Anquet and Harveys maps

Ian Gallimore said:

Do any of the Anquet users on here use the Harveys superscale map
sets? Having played with the demo for a while I'm thinking of
taking the plunge and investing in the program. I'm just curious to
see what people's long term experiences are with those maps. I've
always stuck to OS Explorer in the past, apart from a Harveys Ben
Nevis map, and certainly in Anquet the OS maps seem to be easier to
read, particularly in 3D mode where the white background emphasises
the shape. Given that the Harveys maps are pretty much half the
price of their OS equivalent they're certainly attractive, I'm just
curious how they hold up in the field.

All that said, I'm assuming Anquet is still the preferred option
over Memory Map (customer service still bad?) and Fugawi (dodgy
height data still?).

I would suggest trying the demo for Tracklogs first.

http://www.tracklogs.co.uk

Although I use Fugawi myself ( which is ok, very useful but certainly
not the best now ), I looked at the Tracklogs demo and it is rather
good, so much so that when my spare funds are sufficient I will be
buying their maps.

With regards to Harvey's maps, personally I can't get used to them
but that's my problem really not the maps.

I have had issues with OS map's expressed in earlier postings but it
would appear some of these issues have been addressed with the latest
maps available from OS.

Regards Jeff.

www.astrecks.co.uk

If it works..............DON'T fix it
No Virus Checker? try this free one from AVG it is very good:-
http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php
For a new experience in e-mail clients try:- http://www.pocomail.com/
Kill SPAM forever! Protect your family with Spamjab from:-
http://www.spamjab.com/

"Ian Gallimore" <mail[nospam]@ntlworld.com> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Do any of the Anquet users on here use the Harveys superscale map sets?
Having played with the demo for a while I'm thinking of taking the plunge
and investing in the program. I'm just curious to see what people's long
term experiences are with those maps. I've always stuck to OS Explorer in
the past, apart from a Harveys Ben Nevis map, and certainly in Anquet the
OS
maps seem to be easier to read, particularly in 3D mode where the white
background emphasises the shape. Given that the Harveys maps are pretty
much
half the price of their OS equivalent they're certainly attractive, I'm
just
curious how they hold up in the field.

All that said, I'm assuming Anquet is still the preferred option over
Memory
Map (customer service still bad?) and Fugawi (dodgy height data still?).

A friend has ordered the Lakedistrict Harvey's Superscale. I'll visit him
in two weeks time. I myself use Anquet with OS maps. Very easy to use and
the 3D is magnificient. Just a pity that they don't have satellite pics from
Scotland.

--
Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net

Ian Gallimore said:

Do any of the Anquet users on here use the Harveys superscale map sets?
Having played with the demo for a while I'm thinking of taking the plunge
and investing in the program. I'm just curious to see what people's long
term experiences are with those maps. I've always stuck to OS Explorer in
the past, apart from a Harveys Ben Nevis map, and certainly in Anquet the OS
maps seem to be easier to read, particularly in 3D mode where the white
background emphasises the shape. Given that the Harveys maps are pretty much
half the price of their OS equivalent they're certainly attractive, I'm just
curious how they hold up in the field.

All that said, I'm assuming Anquet is still the preferred option over Memory
Map (customer service still bad?) and Fugawi (dodgy height data still?).

I've got the Anquet Harveys Superscale Highlands package, which, it
seems, is no longer being advertised on the Anquet web site. Although it
doesn't cover the whole of Scotland, it makes a good job in most of the
more popular areas.

I don't find the different colours etc. makes much difference, mostly
it's down to the different contours and the 1:25,000 scale. I find the
latter just takes a bit of getting used to, be it Harveys or OS. Having
said that, sometimes the 1:25,000 is just more useful.

As for choice of package, Memory Map and Anquet are still the
front-runners. This is backed by recent comparative reviews in Trail and
Mountain Bike rider. Anquet usually works out cheaper than MM.

druidh

Ian Gallimore said:

Do any of the Anquet users on here use the Harveys superscale map sets?
Having played with the demo for a while I'm thinking of taking the plunge
and investing in the program. I'm just curious to see what people's long
term experiences are with those maps. I've always stuck to OS Explorer in
the past, apart from a Harveys Ben Nevis map, and certainly in Anquet the OS
maps seem to be easier to read, particularly in 3D mode where the white
background emphasises the shape. Given that the Harveys maps are pretty much
half the price of their OS equivalent they're certainly attractive, I'm just
curious how they hold up in the field.

All that said, I'm assuming Anquet is still the preferred option over Memory
Map (customer service still bad?) and Fugawi (dodgy height data still?).

I've been using the anquet harvey's lake district map for about 18+
months. They seem a lot less cluttered than OS maps. Some of the marked
features like marshland, rocky areas and crags are in my experience very
accurately marked. Paths are also generally well marked using a heavy
dashed line instead of the faint dots used by OS. The only thing I've
never been able to get used to is the 15m contour interval - I've not
yet worked out why harvey's thought that was a good idea.

Tony

The message <[email hidden]>
from Tony Walsh <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

The only thing I've
never been able to get used to is the 15m contour interval - I've not
yet worked out why harvey's thought that was a good idea.

That's because you are too young to be familiar with the staple mapping
of my formative years - the now despised 1".

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 17 summits
New - 11 (Marilyns 0, Sweats 1, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 6 (Marilyns 1, Sweats 2, Wainwrights 6, Outlying Fells 0)

Tony Walsh said:

The only thing I've
never been able to get used to is the 15m contour interval - I've not
yet worked out why harvey's thought that was a good idea.

