Which maps are best for cycling?

[TrevA]

We did our JOGLE using paper OS 1:250,000 maps, which were mostly fine, though they didn’t have enough detail in towns and cities. We got lost a couple of times and ended up following a compass reading, as we were heading generally south. The good thing about maps of this scale, is that we only needed 5 maps for the whole 1000 journey.

Years ago, we used to use Bartholomews 1:100,000 series. I’ve still got a few of them though they would be very out of date now. My friend had most of the country in the old Bart’s Blue series 1 inch to 1 mile from the late 1960’s. These were very useful to borrow when touring in a new area, though we did have a few amusing interludes like trying to catch a ferry shown on the map, that had stopped running about 20 years earlier!

[Bmblbzzz]

I often plan routes for day rides and find an A4 copy of the relevant map put in a document wallet and into my jacket pocket is more than adequate en route.

Paper maps are great for planning, for getting a sense of not just where you are but what's all around you, and also for changing your mind while en route, not to mention for overall aesthetics, but this ^^ is where they are weaker IMO. You very often can't put them into a jacket pocket (even if you're wearing a jacket) because they're just too large, though other publishers tend to come in slightly smaller formats than OS (I think it's mostly down to the card covers). Plus, while it's in your pocket, you can't see it.

[rareposter]

Plus, while it's in your pocket, you can't see it.

I think that's a key point which hasn't been made much in this thread.

The OP asked which maps are "best" (a seemingly common occurrence on this forum of asking what is "best" for X but forgetting that there are any number of definitions of "best").

Best for actually planning a ride - OS maps, guidebooks, some form of mapping that gives an area-wide overview and an indication of terrain.
Best for actually riding the route - GPS-enabled handlebar-mounted computer (or that, but on a phone).

They're not competing options, it's not either/or. You're not some kind of prima donna (to use arnsider's term) if you use a computer and you're not some kind of retro-grouch for using a paper map. The two technologies can work together very well. Big map for sitting at home planning a route, looking at the terrain, finding trails / roads / sites of interest.

But for following the route, why not use something that's there in front of you the whole time, doesn't blow away in the wind or need re-folding, doesn't require stopping to use it and can do extra things like give turn by turn warnings, displays of gradient, direction of travel, distance to destination, speed, ETA and can also give on the fly re-routing should it be needed?!

Trying to use them the other way around (planning a route on a small handlebar computer but navigating using a big OS map) would be terrible! But used the correct way, where each format has its strengths is just common sense.

Depends a lot on what you're navigating to as well.
Getting to a small town via a bridleway across the hills - yes an OS map is perfect.
Getting to a postcode within that town - an OS map is useless but Google Maps will (generally) be spot on as would postcode-search on Strava / Garmin / Wahoo.

[plancashire]

I’m riding part of the Römer-Lippe Route in Germany right now. We planned by using the book of the route and its GPX files.

On the bike the book with its maps are on the bar bag in a map case. The GPX route is in the Teasi. Both are useful. The map gives context and helps for blockages and diversions, where the Teasi satnav struggles as it knows only the blocked route. The Teasi is great for detailed turn information where the map has insufficient detail. We always take BOTH map and satnav.

[TrevA]

Not sure if they’ve already been mentioned, and they don’t cover the whole country (just certain popular areas) but I really like Goldeneye Cycling Maps. They do actually fit in your rear jersey pocket, they prioritise minor roads and cycle routes. I have the Norfolk and Cotswolds versions and use them a lot when cycling in those areas.

[Carlton green]

I get that some people don’t like modernity, can’t cope with new things, and would rather time had stopped when they were young and in their prime, I even feel a tiny bit like that myself on bad days, but honestly, continually railing against modernity in any shape or form alters only one thing: wider perceptions of the person doing the railing, in unfavourable directions.

Without wanting to highlight individuals I see the above (social) perspective on many things, and (also) change being pushed onto people for the benefit of others. One member here has a ‘signature’ of something near to: there is your way, there is my way, but there is no The Way. I like that mindset. Apparently similar has been expressed by others: “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” ― Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche .

[Jdsk]

Without wanting to highlight individuals I see the above (social) perspective on many things, and (also) change being pushed onto people for the benefit of others. One member here has a ‘signature’ of something near to: there is your way, there is my way, but there is no The Way. I like that mindset. Apparently similar has been expressed by others: “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” ― Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche .

This thread was right back on track. Thanks to everyone who told me things about maps that I didn't know. Please can this sort of discussion continue elsewhere.

Thanks

Jonathan

[arnsider]

Paper maps maybe inconvenient, but copies can be made in convenient sizes obviating opening a big cumbersome sheet in inclement weather. the other distinct advantage of a map over technical gadgets is the price, but hey ho, we are all expected to stump up large sums in order to keep up and advertisers exploit this.
Folk that pour scorn on us less well off are to my mind, just tech snobs.

