JLM-67G
ED Astrometrics: Maps and Visualizations
- Thread starter Orvidius
- Start date
JLM-67G
Sorry for the late reply. Done! It should be invisible on the map after the next auto-update.
Marx had some good suggestions for some updates.
First, the exploration ship template chart, now lists the shield strength for those ship configurations, and factors that into the score. It has a very small impact on the score currently. I may adjust it in the future.
Also, I've consolidated some of the pin/marker sets on the interactive map, and also have colorized megaships with no docking history as grey.
First, the exploration ship template chart, now lists the shield strength for those ship configurations, and factors that into the score. It has a very small impact on the score currently. I may adjust it in the future.
Also, I've consolidated some of the pin/marker sets on the interactive map, and also have colorized megaships with no docking history as grey.
Moving the updates here--
The new POI sharing system is coming along pretty nicely. Most of the core functionality has been built, and some other features are partially present. Policy decisions are being finalized. I don't have a launch date yet, as that will depend on a combination of when the team is ready, as well as the web application.
One of the key features that is already integrated, is that it will include GMP entries in the "nearby POIs" list, and automatically include a link to the GMP entries for new ones that use the same star system in the new catalog. We're not copying the GMP entries as an initial import, but rather the plan at the moment is to anchor it with some of the more important locations, with references to the GMP entries. I suspect when it goes live, we'll see people contributing a combination of new locations, as well as re-submitting ones that they have already submitted to the GMP. The POI entries are maintained by their submitters, with a moderation staff (curators) who will be able to approve new entries, or hide problematic ones. As a general rule, it will be "approve by default" as long as the submissions do not violate the terms of service, or have other issues as defined in the posting guidelines on the site. All users of the site will be encouraged to vote on POI submissions (using a 5-star system), which will drive overall rating scores for the POIs, as well as a submission rating for the commanders. Ideally, this should help to encourage a higher quality of POI submission (as compared to not having a rating system), but only time will tell of course.
Here's a screenshot of an example POI page, and the direction we're going with this.
The new POI sharing system is coming along pretty nicely. Most of the core functionality has been built, and some other features are partially present. Policy decisions are being finalized. I don't have a launch date yet, as that will depend on a combination of when the team is ready, as well as the web application.
One of the key features that is already integrated, is that it will include GMP entries in the "nearby POIs" list, and automatically include a link to the GMP entries for new ones that use the same star system in the new catalog. We're not copying the GMP entries as an initial import, but rather the plan at the moment is to anchor it with some of the more important locations, with references to the GMP entries. I suspect when it goes live, we'll see people contributing a combination of new locations, as well as re-submitting ones that they have already submitted to the GMP. The POI entries are maintained by their submitters, with a moderation staff (curators) who will be able to approve new entries, or hide problematic ones. As a general rule, it will be "approve by default" as long as the submissions do not violate the terms of service, or have other issues as defined in the posting guidelines on the site. All users of the site will be encouraged to vote on POI submissions (using a 5-star system), which will drive overall rating scores for the POIs, as well as a submission rating for the commanders. Ideally, this should help to encourage a higher quality of POI submission (as compared to not having a rating system), but only time will tell of course.
Here's a screenshot of an example POI page, and the direction we're going with this.
Last edited:
I was feeling down about GMP going into maintenance phase. Then someone pointed me to this initiative. I will investigate and see what I can do to support this.Moving the updates here--
The new POI sharing system is coming along pretty nicely. Most of the core functionality has been built, and some other features are partially present. Policy decisions are being finalized. I don't have a launch date yet, as that will depend on a combination of when the team is ready, as well as the web application.