If you want to find out then look at the difference between 15 and 10m
contours somewhere steep... With 10m contours there is simply too much
information to get everything in! OS maps frequently remove contours
between references on really steep areas, and this isn't obvious until
you either look very closely at the map or find your descent plan is one
helluva lot steeper than you'd bargained for!

Probably the best example of Too Much Information is the OS 1:25K
Outdoor Leisure map of the Cuiilin, where there's so much brown it's
verging on impossible to follow the actual shape of the ridge. It's
/tricky/ on the standard Harveys, but the deliberately simplified,
exploded view on the back with /less/ information presented is actually
much, much clearer because it's much cleaner.

In a similar vein, Norwegian topo maps, that typically deal with more
relief than you have in the UK, have 20m contour intervals. Don't
forget that 10m has been selected to usefully portray the whole UK, and
map it at a standard, so you have something that needs to work
acceptably in Norfolk as well as Lochaber. For seriously steep stuff
though, and Harveys tend to concentrate on that sort of ground, bigger
contour intervals can actually make a lot of sense.

Having said that, it should be noted that many Harveys maps were
originally published at 1:40K, and the amount of information presented
had to fit in a smaller space. The reason for the expansion to 1:25K
seems to be marketing rearing its ugly head, with a common perception
that Bigger Is Better. Comparing the current 1:25K to the original
1:40K maps many were sourced from all you have is more paper, which
means more unwieldy in use and no extra detail, which I find /very/
annoying. The 1:40K from Harveys were originally made for KIMM mountain
marathon events, with mountain navigation by individuals a specific and
major point of their design, and for the most part they're as good as
anything I've seen. The 1:25K blowups of the same are poorer because
you could more info in the greater space and not lose clarity.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Its a personal thing... I am used to using and making orienteering
maps, and Harvey's seem much more familiar and comfortable to use, if
in an area with them. I can understand them being awkward to others.

But I treat them as a luxury, and would always go for the OS first,
even if I take the Harvey out with me. - there is always that place
just off the map you want to know about.

If there are forestry complictions, e.g. Galloway - get a copy of the
Harvey map. There it's essential.

Richard Webb

Quoted message said:

If you want to find out then look at the difference between 15 and 10m
contours somewhere steep... With 10m contours there is simply too much
information to get everything in! OS maps frequently remove contours
between references on really steep areas, and this isn't obvious until
you either look very closely at the map or find your descent plan is one
helluva lot steeper than you'd bargained for!

Its best to consider the interval on 1:50k maps in hilly areas as 50m,
the other contours disappear and are realy form lines.

They have the right idea with the 1:25k maps - 5m for lowlands and 10m
for the hills. As long as its clear. They MUST put this info in bold
at the top of the legend panel. They wont though....

Quoted message said:

Having said that, it should be noted that many Harveys maps were
originally published at 1:40K, and the amount of information presented
had to fit in a smaller space. The reason for the expansion to 1:25K
seems to be marketing rearing its ugly head, with a common perception
that Bigger Is Better.

Shame , as the 1:25s are really large print editions and should be
applauded as such. Unfortunately as you say marketing gets in and the
1:40s are either dropped , not published or hard to get.

Richard Webb

[email hidden] (RJ Webb) wrote in news:420f385e.7153781
@news.blueyonder.co.uk:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to find out then look at the difference between 15 and 10m
contours somewhere steep... With 10m contours there is simply too

much

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

information to get everything in! OS maps frequently remove contours
between references on really steep areas, and this isn't obvious until
you either look very closely at the map or find your descent plan is

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

helluva lot steeper than you'd bargained for!

Its best to consider the interval on 1:50k maps in hilly areas as 50m,
the other contours disappear and are realy form lines.

They have the right idea with the 1:25k maps - 5m for lowlands and 10m
for the hills. As long as its clear. They MUST put this info in bold
at the top of the legend panel. They wont though....

Quoted message said:

Having said that, it should be noted that many Harveys maps were
originally published at 1:40K, and the amount of information presented
had to fit in a smaller space. The reason for the expansion to 1:25K
seems to be marketing rearing its ugly head, with a common perception
that Bigger Is Better.

Shame , as the 1:25s are really large print editions and should be
applauded as such. Unfortunately as you say marketing gets in and the
1:40s are either dropped , not published or hard to get.

Richard Webb

I used to be a big fan of 1:25000 mainly because I liked the field
boundaries being shown. But that was before I did much walking
in the Highlands, where countours are your friend. I almost always
use 1:50000 now. I think Harveys win in lowland areas where the
detail is especially useful. Disappointed that a path on the
Water of Leith is shown incorrectly though :-(

druidh <[email hidden]> wrote in news:75HPd.13390$8B3.5579
@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

Quoted message said:

Adrian Tupper said:

[email hidden] (RJ Webb) wrote in news:420f385e.7153781
@news.blueyonder.co.uk:

Quoted message said:

I used to be a big fan of 1:25000 mainly because I liked the field
boundaries being shown. But that was before I did much walking
in the Highlands, where countours are your friend. I almost always
use 1:50000 now. I think Harveys win in lowland areas where the
detail is especially useful. Disappointed that a path on the
Water of Leith is shown incorrectly though :-(

Would that be at Blinkbonny?

You spotted it too then. Yes, it's the wrong side of the river.

--
Adrian

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only thing I've
never been able to get used to is the 15m contour interval - I've not
yet worked out why harvey's thought that was a good idea.

That's because you are too young to be familiar with the staple mapping
of my formative years - the now despised 1".

A swift bash with calc tells me that 15m ~ 50 feet :-) It's funny but I
think in miles for distance but metres for height these days :-)

--
Boo