GPSFileDepot.com
 

News:

Welcome to GPSFileDepot!

Main Menu

California Topo > Old version is better!

Started by vintage, August 27, 2013, 01:35:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

vintage

I've noticed that this site has "Starred" "California Topo 2011".
>gpsfiledepot.com/maps/state/ca  (remove the >)

I have to say the newer 2011 version is not as good as the old version! The older version "California Topo" (from 2008) is MUCH better. I've had both on my computer and device for more than a year and the 2011 version is hard to read, covered with watercourses and the dirt roads are impossible to make out.

I highly suggest users pick the older map instead:
>gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/28  (remove the >)

Carl

babj615

I also favor the older topo maps over the 2011 versions for the states I have downloaded. :)
Garmin GPSMap 60cs, Dakota 20, Colorado 400t, Oregon 300/400t/450/550t/650/650t, Montana 650, Lowrance Endura Sierra, nuvi 3790, iPhone 3G/4/4s
Geocaching ID: Atlas Cached
OpenCaching.com Ambassador

Boyd

How could you possibly make such a generalization? The maps here are made by different people using different data and different techniques. I think you need to make your choice based on examination of specific maps.

Indrid Cold

Quote from: Boyd on August 28, 2013, 05:40:42 AM
How could you possibly make such a generalization?
It can be easy for some, it's called a fallacy, and in this case a 'hasty generalization'. I'm sure that neither has been to Salton Sea or Death Valley only to notice on their GPSr that at any elevation below sea level their map was missing the contour lines or the border region with Nevada that are missing... unless they are claiming that that is better?

If you have one map you prefer over another that's just fine and dandy, use it and be happy you have a choice. If not, learn how to build your own and post that for others.

maps4gps

vintage - thanks for sharing your opinion with some reasons; an all to rare occurrence.
    Before I created CA2011 mapset there were numerous posts from people with issues about ease of use and the overemphasis on contour lines.  The 'original' CA topo was created for a very specific audience and the author's website stated there was no reason to include data from USGS's GNIS database (which most of us use for POIs). 

'hard to read'  - not very specific.

'Covered with watercourses' - specific location?       I have been downloading hydro from USGS for most of this month and noticed USGS is 'improving' the NHD database by adding 'watercourses' which are not on the printed 7-1/2', 1:24,000 topo maps. 

'dirt roads are impossible to make out'  - not specific enough to offer an opinion.



babj615 - I do not think simply saying you 'favor' some mapsets over others without providing your criteria is helpful to possible users, map authors, or those considering becoming authors or sharing their creations.

 

vintage

Long time since I've been here, too busy using the maps ;-)

To follow up on the comments below:
Here are two samples from around N32.59068 W116.71972

California Topo:


or this
catopo11


The newer catopo11 map has land areas marked for some reason (I have no idea what those are) and lots of watercourses (Hah! This is SoCal, no water really exists except for the rare rainstorm). But note the missing trails.

The older California Topo map has all the dirt roads/trails and much easier to read gradients (IMO).

Which do you prefer? I think the old map is much better for hiking...
Carl


Quote from: maps4gps on August 28, 2013, 02:19:51 PM
vintage - thanks for sharing your opinion with some reasons; an all to rare occurrence.
    Before I created CA2011 mapset there were numerous posts from people with issues about ease of use and the overemphasis on contour lines.  The 'original' CA topo was created for a very specific audience and the author's website stated there was no reason to include data from USGS's GNIS database (which most of us use for POIs). 

'hard to read'  - not very specific.

'Covered with watercourses' - specific location?       I have been downloading hydro from USGS for most of this month and noticed USGS is 'improving' the NHD database by adding 'watercourses' which are not on the printed 7-1/2', 1:24,000 topo maps. 

'dirt roads are impossible to make out'  - not specific enough to offer an opinion.


babj615

Quote from: maps4gps on August 28, 2013, 02:19:51 PMbabj615 - I do not think simply saying you 'favor' some mapsets over others without providing your criteria is helpful to possible users, map authors, or those considering becoming authors or sharing their creations.

Sorry for the delayed response, I have been very busy learning how to create my own maps :)

Some excellent observations are noted by vintage in this post:




Quote from: vintage on October 18, 2013, 02:50:14 PMHere are two samples from around N32.59068 W116.71972

California Topo:


or this
catopo11


The newer catopo11 map has land areas marked for some reason (I have no idea what those are) and lots of watercourses (Hah! This is SoCal, no water really exists except for the rare rainstorm). But note the missing trails.

The older California Topo map has all the dirt roads/trails and much easier to read gradients (IMO).

Which do you prefer? I think the old map is much better for hiking...
Carl


I primarily use topo maps for the purpose of hiking.

In the two examples shown, I much prefer the contour lines in the catopo11, but that is about all I prefer from that mapset. Hydrology, IMHO, should be less dominant, and I prefer having separate  transparent mapsets for viewing property boundaries of most types (exluding state and national parks and forestry).  City, county, BLM, private, public, etc. (when included) can make the map quite messy.
Garmin GPSMap 60cs, Dakota 20, Colorado 400t, Oregon 300/400t/450/550t/650/650t, Montana 650, Lowrance Endura Sierra, nuvi 3790, iPhone 3G/4/4s
Geocaching ID: Atlas Cached
OpenCaching.com Ambassador

-Oz-

Sadly Garmin doesn't make it very easy to enable and disable layers.  My Arizona maps have similar problems because the NHD water data shows water that could be there even though most of the time it isn't.  With that said, a lot of people like the boundary information because the type of land you are on is very important to hunters.

The weakness, as always, is trails.  The data just isn't available in any sort of excellent centralized location or format.