[roubaixtuesday]

Paper maps maybe inconvenient, but copies can be made in convenient sizes obviating opening a big cumbersome sheet in inclement weather. the other distinct advantage of a map over technical gadgets is the price, but hey ho, we are all expected to stump up large sums in order to keep up and advertisers exploit this.
Folk that pour scorn on us less well off are to my mind, just tech snobs.

As a map lover myself, I think some of this is off the mark.

Copying maps is not easy or convenient to get something the same readability and quality. Neither does it help turn over the page in the rain.

Electronic maps are actually *far* cheaper for most purposes; OSM via cycle.travel is free and for £24 annual subscription you get the entire OS down to 1:25,000. That's the same price as *two* paper maps! As you take copies of maps anyway, that seems like a complete no brainer. So having a map on your smartphone in your back pocket is close to free.

To get a map on your bars, the best solution I've found is a bar bag and map carrier - I have ortlieb and it's great. You need however to stop and fold or turn over every time you go off the map. At 1:50,000 for a decent UK map, that's quite a lot of faff even on a nice day. A day ride can easily require three or four maps to carry, all of which get mangled from the refolding.

Alternatively, I have a Wahoo Roam, £300. It comes with street level maps of the entire world. We recently toured across Europe, and would have easily spent that on maps that would have been thrown away and we'd never have got the same detail of coverage.

And of course, should one ever get lost (perish the thought) the modern tech gives you instant exact location.

I've no scorn for map users, and I love having a proper map on my bars, for the sense of place and surroundings. But I think modern tech in this context is in general cheaper and more convenient than maps as well as giving location. Maps do have other advantages, but you can see why most people no longer use them for immediate navigation.

[Cugel]

Paper maps maybe inconvenient, but copies can be made in convenient sizes obviating opening a big cumbersome sheet in inclement weather. the other distinct advantage of a map over technical gadgets is the price, but hey ho, we are all expected to stump up large sums in order to keep up and advertisers exploit this.
Folk that pour scorn on us less well off are to my mind, just tech snobs.

We're very fortunate in Blighty to have Ordinance Survey and its many forms of map. These days it can be even less expensive for we consumers of maps than heretofore - at least it can if some technology is bought as a means to access, for instance, the ~£20 a year on-line service of the O/S.

I don't mind having to have the technology to access this service - if its a universal machine that does loads of other very useful things - a desktop PC or laptop, for example. But buying a dedicated handlebar gizmo for hundreds of pounds, full of functions I don't want just to see a map when cycling seems offensive to the law of diminishing returns! How extensive does the map used by most cyclists need to be? I suspect that most cyclists don't need a map at all, if they tend to do their cycling from their front door, as a vast number do, over routes long familiar.

My impression from club cycling days is that folk are inveigled into buying expensive Satnav and similar gizmos for their handlebars mostly because they're the latest thing, heavily advertised and "everyone has one". (A similar syndrome to the advent of cycling helmets). I used to go out with the older group of the local racing club three times a week and was the only one out of around 15 regulars who didn't have a Satnav. Yet we always did rides over roads that all of us had been riding for decades and knew like the back of our hands.

There's a case for some cyclists to use a Satnav as a convenient host for maps - long distance touring in unfamiliar locations; couriers in big cities; ????. There's also a case, though, for avoiding the Satnav in favour of using the memory to hold maps. Many seem to lack this ability to memorise routes (or work them out) because they handed over even their local cycling rides to a Satnav to plan so don't bother with learning orienteering skills.

Every technology has its price .... and not just the number of pounds one pays the retailer. Technologies have other effects that can be detrimental to the user in large ways and small. It's all very well to parrot the neolib mantra that all individual consumers should be left to their purchasing choices but those choices often have large social effects on everyone and everything else, as well as on the purchaser. Some of those effects are beneficial but it would take a dafty to not recognise that many are detrimental - some greatly so.

*********
When we moved to West Wales I found myself in the exciting position of not knowing any of the routes locally available - and there are thousands of miles of backroad and forest track networks. I used the on-line O/S service to plot routes and sometimes a print of the map showing that route, although I mostly I just memorised them. After six years living and cycling here, I no longer need a map, even for the occasional new-to-me routes.

It's noticeable (as it was where I used to live) that many people who've lived in the same place as me for far longer know far less about the local (and extra-local) roads than me. They have about half a dozen memorised routes that they habitually drive in their cars. Go even quarter of a mile off them and they're lost, poking at their Satnav buttons to become unlost.

***************

Well alright - each to their own. But it seems degrading to reduce one's natural ability to orienteer by giving up the learning and skills to an expensive gizmo. But ain't that the story of modern life? The tech gets more clever whilst we humans do the opposite.

