Anquet Maps

Quoted message said:

Just been looking at getting round to buying the Anquet
1:25 000 OS CD ROM. RRP is £80 but I thought I would have a
look at amazon.co.uk and I came up with this result

on.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904809138/ref=pd_sim_b_dp_1/026-
7469755-7284403

Seems to say the item is a book priced at £56 but sounds
like it is the CD ROM.

Any ideas as it could be quite a good buy. Other areas are
also available priced the same

I would imagine this is the 2003 Anquet CD ROM based on
Harvey maps, without the *Virtual Landscape* (3D) extras.
The current 1:25,000 product is based on OS 1:25,000 maps.
If you don't need the 3D features, or OS mapping, then I'd
say this was a good buy. The 3D Harvey maps will be
available later this month.
anquet.co.uknews item.aspOpen ↗

Chris said:

Quoted message said:

Just been looking at getting round to buying the Anquet
1:25 000 OS CD ROM. RRP is £80 but I thought I would have
a look at amazon.co.uk and I came up with this result

zon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904809138/ref=pd_sim_b_dp_1/026-
7469755-7284403

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seems to say the item is a book priced at £56 but sounds
like it is the CD ROM.

Any ideas as it could be quite a good buy. Other areas
are also available priced the same

I would imagine this is the 2003 Anquet CD ROM based on
Harvey maps, without the *Virtual Landscape* (3D) extras.
The current 1:25,000 product is based on OS 1:25,000 maps.
If you don't need the 3D features, or OS mapping, then I'd
say this was a good buy.

If it's as you describe, I'd suggest its NOT a good buy. The
Anquet link you gave (below) suggests the new Harvey based
product will cost £55 at the end of this month, which is
less than the Amazon price....

Quoted message said:

The 3D Harvey maps will be available later this month.
anquet.co.uknews item.aspOpen ↗

- Nigel

--
NC - Webmaster for 2mm.org.uk2mm.org.ukOpen ↗ Replies to
newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

Chris said:

I would imagine this is the 2003 Anquet CD ROM based on
Harvey maps, without the *Virtual Landscape* (3D) extras.
The current 1:25,000 product is based on OS 1:25,000 maps.
If you don't need the 3D features, or OS mapping, then I'd
say this was a good buy.

The 3D update can easily be downloaded from their site, but
you do have to be the registered owner to get it and you can
only use it on one computer (stupid XP registration thing).

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

NC said:

If it's as you describe, I'd suggest its NOT a good buy.
The Anquet link you gave (below) suggests the new Harvey
based product will cost £55 at the end of this month, which
is less than the Amazon price....

I agree - I didn't notice the proposed price. 😉

Just had a look at Anquet and notice the £55 price is for
Harvey maps. OS
1:25000 are going to cost £80. Suspect the Amazon link is
talking about the Harvey map.

Think I'll go for the OS version. I do prefer the look. Just
can't get used to Harvey's.

Mike Mason

"Chris" <proteus1@gmxDOTnet> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

NC said:

If it's as you describe, I'd suggest its NOT a good buy.
The Anquet link

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gave (below) suggests the new Harvey based product will
cost £55 at the

end

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of this month, which is less than the Amazon price....

I agree - I didn't notice the proposed price. 😉

Just done a quick look on the net. Cheapest OS 1:25000 so
far are £72.50 from

nav-e-gate4less.co.uknav-e-gate4less.co.ukOpen ↗.

Mike Mason

"Mike Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just had a look at Anquet and notice the £55 price is for
Harvey maps. OS
1:25000 are going to cost £80. Suspect the Amazon link is
talking about

the

Quoted message said:

Harvey map.

Think I'll go for the OS version. I do prefer the look.
Just can't get

used

Quoted message said:

to Harvey's.

Mike Mason

"Chris" <proteus1@gmxDOTnet> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

NC said:

If it's as you describe, I'd suggest its NOT a good
buy. The Anquet

link

Quoted message said:

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gave (below) suggests the new Harvey based product will
cost £55 at the

end

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of this month, which is less than the Amazon price....

I agree - I didn't notice the proposed price. 😉

Mike Mason said:

Think I'll go for the OS version. I do prefer the look.
Just can't get used to Harvey's.

The one thing that does bug me about the otherwise excellent
Harveys maps are the silly 15m contour lines. And the fact
that their area coverage is so small.

Oh that's two things...

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Mike Mason said:

Suspect the Amazon link is talking about the Harvey map.

