Access Land on Explorer Maps

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:47:38 +0100, "Michael" <[email hidden]> wrote:

| To be shown with a "light yellow tint" and an orange border:
|
| http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/media/news/2004/july/accessonexplorers.html
|
| If I understand correctly it won't be shown at all on the Landranger maps.

It is going to cost me a *Bomb* :-(
Anyone want outdated Explorer maps?

Dave F

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:47:38 +0100, "Michael" <[email hidden]> wrote:

| To be shown with a "light yellow tint" and an orange border:
|
| http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/media/news/2004/july/accessonexplorers.html
|
| If I understand correctly it won't be shown at all on the Landranger maps.

More information may be found at:
http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk/where_you_can_go.php

The dates of commencement are
South East 19 Sept 04
Lower North West 19 Sept 04
Central South England Dec 04
Upper North West May 05
North East May 05
South West Aug 05
West Oct 05
East Nov 05

The maps, in **1 km sq chunks** are online at
http://www.ca-mapping.co.uk/mapping/default.htm
Beware however that they are at Draft, Provisional stages,
the definitive maps are not yet available, the others
may not be on line yet.

Dave F

Michael said:

To be shown with a "light yellow tint" and an orange border:

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/media/news/2004/july/accessonexplorers.html

If I understand correctly it won't be shown at all on the Landranger maps.

That's muy reading too

<quote>
No change is planned to the way National Park boundaries are shown on
smaller scales of Ordnance Survey mapping, such as the OS Landranger
Map series; nor will the extent of new access areas be shown on
smaller scales of mapping as it is important that the level of detail
needs to be seen at 1:25,000 scale to be clearly understandable.
<quote>

As for the orange border, it is another scheme for obliterating
contours! Fecink eedjits will they ever learn. Brown (dark orange)
contours shaded over with orange = unreadable. Why, oh why, since the
Nat Park boundary is changing couldn't they make the edges yellow?!
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Quoted message said:

If I understand correctly it won't be shown at all on the Landranger maps.

Landranger maps do not show field boundarys and the ilk, along which many of
the boundarys lie; so it's better to leave off the access area altogether
rather then confuse walkers by having them march across non-access land and
perhaps bringing the whole idea in disrepute.

Quoted message said:

As for the orange border, it is another scheme for obliterating
contours! Fecink eedjits will they ever learn. Brown (dark orange)
contours shaded over with orange = unreadable. Why, oh why, since the
Nat Park boundary is changing couldn't they make the edges yellow?!

Actually looking at the high-resolution sample image provided by the OS
(weblink
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/media/news/2004/july/dartmoorimg.html)
it doesn't look too bad - the contours are perfectly readable. What I find
amusing though is their example shows Meldon Reservoir on Dartmoor, and area
that isn't to be one of the first new versions of the Explorer map series -
according to the OS press statement.

The OS contours are not totally 100% accurate anyway, even on the 1:10,000
landplan maps. I've found numerous examples of "errors" as I've drawn
Orienteering maps.

circe said:

Quoted message said:

As for the orange border, it is another scheme for obliterating
contours! Fecink eedjits will they ever learn. Brown (dark orange)
contours shaded over with orange = unreadable. Why, oh why, since the
Nat Park boundary is changing couldn't they make the edges yellow?!

Actually looking at the high-resolution sample image provided by the OS
(weblink
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/media/news/2004/july/dartmoorimg.html)
it doesn't look too bad - the contours are perfectly readable.

Then perhaps you are seeing differently to me. I can see that there
will be confusion where you get closely spaced contours parallel to
the boundary. Look at the lake shore immediately below the lake name,
can you tell how many contours are hidden there?
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Am I to understand from this discussion that some people intend to
take notice of the boundaries?

Quoted message said:

Then perhaps you are seeing differently to me. I can see that there
will be confusion where you get closely spaced contours parallel to
the boundary. Look at the lake shore immediately below the lake name,
can you tell how many contours are hidden there?

I think that your referring to the spur to the west of the inlet from
Fishcombe Lake, running north from Homerton Hill. I can plainly see a
single contour line between the lake bank and the boundary, and another
contour that comes and skirts the boundary at that spur, then there are a
further two contours after that before the index contour (that's the thick
one at every 50 m or 25 m depending on contour interval). I've compared the
sample map against my Outdoor Leisure Dartmoor map that's printed on aqua3
on which the contours are printed with more "red" in the colour. The new
sample is much more readable.

