Cartography

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Pendodave
Posts: 531
Joined: 3 Jun 2020, 8:27am

Re: Cartography

Post by Pendodave »

For me...
Contour lines give all the relief information I require, especially when combined with features like rivers. Shading merely duplicates the info (thus introducing unnecessary clutter) but in a less accurate way.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Cartography

Post by Psamathe »

Nice thing about modern computer map display is you can set the degree of shading drawn so if you don't like it you can reduce it and if you love it you can have it more prominent - we can all be happy.

Ian
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5834
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Cartography

Post by RickH »

ChrisButch wrote: 7 Jan 2022, 6:12pmProblems arise when the general obscures the specific. This is one of the shortcomings of the current OS 1:25k series, which are often guilty of obscuring contour lines with generalised ground surface indications. Admittedly this is more of a problem for hillwalking than cycling. The South Harris sheet is an extreme example.
I happened upon a PDF (dated 2008) today that states "From Mid 2007 Rock features are being changed from Black to Grey" (http://apd.anquet.com/maplegends/unique ... apping.pdf) the grey lets the contours show through better. Here is Scafell Pike in the latest digital edition:-
Scaafell Pike 1:25000 (click to enlarge)
Scaafell Pike 1:25000 (click to enlarge)
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
User avatar
Shoogle
Posts: 173
Joined: 6 Feb 2008, 11:31pm

Re: Cartography

Post by Shoogle »

I was just looking at Google Earth and here, of course, the shadows are on the correct side.
Here's Glen Shiel. Doesn't look too inverted but it helps if you know the area.
Attachments
Glen Shiel.jpg
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Cartography

Post by Bmblbzzz »

I think 1:100000 is a better scale for cycling than 1:50000. For walking or local exploring, 1:25000 is great.
PDQ Mobile
Posts: 4659
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: Cartography

Post by PDQ Mobile »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 8 Jan 2022, 11:04am I think 1:100000 is a better scale for cycling than 1:50000. For walking or local exploring, 1:25000 is great.
I agree about the cycling especially for really long journeys. I am a paper map user so carrying less sheets helps. And planning ahead is handy and compact.

Less convinced about walking.
I like the size of the 1:50000.
It has sufficient info to be accurate while avoiding too much detail and large sheet size.

But when I buy a map (and they are now prohibitively expensive) I nearly always go for a 50000.
It's all just personal preference.
User avatar
Traction_man
Posts: 326
Joined: 10 Jan 2020, 5:30pm
Location: Bangor NI

Re: Cartography

Post by Traction_man »

PDQ Mobile wrote: 8 Jan 2022, 11:14am
Bmblbzzz wrote: 8 Jan 2022, 11:04am I think 1:100000 is a better scale for cycling than 1:50000. For walking or local exploring, 1:25000 is great.
I agree about the cycling especially for really long journeys. I am a paper map user so carrying less sheets helps. And planning ahead is handy and compact.

Less convinced about walking.
I like the size of the 1:50000.
It has sufficient info to be accurate while avoiding too much detail and large sheet size.

But when I buy a map (and they are now prohibitively expensive) I nearly always go for a 50000.
It's all just personal preference.
I like the 100k scale for planning routes but on the road prefer to have 50k and off road use 25k mapping scales.

On cost, for GB the OS 50k Landranger series retails at £6.29 per map using Dash4It

https://dash4it.co.uk/catalog/category/ ... aps/id/47/

with further discounts periodically, worth signing up for their email news.

At this price OS maps represent good value for money these days, relative to other costs which seem to be getting worse and worse.

Cheers,

Keith
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Cartography

Post by Bmblbzzz »

1:50k is fine for cycling on road – as long as you don't ride off the edge of the map, which is all too easy to do.

All moot now so many of us have maps of variable scale in our pockets and on our bars!
PDQ Mobile
Posts: 4659
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: Cartography

Post by PDQ Mobile »

Traction_man wrote: 8 Jan 2022, 11:41am
I like the 100k scale for planning routes but on the road prefer to have 50k and off road use 25k mapping scales.

On cost, for GB the OS 50k Landranger series retails at £6.29 per map using Dash4It

https://dash4it.co.uk/catalog/category/ ... aps/id/47/

with further discounts periodically, worth signing up for their email news.

At this price OS maps represent good value for money these days, relative to other costs which seem to be getting worse and worse.

Cheers,

Keith
Thanks for that.
Good deal.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Cartography

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Or use your We Are Cycling UK discount.
st599_uk
Posts: 1092
Joined: 4 Nov 2018, 8:59pm

Re: Cartography

Post by st599_uk »

Traction_man wrote: 8 Jan 2022, 11:41am
On cost, for GB the OS 50k Landranger series retails at £6.29 per map using Dash4It

https://dash4it.co.uk/catalog/category/ ... aps/id/47/
For planning (and printing if you have a decent printer), you can get access to the entire country at Landranger and Explorer detail levels for £20
A novice learning...
“the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.”
jb
Posts: 1782
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 12:17pm
Location: Clitheroe

Re: Cartography

Post by jb »

Mountain rescue advice is to use 1:50 OS maps in mountainous terrain - too much confusing clutter on 1:25
Showing rocky terrain doesn't actually tell you if it can be scrambled through or not
Cheers
J Bro
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Cartography

Post by Mick F »

Shoogle wrote: 4 Jan 2022, 4:45pm On terrain maps, why are the shadows on the south side of hills?
I think it's variable.

Two shots of my Readers Digest atlas.
IMG_0963.jpg
IMG_0964.jpg
Mick F. Cornwall
User avatar
geomannie
Posts: 1093
Joined: 13 May 2009, 6:07pm

Re: Cartography

Post by geomannie »

It's interesting how important shading orientation can be. When I use it on my topomaps, I almost always light from the SW as any other orientation looks wrong to me. Here is a quick example using the Weald of SE England lit from the SW, NW, NE & SE. Only the lighting from the SW looks right to me. You may disagree. It seems to be very personal.
SW.jpg
NW.jpg
NE.jpg
SE.jpg
geomannie
hercule
Posts: 1156
Joined: 5 Feb 2011, 5:18pm

Re: Cartography

Post by hercule »

The discussion of lighting direction is very interesting as it reminds of a definitely non terrestrial problem I had when doing a couple of Open University modules on planetary science. Part of the course involved studying and interepreting planetary landscapes from photos (the Moon, Mars, the Jovian satellites). There were times I really struggled to see craters and would persistently interpret them as round hills rather than depressions. That could have been due my years of experience with map shading (esp on Barts maps) (ie bumps are shaded anyway) or due to the direction of illumination. Eventually and with conscious will I was able to overcome it but it was really difficult! Few of the other students seemed to have quite the same problem. I should have asked how many were cyclists or hill walkers!
Post Reply