TransDEM Forum

Guys, I've learned from the documentation and this forum that you TransDEM cannot fix World of Origin for TRS2019 routes for the changed file structure. But is there a way check if TRS2019 made them wrong at all or not?

gustavj wrote:Guys, I've learned from the documentation and this forum that you TransDEM cannot fix World of Origin for TRS2019 routes for the changed file structure. But is there a way check if TRS2019 made them wrong at all or not?

The WO will be accurate for the original route generated by TransDEM. It only goes astray if you merge with another route module in Surveyor. But as you can't currently add vector lines or UTM tiles to a route once edited in Surveyor, the WO doesn't really matter. That's the role the WO normally has for TransDEM: the correctly georeferenced anchor point of the route. For Trainz itself the WO plays a minor role, only governing the sun's orbit.

Hi Roland,

I actually merged a TD generated route with my existing one to provide realistic terrain to it. As far as I understand this is the point when WO can go wrong, and if I ever plan to expand my map by generating another route with TD and merge it with my existing (already merged one), it may cause problems. Is this true?

(Actually I'm trying to find a safe way to just update my existing map with a smaller TD-generated route, and to expand it further when I'm done with it, instead of instantly creating a huge map that I may never complete.)

Gus

The only dependency is the one for adding vectors or UTM tiles. And since this is not possible at the moment, unfortunately, the WO is of no significance for other TransDEM functionality. All the baseboards created by TransDEM have a static mapping between the Trainz baseboard grid and the UTM grid. But you always have to manually identify adjacent baseboards between two route modules. As long as the DEM data source is the same and the DEM has not been manipulated, seamless merging should work, with or without correct WOs.

That sounds good! And, by the way, what do you think, how should I prepare for the future merge? Is it better to get the first route and the UTM maps for a rectangular area, even if it's larger than the route with 2-3 surrounding baseboards? I'm a little bit concerned who much pain I'll have trying to merge two non-rectangular routes, and after all empty baseboards (which can be deleted after the future merge) don't take up too much space. But I'm not sure which road to hit.

gustavj wrote:And, by the way, what do you think, how should I prepare for the future merge? Is it better to get the first route and the UTM maps for a rectangular area, even if it's larger than the route with 2-3 surrounding baseboards?

It's up to you, basically. I probably would prepare more geo data than needed for the first route module. Have you seen this (older) tutorial here on the forum? Seamless Merging (Ignore the WO-related paragraphs.)

Yes, I did. It looks promising, only that I need to create the first map in a way that a town name is split. )