I appreciate though that other peoples eyesight might not as good as mine,
though I don't think that any problems with reading the map in these areas
would affect navigation or use of the map significantly by anyone. The
contours on the map are only there to represent the landform, i.e. the
contour representing that each point along that line is at equal height
above sea level. It's only meant to be representative. I think that if you
do get any problems then they are only going to be in areas like the one
you've highlighted, which shows a steep sided slope.

In the example you've shown you have a 1:25,000 scale map, that means that 1
unit on the map represents 25,000 units in real life, so 2 mm is equal to
100 m, and 1 mm is equal to 50 m. If you look at the contours you've
highlighted, they represent equal height all along, but they are drawn with
a 0.1 mm in diameter - that's a 5 m line in the real world. Now look at the
distance between contours (of course I can't take the OS example as 100% for
measurement on my screen but for my example it will do). From the reservoir
bank to the first contour south of the spur is only about a 1 mm, that's 50
m. In the real world, using the map for the purpose it was designed for
(i.e. outdoor leisure), any small problems that people might have reading
the few contours in these areas are not going to be very great at this
distances! The overall general landform is clearly visiable, and the map is
still as usable as it was before the new orange boundary. If there is a
proper reason for being able to determine height and landform at better
precision than this then I think that it's probably for professional
purposes and your going to be obtaining Landplan or Superlandplan maps, and
getting professional surveying equipment.

The new sample shows 5 m contours where as my aqua3 map has only 10 m. My
old 10 m contour map was perfectly adequete, the new 5 m contours add little
in the way extra practical usefullness for normal activities.

Whilst I appreciate that people with poorer eyesight may have a little
difficulty interpreting some of the contours in these areas I do not believe
that this would have any detrimental effect on their use of the map at the
end of the day. I don't want this to appear as too critical of your
responce, I appreciate that you might not be able to see the detail as
clearly, but I only want to demonstrate that the map is still as useful and
you don't need to be concerned about missing anything!

circe said:

Quoted message said:

Then perhaps you are seeing differently to me. I can see that there
will be confusion where you get closely spaced contours parallel to
the boundary. Look at the lake shore immediately below the lake name,
can you tell how many contours are hidden there?

I think that your referring to the spur to the west of the inlet from
Fishcombe Lake,

Just below the "vo" of "Meldon Reservoir" on the exaple
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/media/news/2004/july/dartmoorimg.html

Quoted message said:

running north from Homerton Hill. I can plainly see a
single contour line between the lake bank and the boundary, and another
contour that comes and skirts the boundary at that spur, then there are a
further two contours after that before the index contour (that's the thick
one at every 50 m or 25 m depending on contour interval). I've compared the
sample map against my Outdoor Leisure Dartmoor map that's printed on aqua3
on which the contours are printed with more "red" in the colour. The new
sample is much more readable.

I've noticed variation in the colour of the orange used for contours.

Quoted message said:

Whilst I appreciate that people with poorer eyesight may have a little
difficulty interpreting some of the contours in these areas I do not believe
that this would have any detrimental effect on their use of the map at the
end of the day. I don't want this to appear as too critical of your
responce, I appreciate that you might not be able to see the detail as
clearly, but I only want to demonstrate that the map is still as useful and
you don't need to be concerned about missing anything!

Perhaps I shouldn't be concerned about driving in the rain without
windscreen wipers then? I *am* concerned because there *is* a contour
hidden in the murk there or seems to be. Between the fence and the
shore. It is worth bearing in mind that this is an online example and
it may well be clearer in the print, though it is also worth noting
that the scale of reproduction is dependent upon screen resolution so
it is almost certainly seen larger on screen than it would be on
paper. Even if it's precise indication isn't as per the real ground I
would like to see a physical feature have prominence over a political
boundary. The fact is they are plastering the maps with additional
boundaries where they aren't needed. The boundary for access land is
almost always going to exist on the map, a fence, a stream, a path or
road. So why put this extra crayon mark on it?
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Simon Caldwell <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Am I to understand from this discussion that some people intend to
take notice of the boundaries?

I deduce from it that some people make a lot of fuss about nothing.
I found no difficulty in reading the map.
--
Gordon

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:47:38 +0100, "Michael" <[email hidden]> wrote:

| To be shown with a "light yellow tint" and an orange border:
|
| http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/media/news/2004/july/accessonexplorers.html
|
| If I understand correctly it won't be shown at all on the Landranger maps.

It is going to cost me a *Bomb* :-(
Anyone want outdated Explorer maps?

Me...

I dont want [censored] on the map obscuring contours
I dont want no go areas marked on the maps...

There could be some bargains ahead!

Richard Webb