Streetmap.co.uk zoom levels

Terry Pinnell said:

Maybe I'm imagining it, but I seem to recall that I could click any of
the 7 little 'zoom level' indicators (bottom right of a map) and get a
map at that level of detail. But now there seems to be no consistent
relationship. Also, has changing the zoom level always caused a Large
map to revert to a small one? Or perhaps the site is broken?

How long ago could you do that? Clicking on the "rooves" between the +
and - always brings up a 3x3 map of OS 1:50k. I think it changed when
the OS changed the licence for the 1:50k mapping they use. Streetmap
are now doing all they can to limit the download of OS mapping since
the licence is now a pay per download rather than fixed fee which it
was originally. Clicking on results of searches takes you to other
mapping and there is a day number element in the URL for the OS 1:50k
mapping to prevent you linking to it.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In article <[email hidden]>, Terry Pinnell
said...

Quoted message said:

Maybe I'm imagining it,

You're not. Or if you are you're sharing my dreams...

Quoted message said:

but I seem to recall that I could click any of
the 7 little 'zoom level' indicators (bottom right of a map) and get a
map at that level of detail. But now there seems to be no consistent
relationship.

Plus, for various complicated reasons the 1:50,000 has disappeared
unless you know exactly how to find it.

Quoted message said:

Also, has changing the zoom level always caused a Large
map to revert to a small one? Or perhaps the site is broken?

I've not seen that one. Have you tried http://www.multimap.com? It
seems to be more user-friendly than streetmap, if only because you can
choose the scale (other than 1:50,000, presumably for the same
complicated reasons as on streetmap) in a format we can all
understand.
--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Terry Pinnell
said...

Quoted message said:

Maybe I'm imagining it,

You're not. Or if you are you're sharing my dreams...

Quoted message said:

but I seem to recall that I could click any of
the 7 little 'zoom level' indicators (bottom right of a map) and get a
map at that level of detail. But now there seems to be no consistent
relationship.

Plus, for various complicated reasons the 1:50,000 has disappeared
unless you know exactly how to find it.

Me no understand. I just find a place and click on the second biggest
house/roof and get the 1:50000. Or am I missing something?

--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Mannix said...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Terry Pinnell
said...

Quoted message said:

Maybe I'm imagining it,

You're not. Or if you are you're sharing my dreams...

Quoted message said:

but I seem to recall that I could click any of
the 7 little 'zoom level' indicators (bottom right of a map) and get a
map at that level of detail. But now there seems to be no consistent
relationship.

Plus, for various complicated reasons the 1:50,000 has disappeared
unless you know exactly how to find it.

Me no understand. I just find a place and click on the second biggest
house/roof and get the 1:50000. Or am I missing something?

Are you sure it's the 1:50,000? 1:25,000 is working as well as it
ever did on both mapping systems. I gather it's something to do with
good old OS wanting serious money from streetmap and multimap every
time it's used. Or something.

--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Mannix said...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Terry Pinnell
said...
> Maybe I'm imagining it,

You're not. Or if you are you're sharing my dreams...

> but I seem to recall that I could click any of
> the 7 little 'zoom level' indicators (bottom right of a map) and get a
> map at that level of detail. But now there seems to be no consistent
> relationship.

Plus, for various complicated reasons the 1:50,000 has disappeared
unless you know exactly how to find it.

Me no understand. I just find a place and click on the second biggest
house/roof and get the 1:50000. Or am I missing something?

Are you sure it's the 1:50,000? 1:25,000 is working as well as it
ever did on both mapping systems. I gather it's something to do with
good old OS wanting serious money from streetmap and multimap every
time it's used. Or something.

Well the actual scale depends on your display but 1:50000 footpaths are red
and 1:25000 footpaths are green. The ones on my streetmap are red (or am I
missing something again :o)

--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Phil Cook said:

Clicking on the "rooves" between the +
and - always brings up a 3x3 map of OS 1:50k. I think it changed when
the OS changed the licence for the 1:50k mapping they use.

Thanks - I'd missed that !

Daytona

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Mannix
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Mannix said...