I hate to be a smart [censored] but the Amazon page does state:

Publisher: Harvey Map Services

Interesting this current flurry of interest in Anquet...
imho the poorer product of those available ;-)

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
thenmc.org.ukindex.phpOpen ↗

NMC website: thenmc.org.ukthenmc.org.ukOpen ↗

Steve Orrell said:

Interesting this current flurry of interest in Anquet...
imho the poorer product of those available ;-)

In what way exactly? Seems to me that each has different
advantages and disadvantages.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

Mike Mason said:

Think I'll go for the OS version. I do prefer the look.
Just can't get used to Harvey's.

The one thing that does bug me about the otherwise
excellent Harveys maps are the silly 15m contour lines. And
the fact that their area coverage is so small.

Oh that's two things...

15m = 50'

A lot of us grew up on them.

Remember in the hills the 1:50k interval is 50m. There may
be 10 m ones between, but they are apt to dissapear when it
gets steep. These contours are really form lines.

Richard Webb

Yes but goes on to list maps that Anquet don't do in the
Harvey series as far as I can see. Looking on the Anquet
site they only do the Lakes and the Dales in the super scale
series. Now if these were the OS maps I'd be in like a shot
for a full set at that price.

Mike Mason

<Steve Orrell> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Mason said:

Suspect the Amazon link is talking about the Harvey map.

I hate to be a smart [censored] but the Amazon page does state:

Publisher: Harvey Map Services

Interesting this current flurry of interest in Anquet...
imho the poorer product of those available ;-)

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
thenmc.org.ukindex.phpOpen ↗

NMC website: thenmc.org.ukthenmc.org.ukOpen ↗

RJ Webb said:

15m = 50'

I know.

Quoted message said:

A lot of us grew up on them.

So did I, but the OS dispensed with them a long time ago,
and a good thing IMO. Imperial is redundant now. I wish
people would stop clinging to it.

Fact is, the maps are metric, and 15m contour lines don't
make logical sense. They're inconvenient to read when you
need to work out the height from the contours.

Quoted message said:

Remember in the hills the 1:50k interval is 50m.

No, it's 10m.

Quoted message said:

There may be 10 m ones between,

Exactly.

Quoted message said:

but they are apt to dissapear when it gets steep.

In which case that's not a problem. But I always use 25k
maps in the hills anyway. (Explorer 10 - Gower - uses 5m
contour lines).

Quoted message said:

These contours are really form lines.

You mean the 50m contours are form lines?

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

Steve Orrell said:

Interesting this current flurry of interest in Anquet...
imho the poorer product of those available ;-)

In what way exactly? Seems to me that each has different
advantages and disadvantages.

Oh, go on then, put me on the spot why don't you!! ;-) (I
just knew, as I was writing it, that someone would ask me
that bliddy question!! :-)

Ho hum, spose I'd better dust me cobwebs off then; istr that
it was in the area of working with GPS tracklogs and
waypoints where Anquet was particularly poor. Not a problem
if GPS tracklogs (and editting therefore, etc.) is not
something you're interested in.

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
thenmc.org.ukindex.phpOpen ↗

NMC website: thenmc.org.ukthenmc.org.ukOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

Steve Orrell said:

Interesting this current flurry of interest in Anquet...
imho the poorer product of those available ;-)

In what way exactly? Seems to me that each has different
advantages and disadvantages.

I often see MM and Anquet mentioned; are the others not
worth considering ? I bought a Tracklogs map to see what it
was like, but haven't tried the big names.

Tracklogs has 3D views (no photos), some GPS support
(Garmin only) and a more flexible purchasing plan that
allows either a whole region to be bought or just a single
OS-equivalent map. They also have 1:25000 maps of the
entire country rather than just a few areas, but these can
only be bought individually so the cost for the whole
country would be huge.

-adrian

Steve Orrell said:

Ho hum, spose I'd better dust me cobwebs off then; istr
that it was in the area of working with GPS tracklogs and
waypoints where Anquet was particularly poor. Not a
problem if GPS tracklogs (and editting therefore, etc.) is
not something you're interested in.

Yep, that's right. Anquet is poor for GPS use. MM has the
advantage of aerial photography, but from what I've seen of
the MM demo, Anquet has better 3D implementation.

I know that MM said they've improved the 3D, allowing you to
fly through the terrain like Anquet, but the great thing
about the Anquet 3D is that it shows a long distance, so you
can perch yourself on a mountain top and scroll around to
see exactly what you would see in real life. With MM it only
shows a small section so you can't see distant hills. Fine
for looking down on a scene but not much good for getting a
wider view of the landscape.

I haven't seen the MM improvement myself so I don't know if
they've increased the visible distance. Anyone know?

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

RJ Webb said:

15m = 50'

I know.

Quoted message said:

A lot of us grew up on them.

So did I, but the OS dispensed with them a long time ago,
and a good thing IMO. Imperial is redundant now. I wish
people would stop clinging to it.

