View Full Version : Maps
TickPicker
05-02-2005, 12:35
I'm reading A Walk in the Woods and the author was saying his AT maps were useless. Now I know that it's his opinion...........but, is there enough information on the ATC maps, or is there other sources with better, more detailed maps? Taking into account I have'nt been on the trail yet.
Steve
The Land of the Dimpled Chad:jump
SGT Rock
05-02-2005, 12:44
Consider the source. Bill Bryson was a real hiker:rolleyes:
They are not what I would take orienteering. But they do the job. You can get Topozone software and print your own to the scale you want.
Kerosene
05-02-2005, 12:54
The ATC maps provide good detail for the 3-5 miles around the Trail corridor and are accompanied by an elevation profile for the Trail itself. I find that they're most useful for identifying trail intersections, road crossings and emergency bail-out points, along with potential water sources in dry Autumns. While you can certainly hike the entire AT without relying on maps, they can be quite useful in an emergency or even when you just need to find a way off the Trail for some reason.
I'd be surprised if Bill Bryon knew how to read a map anyway. :banana
I carry the ATC maps but they have not been too handy for me on the hikes; however, one did come in handy for a search & rescue team one year and one could be useful in an emergency when knowledge of surroundings (non-trail but near-trail) & time were important. I don't know what I'd ever do with better, more detailed maps???
peakbagger
05-02-2005, 13:19
As a section hiker with most of the trail done, I find the newer version ATC maps quite useful. Of course, what I find usefull is realtvie to car shuttles and road crossings which are of less value to a traditional thru hiker. ATC apparently has map standards and as sections are revised, they are reformated into the standard. On the other hand some of the older versions were lacking due to very poor topography. I remember in some of the PA sections that used a dense USGS map as a background that a prior route of the AT which existed when the USGS map was printed was still on the map, in addition to the current route.
The quality of the terrain profiles has also improved over the years. I have met a few folks who have cut and pasted the terrain profiles as an alternative to carrying complete maps. I believe that PATC offers it for their rather long section
Overall, the best maps of the AT are the ATC maps. I found that the software Topo! was based on USGS maps, and not up to date with reroutes.
You might consider supplementing the ATC maps with the AMC White Mountain Maps, or the AMC Maine Mountain Maps if you want to do hiking off the AT.
halibut15
05-02-2005, 19:13
Maps? I've got two words: white blazes.
SGT Rock
05-02-2005, 19:26
Right. And if you follow the white blazes and get into an issue or find someone in trouble, then you have to HOPE for something good up the trail or behind you on the trail instead of looking for a better alternative on a side road trail etc. And lets not forget lost, miss-oriented, etc. No matter how well marked the trail is - this still happens.
HOPE is not a method for successful planning.
Pencil Pusher
05-02-2005, 20:07
Just bring your cell phone so you can call for help or directions if you get lost because you didn't bring map nor headlamp. Yes, I'm kidding but this stuff happens for real. What is it? Something like, "Search and Rescue: Interfering with natural selection." Or, "Help support Search and Rescue: Get lost!" :D
SGT Rock
05-02-2005, 20:13
Wasn't there a great story from a while back where two guys got lost with a cell phone and a GPS. The could tell you to within 1 meter what their grid coordinates were and even call rescue to tell them, but since they didn't have a map they couldn't plot their own location to tell where they were in reference to the rest of the world.
hikerjohnd
05-02-2005, 22:28
Wasn't there a great story from a while back where two guys got lost with a cell phone and a GPS. The could tell you to within 1 meter what their grid coordinates were and even call rescue to tell them, but since they didn't have a map they couldn't plot their own location to tell where they were in reference to the rest of the world.
I still don't get this... I do not advocate techno-geeks going out into the woods unprepared, but... if a person calls for help and can give the operator on the other end his exact location within a meter or two, why can't the rescue folks just use that information to make the rescue? :-?
SGT Rock
05-02-2005, 22:33
They could, but the point was that if they had brought a map it wouldn't have been necissary. In fact, a 2 ounce compass and a 2 ounce map will get you to within 10 meters of your location without batteries.
