Garmin GPS - Garmin Topo USA or Topo 24?

Author

Garmin Topo USA or Topo 24?

Alex Roytman

2007-03-12, 10:33 pm

Hello,

Which map would you recommend for hiking topo usa or topo 24? It is nice to
have 1: 24,000 map but I noticed only major parks are covered. Topo USA
cover entire US but it is only 1:100,000 which is not as nice for hiking
plus it probably has less details and less up to date for national park.

Please share your thoughts

thanks

Alex

Jack Erbes

2007-03-13, 10:33 am

Alex Roytman wrote:

> Thank you Jack,
>
> I have quite a few paper map of LaVerendry wild life reserve in Quebec where
> I canoe and kayak a lot. But at the end they are very expensive and do not
> live long if they are printed on regular paper and not laminated (another
> expense). So coupe of years ago I got Canada topo 1:50,000 if I am not
> mistaken. It worked well for me but one does not need awfull lot of details
> for kayaking. I actually carefully transfered dozens portages and of camp
> sites (often 1 tent tiny piece of flat or not very flat land) from park's
> map and then planned various routes and it worked very well for me
>
> This May we are going to Nevada and Utah (Zion, Bryce, Arches...) and I want
> to do some day hikes. I have no maps or anything for west coast. I thoght
> Topo 24 would be a good choice. I wonder what percentage of trails (not
> those which are super-busy) is marked on topo 24 and how well

That is one of the things I looked at when I was comparing U.S. Topo and
24K Topo. Acadia Nat'l Park has quite a few good (i.e., busy) hiking
trails. And there there are also many places where "unofficial" and
unmarked trails have developed just because they look like good places
to walk. The major trails are seen on both the 100K and 24K maps, with
more of them on the 24K, while the latter trails don't normally appear
on either 24K or 100K.

The major trails that are marked on the maps are the ones that will be
on park guides and brochures, well signed as far as finding them, good
parking at trailheads, and many improvements for access along the
trails., etc.

> What you say is dissapointing though. I also thought of buying both topo usa
> and topo 24 - you can load both on 76csx so you will be covered most of the
> time.

As you look at the online viewers for the Garmin maps, you can save the
images as *.png files. I've done that with both 24K and 100K areas and
compared the images to paper maps later. Those comparisons are what
lead me to conclude that Garmin has "cleaned up" their 24K mapping and
it seems to have less detail than my beloved USGS quads on paper.

Part of it might just be the look and feel of the raster images on the
paper maps (which I don't mind at all). But the raster images have a
shading and detail I simply like better.

> Not sure what to expect from a topo map though. What I need besides bassic
> terrain info is trails and dandger points (like flush flood zones etc) I
> wonder if it exists anywhere at all

I'm from California originally and have lived in and know the west
pretty well. I think the danger areas are pretty intuitive after you
see the terrain and give it a little thought. Just a little knowledge
of the basic dangers, along with some common sense, will get most people
through it all. The people that can't make the mental correlation that
they are hiking or camping in a dry wash or narrow canyon and there are
thunderstorms in the area are the ones that can get in trouble.

I think that area you intend to visit is one of the high points of
American. Just thinking about it makes me want to get in the car and
head west from Maine. :> )

Jack

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jackerbes at adelphia dot net
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine.com)

Alex Roytman

2007-03-13, 10:33 am

Jack,

Thanks again for your detailed reply. Garmin came up with version 3 of topo
24 maps. I wonder if it is any better than v2 you most likely analyzed.
Interestingly enough, their trails are routable - so one does not need to
spend time laying out a route and get good info on distance to the
destination (rather than straight line distance) All you say makes sense I
suspected it will be this way. I am undecided and might have to flip a coin
:-). One disadvantage of GPS map is that it is small and it might not be
easy to read busy terrain.

Thank you

Alex

"Jack Erbes" <jackerbes@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1cSdnfs0jrIsAWv
YnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
> Alex Roytman wrote:
>
>
> That is one of the things I looked at when I was comparing U.S. Topo and
> 24K Topo. Acadia Nat'l Park has quite a few good (i.e., busy) hiking
> trails. And there there are also many places where "unofficial" and
> unmarked trails have developed just because they look like good places to
> walk. The major trails are seen on both the 100K and 24K maps, with more
> of them on the 24K, while the latter trails don't normally appear on
> either 24K or 100K.
>
> The major trails that are marked on the maps are the ones that will be on
> park guides and brochures, well signed as far as finding them, good
> parking at trailheads, and many improvements for access along the trails.,
> etc.
>
>
> As you look at the online viewers for the Garmin maps, you can save the
> images as *.png files. I've done that with both 24K and 100K areas and
> compared the images to paper maps later. Those comparisons are what lead
> me to conclude that Garmin has "cleaned up" their 24K mapping and it seems
> to have less detail than my beloved USGS quads on paper.
>
> Part of it might just be the look and feel of the raster images on the
> paper maps (which I don't mind at all). But the raster images have a
> shading and detail I simply like better.
>
>
> I'm from California originally and have lived in and know the west pretty
> well. I think the danger areas are pretty intuitive after you see the
> terrain and give it a little thought. Just a little knowledge of the
> basic dangers, along with some common sense, will get most people through
> it all. The people that can't make the mental correlation that they are
> hiking or camping in a dry wash or narrow canyon and there are
> thunderstorms in the area are the ones that can get in trouble.
>
> I think that area you intend to visit is one of the high points of
> American. Just thinking about it makes me want to get in the car and head
> west from Maine. :> )
>
> Jack
>
> --
> Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jackerbes at adelphia dot net
> (also receiving email at jacker at midmaine.com)