Units are irrelevant. Contour's job is to show the shape of
the land. Besides 15m is also 15m.

Quoted message said:

Fact is, the maps are metric, and 15m contour lines don't
make logical sense. They're inconvenient to read when you
need to work out the height from the contours.

relative height is what bothers me.. I want to know how much
slog there is.. Just count them,.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Remember in the hills the 1:50k interval is 50m.

No, it's 10m.

Not in parts of Scotland isnt. It may be 10m.... Or it may
not. Minimum consistant Contour interval is 50m.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There may be 10 m ones between,

Exactly.

May be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but they are apt to dissapear when it gets steep.

In which case that's not a problem. But I always use 25k
maps in the hills anyway. (Explorer 10 - Gower - uses 5m
contour lines).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

These contours are really form lines.

You mean the 50m contours are form lines?

No a form line is an incomplete intermediate contour. ie a
10m contour on a biggish hill.

Formlines have ends, contours are loops.

Richard Webb

Quoted message said:

I often see MM and Anquet mentioned; are the others not
worth considering ?

Don't know. Haven't tried them so I can't comment.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve Orrell said:

Ho hum, spose I'd better dust me cobwebs off then; istr
that it was in the area of working with GPS tracklogs
and waypoints where Anquet was particularly poor. Not a
problem if GPS tracklogs (and editting therefore, etc.)
is not something you're interested in.

Yep, that's right. Anquet is poor for GPS use. MM has the
advantage of aerial photography, but from what I've seen
of the MM demo, Anquet has better 3D implementation.

I know that MM said they've improved the 3D, allowing you
to fly through the terrain like Anquet, but the great
thing about the Anquet 3D is that it shows a long
distance, so you can perch yourself on a mountain top and
scroll around to see exactly what you would see in real
life. With MM it only shows a small section so you can't
see distant hills. Fine for looking down on a scene but
not much good for getting a wider view of the landscape.

I haven't seen the MM improvement myself so I don't know
if they've increased the visible distance. Anyone know?

Paul

I've seen MM on a large screen at George Fisher's in Keswick
and I found the aerial photography very impressive (but not
available for Scotland, my favorite part of GB) but the 3D
is still just the tile, like a square island floating in
space. With Anquet you can see 'all the way' and fly a route
from Land's End to John O'Groats. You can stop anywhere you
like and have a look around. I almost feel like a
millionaire with my private helicopter. It would be perfect
with aerial photography.

Theo

RJ Webb said:

Units are irrelevant.

No they're not. I often work out heights from contours.

Quoted message said:

Contour's job is to show the shape of the land.

And that.

Quoted message said:

Besides 15m is also 15m.

And 15m is an inconvenient value when you're trying to work
out the approximate height of a specific location. Having
bold contours with values like 375m and 525m is just plain
daft (great if you like to convert back and think in feet,
but that doesn't work anyway - 525m = 1722ft) and having
"form lines" as you call them confuses the issue even more
(Harveys use a lot of "auxilary contours"😉. Using metric is
supposed to make things easier, not harder. 15m contours
don't contribute to ease of use.

Quoted message said:

relative height is what bothers me..

Different people have different uses for maps.

Quoted message said:

I want to know how much slog there is.. Just count them,.

I want to know absolute heights, so I have to check the non-
round value of the nearest thick contour line, count the
additional contours (making sure I don't accidentally
include any auxilary contours), multiply by 15, add to the
non-rounded figure. Simple eh?

I'm not saying I can't do that but I don't have that
much hassle with 10m contour lines. I'm not saying
it's particularly difficult, it's just not as simple
as it could be.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, it's 10m.

Not in parts of Scotland isnt. It may be 10m.... Or it may
not. Minimum consistant Contour interval is 50m.

You're obsessing too much with steep slopes. Most contours
on most maps are 10m. Even if they do sometimes disappear
there's no problem with 50m intervals - every other one is a
nice round 100m interval, unlike the 75m bold contours on
Harveys maps, every four of which give a 300m interval - not
convenient!

Quoted message said:

No a form line is an incomplete intermediate contour. ie a
10m contour on a biggish hill.

Formlines have ends, contours are loops.

Most 10m contours on most 50k maps are loops, not formlines.
Only occasionally do they disappear. Harveys "auxilary"
contours are a much better implementation of formlines, they
don't usually go on for long and they are dashed to
differentiate them (although it's not often very clear).

In fact, why do Harveys use so many auxilary contours?
Perhaps because the 15m interval is just to big, they
frequently need to fill in the gaps. They wouldn't have that
problem if they just used 10m intervals in the first place.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