I haven't done much backpacking yet. So far, I've done a whopping 90 miles of the AT. I don't understand the folks who say you don't need a map simply because the white blazes are so easy to follow. It seems sorta obvious the importance of maps. I'd choose a map over a data book any day. Maybe I'm a map geek. I think half the fun of the trip is pouring over maps.
dougmeredith
05-03-2005, 08:11
Wasn't there a great story from a while back where two guys got lost with a cell phone and a GPS. The could tell you to within 1 meter what their grid coordinates were and even call rescue to tell them, but since they didn't have a map they couldn't plot their own location to tell where they were in reference to the rest of the world.
That reminds me of something that happened to my brother a few weeks ago. He was out for a day hike and had a GPS receiver (for stats on speed and distance, not navigation) and cell phone. He got to a trail junction and wasn't sure which interesection it was. He called his wife, walked her through starting up the mapping software and finding his location. From this she was able to tell him where he was and he knew which way to go.
Now this wasn't an emergency situation, in the worst case he would have doubled back and had to walk a few extra kilometers. It does illustrate how little help it can be to only know your grid coordinates.
Doug
SGT Rock
05-03-2005, 09:37
And a map would add about the weight of a snicker's bar.
icemanat95
05-03-2005, 10:15
I'm reading A Walk in the Woods and the author was saying his AT maps were useless. Now I know that it's his opinion...........but, is there enough information on the ATC maps, or is there other sources with better, more detailed maps? Taking into account I have'nt been on the trail yet.
Steve
The Land of the Dimpled Chad:jump
The ATC maps are far from useless. They are based on USGS 7.5 minute topo maps, which are very detailed, often down to individual structures and buildings. What probably made them seem useless to Bryson is that they don't tend to list municipal bus stops and taxi stands. Yes a complete USGS topo map for each individual area would certainly provide much more detail, but over the course of the entire AT you would be talking about scores of fairly large maps to cope with. As much as I love maps, I wouldn't carry the USGS squares. Most of the info you need is on the ATC maps and in the data book.
icemanat95
05-03-2005, 10:28
Wasn't there a great story from a while back where two guys got lost with a cell phone and a GPS. The could tell you to within 1 meter what their grid coordinates were and even call rescue to tell them, but since they didn't have a map they couldn't plot their own location to tell where they were in reference to the rest of the world.
Yup, the GPS doesn't replace the map at all, you still need to be able to read a map and understand grid coordinates as well as the different grid systems and map datum sets. That last factor is pretty important. A buddy and I were on a land navigation exercise recently on my property and in the surrounding woods. We had the GPS set to the correct grid system and map datum for the maps we were actually navigating by, but when we went back to the house and started trasfering the route we had taken to my maps, we were getting HUGE errors. The simple reason was that my maps were more recent and were based on a different datum set. Update the GPS settings for that and we were spot on.
In my somewhat limited experience with GPS, They basically replace the compass and the need for an accurate pace-count. They can also replace an altimeter. You still need a map protractor that is properly scaled to the map grid system and scale for the map at hand, but that's no big deal. Many compasses sold today have the common protractor grids built right in. For on trail use the GPS is far less useful than for bushwhacking, hunting, search and rescue and military purposes. With the trails, a decent map and compass and the basic ability to gauge your distance/time and relate that to the map, you don't need the extra weight of the GPS. I've got one, and I'll carry it from time to time to play with it and get as familiar with it as possible, but I don't need it or find it terribly useful on trail.
The ability to navigate by simple map and compass is a gateway skill to responsible backcountry activity. If you can't orient a map with a compass, shoot an azimuth or a back-azimuth, adjust for declination and read map features and relate them to the actual terrain around you, your trail skills are sorely lacking.
And a map would add about the weight of a snicker's bar.
True, but another Snicker's bar would so much more enjoyable! :jump
When I did my thru-hike in '98, I didn't have the maps. The data book gives almost all of the information that you need, and as far as the elevation profile goes, the data book is a lot more reliable in figuring that out than the profile on the maps (I can't even tell you how many times other hiker's claimed it was going to be an "easy day" because of the map profile, when the data book suggested it wouldn't be... and the data book was pretty much always right). I did have a map through the Whites, and I ws glad to have it though... it gave me something else to look at at night, something to help me figure out where exactly I was on the trail, etc...
There is something to be said for the added safety when having the maps. It does help with side trails, etc... The data book is good, but the map can flush that info out for you.
When I attempted the PCT I carried maps, but you really do need them on the PCT as opposed to the AT (as well as knowing how to use them). They were great to have, and when taking breaks I often found myself looking at them.