Dan Anderson

2007-03-13, 12:33 pm

Alex Roytman wrote:
> Thanks again for your detailed reply. Garmin came up with version 3 of topo
> 24 maps. I wonder if it is any better than v2 you most likely analyzed.
> Interestingly enough, their trails are routable - so one does not need to
> spend time laying out a route and get good info on distance to the
> destination (rather than straight line distance) All you say makes sense I
> suspected it will be this way. I am undecided and might have to flip a coin
> :-). One disadvantage of GPS map is that it is small and it might not be
> easy to read busy terrain.

Another disadvantage is that the trail is drawn where it was 30-50 years
ago. So the receiver will try to auto-route you along a trail that
has since been re-routed or no longer exists.

--
Dan
(email change 2001 to 2004)
(www.gpsmap.net)

Alex Roytman

2007-03-13, 10:33 pm

Dan,

What about USGS paper maps? Wouldn't they show the same outdated trails?

Alex

"Dan Anderson" < danderson2001@hotmai
l.com> wrote in message
news:nuudnfPbyLZ- UWvYnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d
@pghconnect.com...
> Alex Roytman wrote:
>
> Another disadvantage is that the trail is drawn where it was 30-50 years
> ago. So the receiver will try to auto-route you along a trail that
> has since been re-routed or no longer exists.
>
> --
> Dan
> (email change 2001 to 2004)
> (www.gpsmap.net)

Jack Erbes

2007-03-14, 10:33 am

Alex Roytman wrote:

> Dan,
>
> What about USGS paper maps? Wouldn't they show the same outdated trails?
>
> Alex
>

Alex,

Here is a couple of good sites if you are interested in looking at
downloads of the USGS quads for the area you are interested in:

http://agrc.its.state.ut.us/agrc_sgid/sgidintro.html

http://nrwrt1.nr.state.ut.us/quads/

You can download the maps as *.tif images from those links. There is a
bit of a learning curve to figure out what you need. A great viewer for
looking at the maps is the irfanview freeware:

http://www.irfanview.com/

As for the outdated trails, I'll certainly admit that things will change
in 20-30 years but not very many trails get moved very often and the
basic terrain features don't change much. I'm not sure I need
autorouting topo maps. As some point the enjoyment is in having my head
up and enjoying what I am seeing with an occasional glance at the
reference material. :> )

Jack

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jackerbes at adelphia dot net
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine.com)

Dan Anderson

2007-03-14, 10:33 pm

Alex Roytman wrote:
> Dan,
>
> What about USGS paper maps? Wouldn't they show the same outdated trails?

Of course. That's where the primary data came from. I understand that
some trail data is newer on the Garmin maps so they picked up some
information from some other source.

Also the USGS topo maps are better in some areas than others. In
the Rocky Mountains, don't count on a trail or road on the map
actually being there and there are trails that aren't on the maps.

--
Dan
(email change 2001 to 2004)
(www.gpsmap.net)

Alex Roytman

2007-03-15, 4:33 am

"Jack Erbes" <jackerbes@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:V9mdnQw4jswdb2r
YnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
> Alex Roytman wrote:
>
>
> Alex,
>
> Here is a couple of good sites if you are interested in looking at
> downloads of the USGS quads for the area you are interested in:
>
> http://agrc.its.state.ut.us/agrc_sgid/sgidintro.html
>
> http://nrwrt1.nr.state.ut.us/quads/
>
> You can download the maps as *.tif images from those links. There is a
> bit of a learning curve to figure out what you need. A great viewer for
> looking at the maps is the irfanview freeware:
>
> http://www.irfanview.com/
>
> As for the outdated trails, I'll certainly admit that things will change
> in 20-30 years but not very many trails get moved very often and the basic
> terrain features don't change much. I'm not sure I need autorouting topo
> maps. As some point the enjoyment is in having my head up and enjoying
> what I am seeing with an occasional glance at the reference material. :> )
>
> Jack
>
> --
> Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jackerbes at adelphia dot net
> (also receiving email at jacker at midmaine.com)

Thank you Jack!
Will check the images.
Completely agree with you on autorouting. I would never turn stay on road
autoroute mode with beeps. I usually like to pick my own way and use route
to tells me if I am going in right general direction and how far from active
route leg. Plus knowing how much more to go is useful :-)

Alex

LinkBot