map scale

[telwebb]

Hi folks - hope this is the right section....

Whilst out and about for a stroll at the weekend I met a chap coming in the opposite direction. Polite greetings were exchanged (couldn't really be avoided as the path was a little narrow and the drop a little steep!) and then after a mini convo about where I was off to he asked what map I was using (std explorer) and proceded to write it off as not being detailed enough to answer the question that had occured to him on his journey - that being the existence or not of a certain footpath. So out of curiosity I started looking for a more detailed one....no joy. He was talking 1" to 1 mile - is there such a beast? If it makes a difference we were on, or near, the south west coast path at that time.

Cheers

 

[sgw1]

Not sure what he meant. The standard Explorer scale of 1:25 000 is 2½ inches to 1 mile. The alternative Landranger is 1:50 000 scale or 1¼ inches to 1 mile.

Perhaps he was refering to the original 1 inch series which was 1" to 1ml but that would give less detail than your Explorer.

?

 

[bilmo-p5]

For all intents and purposes the current equivalent of the old OS 'one inch' maps is the 1:50000 Landranger series. As much, if not all the country is now covered by the 1:25000 Explorer (formerly Outdoor Leisure ) series these are generally a better bet for land navigation. Paths and rights of way are not permanent and there is no guarantee that a feature shown on an earlier map will be shown on a more current one .

 

[telwebb]

So - commercially at least - the OS Explorer is about as detailed as it gets? That was the impression I was under which is why I was carrying it!

 

[nigeltm]

You're right that the Explorer 1:25k is the most detailed typically used, but the OS also produce a series of 1:10k raster images. I haven't seen these in paper form. Although I have used them quite a bit in computer mapping systems.

Link to OS 10k raster info

In April they als released the OpenData series of electronic maps. These include the OS Street View (not to be confused with Google!) maps. These are a simplified form of their most detailed mapping. But it's so simplified I'll be damed if I'll ever rely on a Street View printout on the hill!

Link to OS OpenData map viewer

From the sounds of it this guy may have been a pretentious plonker. Stick to the Explorer maps, more than detailed enough for general use and you don't have to carry a mass of paper.

 

[telwebb]

must admit I did get the impression I was being just ever so slightly ridiculed, but I genuinely didn't know whether you could get a more detailed one or not. If my ignorance cheered him on his way then my place on the planet was justified for that one small moment ..... next time I'll nudge him over the edge.

 

[Paul_B]

most ppl use 1:25k scale the 50k is also good for different details. I have a ML friend who always buys both scales for every area he goes to. He claims that the 50k scale has some details no clear on the 25k one. IIRC part of it was due to the contours giving a more easily interpreted sense of thee shape of the hill for those who struggle with 2D to 3D land conversion in their minds. Other things too.

You can get large scales such as 15k and 10k through the Harveys printed BMC maps on thee back side of the main maps. These are for the likes of Ben Nevis and around Pillar too IIRC. Never use it but as the BMC maps are 40k these details can be more use. 25k is best for most uses though when walking in the countryside. BMC maps at 40k scale often takes some getting used to and when going light around the areas they cover they are good. Also they have some aspects that are better than OS. Not everything but there are a lot of stuff on it that don't show up on OS maps even the 25k scale.

The guy was not as knowledgeable as he made out IMHO. Ignore him. Of course orienteering maps are generally 1:15000 or 1:12500 scales. They also show types of vegetation and terrain too. However not much cop for walking as such a large scale you dont get much distance before you go off it. Also limited availability.

 

[Extreme Pilgrim]

1. For long distance walking and appreciation for the topography, I would always suggest a 1:50,000
2. For micronav and cross-referencing, 1:25,000.

I would say that if you are operating in open moorland, you can generally see great distances and read your routes from looking at both the land and the map but would again, use the 1:50,000. The OS 1:50,000 IMO is the benchmark and has enough data for a navigator. Any close country such large woodlands, jungle, etc I would bring down the mapping to 1:25,000 (or less). Familiarity is the key and sticking to key ratios is the way to avoid under or over-estimating your navigation. I have come across seasoned map readers who have fell foul of this when handed new, unfamiliar map. The detail is great on some map but can sometimes be cluttered when only basic information is need.

 

[clive.s]

FYI, all NZ Topo Maps are 1:50,000 with 20m contours and 23 degree mag variance.

1:50,000 is good or almost everything.

 

[Toadflax]

1 inch to 1 mile was the standard OS map that persons over a certain age grew up with and served the purpose of the 1:50,000 maps nowadays. If you were well off, you might buy the 2 1/2 inch to the mile maps (equivalent of 1:25,000), but most of us learned our navigation on the 1 inch maps.

I do still tend to refer to the 1:50,000 maps as 1" maps and the 1:25,000 as 2 1/2", even though that isn't correct, but they did exist:

Geoff

 

[Bigfoot]

63,360 is a number that I will never forget I still have a few of the old 1" maps.

I find that the modern 1:50,000 are plenty fine for general walking, trekking, climbing etc. The detail on the 1:25,000 series gets in the way sometimes, especially in heavily contoured (ie hilly ) areas and even more so if there is a coloured boundary line running along the contour you need!