Quoted message said:

"Fran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>, Terry Pinnell
> said...
>> Maybe I'm imagining it,
>
> You're not. Or if you are you're sharing my dreams...
>
>> but I seem to recall that I could click any of
>> the 7 little 'zoom level' indicators (bottom right of a map) and get a
>> map at that level of detail. But now there seems to be no consistent
>> relationship.
>
> Plus, for various complicated reasons the 1:50,000 has disappeared
> unless you know exactly how to find it.

Me no understand. I just find a place and click on the second biggest
house/roof and get the 1:50000. Or am I missing something?

Are you sure it's the 1:50,000? 1:25,000 is working as well as it
ever did on both mapping systems. I gather it's something to do with
good old OS wanting serious money from streetmap and multimap every
time it's used. Or something.

Well the actual scale depends on your display but 1:50000 footpaths are red
and 1:25000 footpaths are green. The ones on my streetmap are red (or am I
missing something again :o)

You are correct. I expect that the confusion has come from Multimap
calling the Landranger 1:50k tiles 1:25k. Real 1:25k tiles have green
rights of way as you say and can be seen on the OS getamap site at the
highest zoom.

--

Dominic Sexton

In article <[email hidden]>, Dominic Sexton said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Me no understand. I just find a place and click on the second biggest
> house/roof and get the 1:50000. Or am I missing something?
>
Are you sure it's the 1:50,000?

Well the actual scale depends on your display but 1:50000 footpaths are red
and 1:25000 footpaths are green. The ones on my streetmap are red (or am I
missing something again :o)

/me nips off quickly to compare Streetmap and Multimap with a paper
map of home area; fails to find paper map; remembers it fell apart and
therefore needs to be replaced.

Quoted message said:

You are correct. I expect that the confusion has come from Multimap
calling the Landranger 1:50k tiles 1:25k.

So: what I'm looking at on the Multimap site that calls itself 1:25k -
isn't? That explains everything. For some hitherto unheard of values
of 'everything'... It does explain why I've been confused though.
Any differences between electronic and paper maps I'd just been
putting down to the age of the paper maps. Maps here only get updated
after they fall apart, you see - which was why I was quite happily
using the 1"/mile map at the last Expedition in the ELD. It wasn't
until I actually studied it carefully that I even realised it wasn't
the same as everyone elses...

--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

"Dominic Sexton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Mannix
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Mannix said...
>
> "Fran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > In article <[email hidden]>, Terry
> > Pinnell
> > said...
> >> Maybe I'm imagining it,
> >
> > You're not. Or if you are you're sharing my dreams...
> >
> >> but I seem to recall that I could click any of
> >> the 7 little 'zoom level' indicators (bottom right of a map) and get
> >> a
> >> map at that level of detail. But now there seems to be no consistent
> >> relationship.
> >
> > Plus, for various complicated reasons the 1:50,000 has disappeared
> > unless you know exactly how to find it.
>
> Me no understand. I just find a place and click on the second biggest
> house/roof and get the 1:50000. Or am I missing something?
>
Are you sure it's the 1:50,000? 1:25,000 is working as well as it
ever did on both mapping systems. I gather it's something to do with
good old OS wanting serious money from streetmap and multimap every
time it's used. Or something.

Well the actual scale depends on your display but 1:50000 footpaths are
red
and 1:25000 footpaths are green. The ones on my streetmap are red (or am I
missing something again :o)

You are correct. I expect that the confusion has come from Multimap
calling the Landranger 1:50k tiles 1:25k. Real 1:25k tiles have green
rights of way as you say and can be seen on the OS getamap site at the
highest zoom.

Thanks for restoring my faith in my eyes! And apologies for sloppy wording,
you are, of course, correct in that the red/green things are ROW and not
"footpaths" (slapped wrist).

--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Quoted message said:

--

Dominic Sexton

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Dominic Sexton said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Me no understand. I just find a place and click on the second biggest
>> house/roof and get the 1:50000. Or am I missing something?
>>
> Are you sure it's the 1:50,000?

Well the actual scale depends on your display but 1:50000 footpaths are
red
and 1:25000 footpaths are green. The ones on my streetmap are red (or am
I
missing something again :o)

/me nips off quickly to compare Streetmap and Multimap with a paper
map of home area; fails to find paper map; remembers it fell apart and
therefore needs to be replaced.

Quoted message said:

You are correct. I expect that the confusion has come from Multimap
calling the Landranger 1:50k tiles 1:25k.

