK map) but that didn't work out either.

I'm a newbie in this area - is there something obvious I could be missing?

Stuart

How do they not match up? Could it be errors in your map, or an actual geoid mismatch?

Also how are you doing the overlay? If in a paint program, then the two projections used are unlikely to be the same (or from the same position).

And a third thing: if you're using Ordnance Survey coordinates, they use a different geoid (Airy '36 if I remember correctly). MapPoint 2002 has a bug because it uses the wrong geoid for the OS coords (fixed in v2004).


Richard

I've got a MapPoint image on a web page, overlaid with a translucent image served up by MapInfo's MapXtreme.

As I pan, the countries in the MapPoint image "curl away" at the edges, as if they were on the surface of a globe (funny that). But the countries in the MapInfo image retain their shape - as if the world was flat.

I would have thought that with each image sharing the same projection they would behave the same way. Any ideas?

Geoid and projection are different things. It does sound like a projection mis-match.

The geoid describes the shape of the Earth. These days, the shape of the Earth is known pretty well (in this instance, global mean sealevel is a good proxy for "shape of the Earth"). This shape is complex, so it is approximated with an ellipsoid. These can be chosen for a good local match (eg. Airy '36 for the UK), or for a general global match (eg. WGS 84 which is used by GPS).

When I was comparing Airy and WGS coords for the UK, I was getting errors of "a few hundred metres" at most. The errors will tend to be regional and over a large area. Infact, only a few places will match between two geoids.

Projections describe how the map is converted from a curved survace (ie. the chosen ellipsoid) and the flat screen. "Curving away at the edges" sounds like a classic projection mismatch. Projections are usually chosen to minimise distortion in the centre of the map (or an area of extreme interest).


Richard

Thanks for your input, Richard.

It just seems to be a difference in the way the two map generators behave: MapPoint shows a 3D view in 2D; MapInfo shows a 2D view in 2D.

I'm only really interested in regions within the UK, so to all intents and purposes I shouldn't be troubled by this difference.

Thanks again,
Stuart.