One of the key features that is already integrated, is that it will include GMP entries in the "nearby POIs" list, and automatically include a link to the GMP entries for new ones that use the same star system in the new catalog. We're not copying the GMP entries as an initial import, but rather the plan at the moment is to anchor it with some of the more important locations, with references to the GMP entries. I suspect when it goes live, we'll see people contributing a combination of new locations, as well as re-submitting ones that they have already submitted to the GMP. The POI entries are maintained by their submitters, with a moderation staff (curators) who will be able to approve new entries, or hide problematic ones. As a general rule, it will be "approve by default" as long as the submissions do not violate the terms of service, or have other issues as defined in the posting guidelines on the site. All users of the site will be encouraged to vote on POI submissions (using a 5-star system), which will drive overall rating scores for the POIs, as well as a submission rating for the commanders. Ideally, this should help to encourage a higher quality of POI submission (as compared to not having a rating system), but only time will tell of course.
Here's a screenshot of an example POI page, and the direction we're going with this.
Thanks
I was feeling down about GMP going into maintenance phase. Then someone pointed me to this initiative. I will investigate and see what I can do to support this.
Thanks
Well, it just so happens that we're starting to let people access the new initiative!
Introducing the Galactic Exploration Catalog.
https://edastro.com/poi/
We're currently in closed-beta, which means you will have read-only access to the site. Hopefully soon we'll take the account restrictions off and move to wide beta. The closed beta is already turning up a few suggestions and policy decisions. I'm super excited to let everyone start pounding away on it, but the slow ramp-up is helping.
Last edited:
I signed up earlier today and ticked to box in EDDiscovery so hopefully my data is getting into edastro
This looks interesting. Suggestion: would you consider including entries for bodies for notable vistas / features? If so then i would suggest you add surface coordinates and an Odyssey / Horizons indicator. If you include the surface coordinates in a standard format then programs such as my app EDCoPilot could parse andMoving the updates here--
The new POI sharing system is coming along pretty nicely. Most of the core functionality has been built, and some other features are partially present. Policy decisions are being finalized. I don't have a launch date yet, as that will depend on a combination of when the team is ready, as well as the web application.
One of the key features that is already integrated, is that it will include GMP entries in the "nearby POIs" list, and automatically include a link to the GMP entries for new ones that use the same star system in the new catalog. We're not copying the GMP entries as an initial import, but rather the plan at the moment is to anchor it with some of the more important locations, with references to the GMP entries. I suspect when it goes live, we'll see people contributing a combination of new locations, as well as re-submitting ones that they have already submitted to the GMP. The POI entries are maintained by their submitters, with a moderation staff (curators) who will be able to approve new entries, or hide problematic ones. As a general rule, it will be "approve by default" as long as the submissions do not violate the terms of service, or have other issues as defined in the posting guidelines on the site. All users of the site will be encouraged to vote on POI submissions (using a 5-star system), which will drive overall rating scores for the POIs, as well as a submission rating for the commanders. Ideally, this should help to encourage a higher quality of POI submission (as compared to not having a rating system), but only time will tell of course.
Here's a screenshot of an example POI page, and the direction we're going with this.
load the coordinates into its Guidance Computer to guide the Commander to the surface location.
I like the sound of that. I would use it
Hi there! These are already present: there's a "Planetary Features" category, and for entries which would only be present in Horizons, there's a "Horizons" category. As for surface coordinates, submitters should add those into the description for such locations too.
OK i will have a play around with the API in the next week or 2. It would be a good idea to have a suggested format for surface coordinates (or actual fields in database / api for lat and long). Example i use "Lat: x.xxx, Long: y.yyy" in my app's POI text entries and then the code can parse and extract them from the description consistently.
I have imported most of the entries in the Elite Dangerous Utilities (http://elitedangerous.hozbase.co.uk/) repository to build a set of POIs by category, that include planetary entries. I do need to add a Horizons vs Odyssey flag for each though. With EDCoPilot you can specify the radius from a selected location (default location is your current system, but you can override as I have in below screenshot), to display a list of items by category, then drill down to see the individual entries, then drill again to see notes (and eventually i hope some images)
Will see how i can integrate your entries via API calls also
Awesome. Thanks for that. Think this could be a nice pairing to make some nice functionality for the explorers out there.
OK, they'll be included in the API output if present, and I've also fixed the API data types for numbers to actually be numeric for the ID number and ratings.