So: what I'm looking at on the Multimap site that calls itself 1:25k -
isn't? That explains everything. For some hitherto unheard of values
of 'everything'... It does explain why I've been confused though.
Any differences between electronic and paper maps I'd just been
putting down to the age of the paper maps. Maps here only get updated
after they fall apart, you see - which was why I was quite happily
using the 1"/mile map at the last Expedition in the ELD. It wasn't
until I actually studied it carefully that I even realised it wasn't
the same as everyone elses...

Ah, I see it all - now you have to get a big blue pen and colour in the
motorways (good rainy day job).

--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Mannix said...

Quoted message said:

Ah, I see it all - now you have to get a big blue pen and colour in the
motorways (good rainy day job).

I remember doing that to my monochrome A to Z when I was a student!
--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Fran <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Mannix said...

Quoted message said:

Ah, I see it all - now you have to get a big blue pen and colour in the
motorways (good rainy day job).

I remember doing that to my monochrome A to Z when I was a student!

When I was a student they was only up to 'H'.
8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:11:19 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
| wonderful person Fran <[email hidden]> said
| >In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Mannix said...
| >> Ah, I see it all - now you have to get a big blue pen and colour in the
| >> motorways (good rainy day job).
| >>
| >I remember doing that to my monochrome A to Z when I was a student!
|
| When I was a student they was only up to 'H'.
| 8>.

We used wedges stamped into clay tablets
<^>\/ d*mn spelt it wrong ;-)
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> http://www.webshots.com
Thousands of wonderful professional photos for your Wallpaper and
Screensaver. also 200,000 amateur pics. Four new pics each day.

multimap is easier to use... but the maps aren't as big as the 5x5 grid
in streetmap (so you have to do a lot more fiddly joining maps together
in word to get a decent-sized free map!)

Don't blame the OS for charging more to be quite honest. However,
it'll all be undone by the free government resources coming in:

http://www.magic.gov.uk/website/magic/
http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk/where_you_can_go.php

Both of these have free PROPER 1:25000 scale maps, and the magic site
even goes down to 1:10000 maps! The only trouble is that the maparea
is a bit tiddly.

Personally I think that the OS do such an amazing job that I'm more
than happy normally to support them by splashing out on a paper map if
I'm going to an area for a while - if the OS went under we might end up
with dire substitutes like the terrible Harvey's maps. Plus the OS
Explorer maps give you a bit more hill cred than a scruffy prinout from
multi/streetmap.

Unfortunately, for hill baggers (especially those doing the
widely-spaced county tops, like me) it would be prohibitively expensive
to buy the relevant OS map needed for each hill. So I'm forced to rely
on scruffy bits of paper. Sorry, Mr OS!

Sorry about that rant, time for bed I think.

Cheers

Anth

PS. Please link to www.wheresthepath.com

Quoted message said:

multimap is easier to use... but the maps aren't as big as the 5x5 grid
in streetmap (so you have to do a lot more fiddly joining maps together
in word to get a decent-sized free map!)

Don't blame the OS for charging more to be quite honest. However,
it'll all be undone by the free government resources coming in:

http://www.magic.gov.uk/website/magic/
http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk/where_you_can_go.php

Both of these have free PROPER 1:25000 scale maps, and the magic site
even goes down to 1:10000 maps! The only trouble is that the maparea
is a bit tiddly.

Personally I think that the OS do such an amazing job that I'm more
than happy normally to support them by splashing out on a paper map if
I'm going to an area for a while - if the OS went under we might end up
with dire substitutes like the terrible Harvey's maps. Plus the OS
Explorer maps give you a bit more hill cred than a scruffy prinout from
multi/streetmap.

Unfortunately, for hill baggers (especially those doing the
widely-spaced county tops, like me) it would be prohibitively expensive
to buy the relevant OS map needed for each hill. So I'm forced to rely
on scruffy bits of paper. Sorry, Mr OS!

Sorry about that rant, time for bed I think.

Cheers

Anth

PS. Please link to www.wheresthepath.com

Thanks for those great links, both of which look very useful.

I've only had time for a few minutes study of the first, but one
immediately apparent weakness for walkers is that (because of its
intended purpose) it doesn't show features in their familiar OS
colours. Roads, tracks, footpaths etc are all grey.

