Ten Downtown Bars With Patios Final Project for G&G 444 Created by Kurt Wagner and Jeremy Wilz in the Spring of '08

Our Mission Statement For our final project, we researched the GPS locations of certain bars in the downtown Madison region. We used bars with patios to ensure more accurate GPS readings, as indoor bars did not give us workable data. In addition we will display drink specials at these bars and overlay the data into an interactive Flash file that is web-based and viewable by all. In researching this topic, we planned to locate GPS locations of these bars, and then in turn, reference them with daily drink specials so that people can use the map to find a patio offering drink specials of their choosing. Some key concepts we wanted to address were which bars had patios for seasonal seating, the locations of these bars, and their drink special. We also wanted to make sure we included an interactive map so that people unfamiliar with the area could locate these bars relatively easily. On this map we will have photos of the bars so people will know what to look for in locating the establishments. We used a handheld GPS unit for our measurements. We recorded eight readings over a 15 minute time period. From this, we averaged the readings and have a precision between 1 and 10 meters. In planning this project, we hypothsized that our readings were going to be accurate as we were taking eight different measurements at each location over a period of 15 minutes. We also theorized that our readings would be usable as being outdoors would give us a higher liklihood of attaining more satellite signals to yield more accurate results.

Operational Procedures A: We meet up B: Turn on GPS unit C: Proceed to first location. Find center most open area on each patio. Make sure to have at least 3 satellites registering, preferably more D: Get waypoint readings over 15 minutes at location E: Record Data F: Proceed to next location G: Repeat steps D and E H: While at each location, collect data on drink specials I: Record Data J: After final location, download data into CSV format onto computer with GPSBabel K: Using GPS Babel, convert CSV into KML format L: Overlay data into GoogleMaps by importing.kml file M: Use this image as base map for Flash file N: Embellish map with interactivity and creative design O: Post map onto World Wide Web for all to see and enjoy P: Presentation of project to class

Discussion and Issues One of the issues that we ran into with our readings was that we needed to take readings on multiple days. Our readings were taken with the same GPS handheld unit which was a Garmin eTrex Vista Cx with a serial number of A So as far as the hardware goes, the calibrations should have been the same for all of the readings. We could have had additional data if we would have used more GPS handheld receivers. Another issue of uncertainty or inaccuracy was the number of satellites accessible for readings. Most of the bars that we were measuring had six or seven satellites available which would yield a more accurate result. However, we ran into two bars, the Brocach and the Old Fashioned, which only had four and five satellites available, respectively. This was due to the location of the bars and the surrounding buildings and obstructions. Since there were fewer satellites available, the reading was less precise and thus shows a more sporadic range of latitude and longitude coordinates as can be seen by Figure 1 in the back of the packet. Yet another issue of accuracy was dealing with the construction on State St. When measuring State Street Brats, we were forced to take our measurements fifteen meters from the actual location we desired. Due to this, our readings were off since we could not go into the construction zone. However, the spot in which we took readings, we had six satellites and our readings shown seem to be very precise. Another issue faced with uncertainty was when we overlayed the.kml file into Google Maps. We decided to use Google Maps instead of Google Earth because our past experience with this class and other Cartography classes have shown us that the latitude and longitude points sync up better using a Google Maps mash-up. The concern for uncertainty is still an issue for Google Maps, though. This is because we are at Google’s mercy for how accurately they have projected their maps, where their standard parallels are located, and how accurate our GPS handheld captured the points. We noticed that the points from the overlay are very close to where the actual bars are. The ground truth of actually going to these bars and comparing them to the Google Maps over lay are quite good. The points show, with a few exceptions, quite accurately where we took our readings. The Essen Haus in particular shows a very high level of precision. Since we didn’t move our GPS receiver and the latitude and longitude coordinates only show a variance of decimal degrees, we feel that the ground truth compares very well with our readings. Our overall interpretation of these readings is that they appear to be accurate for the most part. There are a few readings that are exceptions to this statement, however. For example, the Memorial Union shows one reading in the Lake. In our initial hypothesis, we accounted for one or two erroneous readings. This is why we decided to take multiple readings in the same location. By doing this, the overall point which we plotted would be biased to the more precise points.

Map of our GPS Reading Waypoints

Conclusions One thing we learned was to allocate a sufficient amount of time for these types of projects. We initially estimated this project to take less time and therefore needed a second day in order to finish up our readings. Another lesson learned was to account for errors with respect to the GPS receiver. There are two issues in particular. One is that we could have used an additional receiver to verify the points of our single unit. The other issue is that some of the time the GPS receiver would not pick up as many satellites as we would like. To try and counteract that, we found that taking multiple readings at one location gave us better precision and we could therefore have more confidence in the points that we plotted. A third lesson was to conduct a more thorough evaluation of our test sites. This became an issue to us with the construction at State Street Brats. If we had timed our readings for that bar, we could have measured in the area that was occupied by construction during the day. This would have been an advantage since the location with construction is where the patio is going to be rebuilt. The specifications were met with exception to the readings taken at the Brocach and the Old Fashioned. These points were obstructed and could not receive as many satellites as some of the other, more precise points. Comparing our readings and our map to the ground truth, we feel that the specifications of one to ten meters of accuracy were fulfilled. We can attribute this partly to our initial preperation which included sitting in the middle of the patio so that we were supplied with a buffer zone approximately the same size that we aimed for with our accuracy. With the exception of the aforementioned lessons learned as well as some of the issues faced, we would have conducted our project quite similarly. Through the course of this project, we gained a larger respect for the preparation time as well as the time to conduct the research. We now better understand more of the problems that people encounter in this kind of work, both mechanically and socially. We understand that putting more time into these projects and taking more readings will yield a better, more accurate, result.

Basics of Final Map Layout Here is where Bar images and their Lat/Long are displayed This is a screen capture showing the functionality of our map. As you can see, we have selected the Old Fashioned on Monday nights. In turn, the window in the middle on the bottom tells us the drink specials, and the window on the bottom left shows a picture of the bar and it’s Lat/Long coordinates