It is odd in the screenshot how different the water shows up.
Dan Blomberg
Administrator - GPSFileDepot
GPS Units: Garmin Dakota 20, Garmin GPSMap 60csx, Nuvi 255W, Nuvi 250W, ForeRunner 110, Fenix 2, Tactix Bravo, Foretrex 401
See/Download My Maps!

vintage

Note the missing dirt roads/trails in catopo11. Its like that all over the map, as far as I can tell. Having the old jeep trails marked is critical for back country use in my opinion. That's why I prefer the older California Topo. 

babj615

Quote from: -Oz- on October 19, 2013, 11:03:56 AM
Sadly Garmin doesn't make it very easy to enable and disable layers.  My Arizona maps have similar problems because the NHD water data shows water that could be there even though most of the time it isn't.  With that said, a lot of people like the boundary information because the type of land you are on is very important to hunters.

I did not mean for you to include the boundary information as a layer in your map, I have separate maps just for this purpose I can enable/disable at will along with the topo I am using at the time. You could compile a second transparent boundary map so users have the option of turning them on and off. I only offer this suggestion because you wanted to know our opinions :)

Quote from: -Oz- on October 19, 2013, 11:03:56 AMThe weakness, as always, is trails.  The data just isn't available in any sort of excellent centralized location or format.

I am working on that, for the southwest USA. NW Trails has excellent coverage for the northwest USA, and MyTrails has very good eastern USA coverage.

Quote from: -Oz- on October 19, 2013, 11:03:56 AMIt is odd in the screenshot how different the water shows up.

A simple TYP file edit could probably solve that :)
Garmin GPSMap 60cs, Dakota 20, Colorado 400t, Oregon 300/400t/450/550t/650/650t, Montana 650, Lowrance Endura Sierra, nuvi 3790, iPhone 3G/4/4s
Geocaching ID: Atlas Cached
OpenCaching.com Ambassador

vintage

As I said in my first post, I'd give the older California Topo from 2008 the "star" back and not push people to the 2011 version.

For maps4gps:
Your comments on the darkness of the contour lines is valid and your map is an improvement there. Your efforts to improve the map are commendable. However, my personal suggestion / request would be to modify catopo11 as follows:
- delete the blue water courses (hydrology?)
- delete the green property areas (are these land boundaries or something? They really disrupt the readability of the map)
- add the dirt roads and trails from somewhere? Where did the older California Topo get them?
- also, I'd change the name to something more readable in basecamp from catopo11 to maybe the full name.
Best wishes,
Carl

Just a request! I'm happy using the older map...

maps4gps

Unfortunately 6 years of experience has shown that there is no way that a mapset will satisfy everyone's needs.  As Boyd's posts have mentioned for the past two years, even Garmin's own mapsets can display radically differently depending on which of their GPSr models it is displayed on.

I would guess that very few users would find a map without water courses very useful.  The hydro on the earlier map may seem less conspicuous because that map author over contoured much of the area.

Agree on the green areas showing public lands; however, in years past there were many who considered it critical for their purposes, even wanting different colors for each owning/managing agency (and some bad mouthing mapsets which did not contain such info).
Over four years ago I tired a different approach and asked for user comments.  One user soon responded that it worked as indicated but offered no opinion on usefulness (different model of GPSr - so was useful).  None of the other 8,000 or so downloaders during the next 2 years would use a few seconds of their time to offer an opinion.

'add the dirt roads and trails from somewhere?'  We all wish there was a source of such data available Nationally for public use.
'Where did the older California Topo get them?'  I do not recall if the original map author stated that and the original web-site went inactive about three years ago.

I consider 'catopo11' to be clear and concise - but then I created it.
ca = California
topo = topographic (versus planimetric or contour overlay)
11 = 2011 source
Full name ?? - And which user's opinion will determine how much information should be conveyed in the full name; and in which order it should appear?

How about 30-40 users becoming active map authors for one or two states each?


Thanks for taking the time to share your opinion.

vintage

Thank you for the consideration and reply Maps4GPS!
Maybe someday I'll get around to figuring out some map authoring myself.
FWIW, I have found a good source for trail oriented maps in San Diego county:
http://www.sandiegotrailmap.com/
Bets wishes,
Carl

babj615

Quote from: maps4gps on November 04, 2013, 02:52:27 PM
Unfortunately 6 years of experience has shown that there is no way that a mapset will satisfy everyone's needs.  As Boyd's posts have mentioned for the past two years, even Garmin's own mapsets can display radically differently depending on which of their GPSr models it is displayed on.

Agreed! No single map can satisfy every user!

Quote from: maps4gps on November 04, 2013, 02:52:27 PMHow about 30-40 users becoming active map authors for one or two states each?

Well, I have begun the incredible learning curve to do just that. I am working on trail maps for the Southwest USA (very hard to get good data), which will be followed by a topo version of the same. So I guess you could say I am putting my money where my mouth is :)

http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/715
Garmin GPSMap 60cs, Dakota 20, Colorado 400t, Oregon 300/400t/450/550t/650/650t, Montana 650, Lowrance Endura Sierra, nuvi 3790, iPhone 3G/4/4s
Geocaching ID: Atlas Cached
OpenCaching.com Ambassador

maps4gps

However, besides SD county what of trail data sources for the other 3,233 county or county equivalents in the US states and territories?
I have been building my mapsets at the national level and packaging the data by state.  Some state's have some very nice data, others nothing; all I have seen have very specific documentation/crediting requirements which would make for a very large readme file, etc.

Yes, interest in the western states were most of the public lands are located; however, there are many users interested in the central and eastern states but very few interested in authoring and sharing maps for those areas.