Also, I'm confused about scale again! At 25,000:1 I cannot see the
detail I'd expect. For example, near Forest Row there's Tablehurst
Farm, full Grid Reference: 543108, 135327 (TQ 431 353) but although
that's clear on my Explorer paper map (135: 'Ashdown Forest'😉, I
cannot read it on screen. If I zoom to 10,000:1 then it's just about
readable, but still rather blurred.

Whatever the problem is with my Firefox browser, as discussed in
separate thread in the context of the OS Get A Map site, it prevents
this site working properly too ;-(

For example, I was unable to print a map. Starting again in MSIE6, I
could do so OK.

However, from the 25,000:1 map, the result was totally unreadable.
Nothing like my 25,000:1 paper map, even in grey. Am I doing something
fundamentally wrong here, or is it inherent?

At 10,000:1 something odd happens too. Resolution plummets and
prolific MAGIC watermarks appear.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

Quoted message said:

Personally I think that the OS do such an amazing job that I'm more
than happy normally to support them by splashing out on a paper map if
I'm going to an area for a while

I also buy paper maps.

Quoted message said:

- if the OS went under we might end up
with dire substitutes like the terrible Harvey's maps.

I found the one Harvey map I own fine, at least it resists water. What
do you dislike about them?

Quoted message said:

Plus the OS
Explorer maps give you a bit more hill cred than a scruffy prinout from
multi/streetmap.

Nothing scruffy about my printouts, smudge a bit in the rain though.

AJH

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Personally I think that the OS do such an amazing job that I'm more
than happy normally to support them by splashing out on a paper map if
I'm going to an area for a while

I also buy paper maps.

Me too. I love the OS maps. These methods are complementary, not
either/or alternatives!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- if the OS went under we might end up
with dire substitutes like the terrible Harvey's maps.

Haven't seen those; where can I view one please?

Quoted message said:

I found the one Harvey map I own fine, at least it resists water. What
do you dislike about them?

Quoted message said:

Plus the OS
Explorer maps give you a bit more hill cred than a scruffy prinout from
multi/streetmap.

Nothing scruffy about my printouts, smudge a bit in the rain though.

AJH

I avoid that risk by putting mine into either an A4 size transparent
pocket (the same that I use for storing them in my binders), or (with
a little folding) into a standard map wallet.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

I'm also a big fan of the transparent A4 wallets for my scruffy
printouts. Have to insert the map the wrong way up though or they
simply fill up with rain!

Harvey's maps have a number of disadvantages in my opinion:
i) contour lines (bizarrely) at 15m intervals
ii) Everything feels a bit "big & clunky" - the lines are not quite as
fine as the OS, which make you feel they're not quite as accurate.
iii) Roads are all the same colour.
iv) Different colours for different land use may occasionally be
useful, but more usually make the map a confusing mess of colour that
draws attention away from more useful features
v) Some of their symbols are easily confused - eg field boundaries,
power lines, pipelines and paths that aren't official public rights of
way are all variants on the black line.

On the plus side, Harvey do have different symbols for paths depending
on whether they're visible on the ground or not (athough this may
obviously depend on season). Their maps are slightly more
weather-resistant than the standard OS maps. They also do useful strip
maps of the National Trails which would be cheaper than buying all the
OS maps (but they're still about the same price as the superb Aurum
Press National Trail guides which have strip OS 1:25000 maps).

My main gripe with Harveys are their lack of clarity compared to the OS
ones. They are clearly aiming their product at walkers though, and
it'll be interesting to see if they improve with time...

Cheers

Anth

PS Please link to www.wheresthepath.com

Quoted message said:

My main gripe with Harveys are their lack of clarity compared to the OS
ones. They are clearly aiming their product at walkers though, and
it'll be interesting to see if they improve with time...

No they have deteriorated with time.. The old 1:40 000 were clear and
a joy to use.

The land use colours are standard on Scandinavian maps anda re very
useful in hill country

As for the contour interval, who cares... 12.63468m interval is fine
as long as the shape of the land is shown, and you dont end up with a
confusing mass of brown.... 15m was OK for the OS until 1976 BTW.
They called it 50 feet.

Richard Webb