But there's also something to be said for just being out there and taking things as they come. Yes, there's a slight decline in the level of safety and convenience (on the AT). For me, I usually didn't mind not having the maps, and just enjoyed what was out there, and accepted things for what they were. Yes, there were a few times it would have been much more convenient to have had the maps, but whatever. I was willing to accept that.
I think the next time I do the AT I will probably have the maps, since I'll be wanting to check out more of the side trails.
tlbj6142
05-03-2005, 13:16
It seems sorta obvious the importance of maps. I'd choose a map over a data book any day. Maybe I'm a map geek. I think half the fun of the trip is pouring over maps.I only section hike, and bring the maps (and sometimes the guide depending on the section) along as reading material. Look at them during breaks, scan them before I go to bed to plan water breaks, try to line up the map with the real terrain, identifiy otherwise boring green mountains, etc. And, of cousre, on just about every trip I have had to show someone my map for one reason or another.
Footslogger
05-03-2005, 13:29
I wouldn't consider them an absolute necessity but I would suggest that you own and carry them. I went a bit back and forth with the maps on my thru in 2003, but in the end I chose to carry them and I'm glad I did. Break them down into sections so that you're not carrying more than 4 - 5 maps at a time.
'Slogger
AT 2003
On my last CDT hike (along the Montana/Idaho border), I printed relevant sections of two guidebooks on the back side of the maps, ridding me of the need to carry either guidebook. It was a bit of work, but well worth it. Some of us just like maps and like knowing where we are relative to towns, roads, etc.
Of course, it's more important to carry maps/compass/gps on the CDT. You can get away with following the white blazes on the A.T., which I did in the latter part of my thru hike. But, I have to say, not carrying maps inconvenienced me a couple of times.
If I hike the A.T. again, I'll carry the maps, but not the guidebooks.
The ATC maps vary from state to state. Some, like PATC's, are fantastic. There are some state or section maps where it is real hard to discern words, roads, and other features.
One of the things Bryson got right in his book involved ragging on the Pennsylvania maps, tho I understand the new generation of PA maps is better than they were when he hiked in '96.
Kerosene
10-10-2006, 12:14
...I printed relevant sections of two guidebooks on the back side of the maps, ridding me of the need to carry either guidebook. It was a bit of work, but well worth it.For shorter sections I follow the same approach, copying reduced guidebook sections onto the map. For longer sections I end up reducing 16 guidebook pages to one 8.5"x11" 2-sided piece of paper, plus I carry the relevant map.
For those of you who don't believe you need a map: You're right, as long as you are just on the trail and never need to know what's around you. They're invaluable in an emergency (is the closest road down the ridge or up the trail?) and useful to orient yourself (what mountains does the trail go over for the next 30 miles?).
For those of you who don't believe you need a guidebook: You're right most of the time. However, there were two significant situations where I was really, really glad I had the relevant guidebook pages in my section hike through the White Mountains last month.
Atop Mt. Moosilaukee, above treeline soon after a fast-moving thunderstorm, with fog, rain, 40 mph winds, rendering my glasses worthless, darkness approaching. I knew that the AT made a confusing turn to the left (NOBO) at the summit, so I was cautious. I found a trail angling down and left, but it really didn't feel right. Sunset was close enough that I didn't want to risk getting lost and having to backtrack, so I huddled down out of the wind and read the guidebook entry, which informed me to make a sharp left and follow the old summit house foundation. A found the blaze 100' later followed by the first cairn leading off the summit.
Between Osgood Tentsite and Pinkham Notch the AT takes a series of very confusing and poorly marked turns. Again it was approaching dark and we were trying to get close enough to Pinkham Notch that we could catch the shuttle back to our car at 8 the next morning. I'm not sure that I would have figured out where to turn if not for the guidebook, reinforced by the map, even though someone had scraped a barely visible "AT right-arrow" behind one trail sign.
I will take along:
1.) The map for the section I'm doing (possibly a color photocopy if we're only doing part of the map.)
2.) Photocopies of the guidebook for the section we're doing.
3.) Copy of the Delorme map for the area (gives you a view of the wider surrounding area in case you need to get off in an emergency. Also helps you get to the trail in the first place.)
Pokey2006
10-13-2006, 01:50
Oh, just take the stupid map! It's not that heavy, and it will keep you from having to look over my shoulder at mine.