[Richard Fairhurst]

To be honest, the whole paper vs digital map debate is a bit of a distraction. The cartography makes more of a difference than the format it's displayed on.

Ordnance Survey 1:25k/1:50k cartography is very, very good, albeit not the ideal scale for cycle touring. But there are some really mediocre (and occasionally terrible) paper maps too.

Similarly, switch through a bunch of online maps at the same scale and you'll find vast differences in their legibility and suitability for purpose. Comparing digital maps of my local area at zoom level 11 (roughly 1:200k-ish), there are huge differences in the placenames shown, the visibility of minor roads, hill-shading, landuse, waymarked cycle routes, you name it.

I'm not going to list my personal favourites because personal favourites is all they are. (And there's a particular breed of cartographer who takes delight in eviscerating everyone else's maps, neatly disregarding that their own maps are absolute dreck!) None of these are objectively "the best" and often you'll want different cartography for different purposes - a phone screen while navigating should probably be clearer and simpler than a desktop map for planning. But I do think paper vs digital is missing the point a bit.

[Bmblbzzz]

Paper maps maybe inconvenient, but copies can be made in convenient sizes obviating opening a big cumbersome sheet in inclement weather. the other distinct advantage of a map over technical gadgets is the price, but hey ho, we are all expected to stump up large sums in order to keep up and advertisers exploit this.
Folk that pour scorn on us less well off are to my mind, just tech snobs.

We're very fortunate in Blighty to have Ordinance Survey and its many forms of map. These days it can be even less expensive for we consumers of maps than heretofore - at least it can if some technology is bought as a means to access, for instance, the ~£20 a year on-line service of the O/S.

I don't mind having to have the technology to access this service - if its a universal machine that does loads of other very useful things - a desktop PC or laptop, for example. But buying a dedicated handlebar gizmo for hundreds of pounds, full of functions I don't want just to see a map when cycling seems offensive to the law of diminishing returns! How extensive does the map used by most cyclists need to be? I suspect that most cyclists don't need a map at all, if they tend to do their cycling from their front door, as a vast number do, over routes long familiar.

You probably already have a universal machine that does loads of other things and can display maps on your handlebars. It's your smartphone. This is, I'm pretty confident, by far the most commonly used navigation device no matter what form of transport: bike, foot, car, bus...

[rareposter]

But I do think paper vs digital is missing the point a bit.

Very much the point I made up there ^^.

The trick is getting the most appropriate map for your intended purpose. In some cases that could well be a digital map, be that on a laptop, phone or a specific device.

In other cases it could be a paper map but equally you're unlikely to want an A-Z if you're travelling around by train and a tube map will be pretty useless if you're trying to travel around by bike.

[roubaixtuesday]

To be honest, the whole paper vs digital map debate is a bit of a distraction. The cartography makes more of a difference than the format it's displayed on.

Ordnance Survey 1:25k/1:50k cartography is very, very good, albeit not the ideal scale for cycle touring. But there are some really mediocre (and occasionally terrible) paper maps too.

Similarly, switch through a bunch of online maps at the same scale and you'll find vast differences in their legibility and suitability for purpose. Comparing digital maps of my local area at zoom level 11 (roughly 1:200k-ish), there are huge differences in the placenames shown, the visibility of minor roads, hill-shading, landuse, waymarked cycle routes, you name it.

I'm not going to list my personal favourites because personal favourites is all they are. (And there's a particular breed of cartographer who takes delight in eviscerating everyone else's maps, neatly disregarding that their own maps are absolute dreck!) None of these are objectively "the best" and often you'll want different cartography for different purposes - a phone screen while navigating should probably be clearer and simpler than a desktop map for planning. But I do think paper vs digital is missing the point a bit.

I'd agree strongly with that.

Personal bugbear: Google maps, probably the single most used mapping system has not only awful cartography (roads are white and paths grey, on a pale green background), but is not really a map at all, but rather an advertising platform. You see what has paid to appear, not what is of interest.

So it's great for dumb directions to paid content, but truly awful for a sense of place or for an explore.

[Carlton green]

On the paper versus digital issue I to find it a bit of a diversion. Because of cost and familiarity it’s paper every time for me, but whilst recently away on a walking holiday I had both a walking scale paper map and my tablet. I found that a photo of the paper map was easy to see on the tablet and zooming in on details was easy too. Basically use the technology that: you can afford, does the job. and you are comfortable with.

I’ve not kept up with this thread but earlier someone mentioned a 4 mile to 1 inch road atlas. For a raft of reasons they’re a form of map that I’d recommend for general navigation, suffice it to say that I recently picked up a new one covering all of the UK for under a fiver (a by chance purchase of a discounted bargain but even full price isn’t that much ) .