It's worth mentioning this here too. I have GEC POIs starting to merge in with the GMP entries on the interactive map. But also (and I have no idea why it took me this long to do this), I have clickable links added to the POI popups so that you can view the POI on whichever site it's from (EDSM/GMP and EDAstro/GEC). These links are only on the persistent popups (which can render HTML, and stay in place while you move your mouse cursor), rather than the hover-popups. So you have to click on marker to see the popup with the link that you can click on.
New spreadsheet! I haven't added one in a while, so this feels strange now.
The 1000 closest moons to their parent planet's rings. That is, the moons with the smallest gaps, between the surface and the edge of the ring.
https://edastro.com/mapcharts/files/moons-smallest-ring-gaps.csv
The 1000 closest moons to their parent planet's rings. That is, the moons with the smallest gaps, between the surface and the edge of the ring.
https://edastro.com/mapcharts/files/moons-smallest-ring-gaps.csv
Might there be something wrong with the way you handle rings and their values?
https://edastro.com/records/rings_max_outerRadius.html#details says that the biggest outermost ring of class 1 gas giants has an outer radius of 7,302,500,000
I just noticed that I got one with an outer radius of 11,541,000,000.
Same for class 4 gas giants.
Class 3 too, I think it's not limited to any body class.
https://edastro.com/records/rings_max_outerRadius.html#details says that the biggest outermost ring of class 1 gas giants has an outer radius of 7,302,500,000
I just noticed that I got one with an outer radius of 11,541,000,000.
Same for class 4 gas giants.
Class 3 too, I think it's not limited to any body class.
Last edited:
Hi there! Sorry for the late reply. Didn't get a chance to get onto the forum most of last week.
As far as I can tell, Spansh may have stored the meters, rather than kilometers for that. My data shows that as having a radius of 11,541,000 rather than 11,541,000,000. The journal records the radii in meters (so I think Spansh is storing it directly), however I've replicated how EDSM stores everything and convert it to km.
It's possible there's some older data in there that might not be accurately recorded too. I'd love to see what EDSM stored for the current record holder, but it looks like it may have come in during EDSM's server migration, so I would have gotten it from EDDN alone and not EDSM. Looking on Spansh, it's showing the same number I have for the current record holder, so I suspect I've stored it without the km conversion for some reason. Probably a bug that I had at the time. Those will be a real fun to clean up. Ugh.
One of the unfortunate things is that we're limited by what the data says, and there used to be a lot of bad data in EDSM. While a lot has been cleaned up, some of it persists until someone goes to these places and does new scans.
Hi there! Sorry for the late reply. Didn't get a chance to get onto the forum most of last week.
As far as I can tell, Spansh may have stored the meters, rather than kilometers for that. My data shows that as having a radius of 11,541,000 rather than 11,541,000,000. The journal records the radii in meters (so I think Spansh is storing it directly), however I've replicated how EDSM stores everything and convert it to km.
It's possible there's some older data in there that might not be accurately recorded too. I'd love to see what EDSM stored for the current record holder, but it looks like it may have come in during EDSM's server migration, so I would have gotten it from EDDN alone and not EDSM. Looking on Spansh, it's showing the same number I have for the current record holder, so I suspect I've stored it without the km conversion for some reason. Probably a bug that I had at the time. Those will be a real fun to clean up. Ugh.
One of the unfortunate things is that we're limited by what the data says, and there used to be a lot of bad data in EDSM. While a lot has been cleaned up, some of it persists until someone goes to these places and does new scans.
Do we have a way of extracting the remaining bad data from the file or is it now down to luck? That sounds like something I would like to do as I am flying around. I know I did some a long time ago with small bodies. During my original search on EDDB for interesting small bodies to visit it wasn't unusual to come across moons with a recorded radius of 20klms and similar, when of course it should have been 200klms, I expect a lot of those issues were created when they were hand entering data, I cleared up most of the small body errors but I am sure there are a lot more in there for other bodies.