Mt Hood maps

Cartography, maps, navigation, GPS and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
Chip Down
Posts: 1780
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Mt Hood maps

Post by Chip Down » August 10th, 2019, 1:49 pm

Continuing a discussion that started elsewhere:

I dislike my two printed Hood maps: Green Trails and Nat Geo. Actually, I dislike all maps, but some are better than others. My 1990 Geo-Graphics is most reliable for both natural features and man-made features. I like the fact that it shows abandoned trails, which can be fun to look for (three decades later, some remnants can be found). Snowfields and glaciers are accurately portrayed (funny that after thirty years of retreat, Geo-Graphics still shows where the snow is better than modern maps). Although roads and trails can change at any time, my antique map is sometimes more accurate than my new-ish maps. One complaint about the Geo-Graphics is it can be a little hard to read. For example, trails sometimes "disappear" when they run parallel to contour lines (as trails tend to do).

Webfoot asked what I think of Adventure Maps' offering. Hard to tell from an online preview screen. I suppose I'd have to spend some time with the full-size map before I could say. I like some things about it, but it's disappointing in other respects (as expected; hard to imagine any one map will be best by all criteria). Since I almost never carry a printed map anymore, it's nice to find one that is sold flat. Funny that it's twice the price, probably because the price includes shipping.

Share your tips and opinions below if you wish.

Webfoot
Posts: 1186
Joined: November 25th, 2015, 11:06 am
Location: Troutdale

Re: Mt Hood maps

Post by Webfoot » August 10th, 2019, 2:33 pm

I enjoy reviewing historic maps too. It makes me feel old to call 1990 historic but the size of trees that were seedlings then gives me little choice. Here are the full preview images for the Adventure Maps product, if they help you get a feel for it.

Image

Image

Image

justpeachy
Posts: 2767
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Mt Hood maps

Post by justpeachy » August 10th, 2019, 2:52 pm

I really like the Adventure Maps. I think own almost all of them now. They're probably my favorite, but the Green Trails maps are pretty great too, if not always quite as detailed. I like that Green Trails actually sends people out to hike the trails instead of just relying on third party data. I also like the National Geographic Trails Illustrated maps.

I love maps. Whenever we go someplace new I buy all the maps I can for the area: national forest map, ranger district map, wilderness map, and any maps created by private companies like Adventure Maps. And then I download several map layers for offline use in Gaia. I usually spend some time each evening on a trip studying the maps for fun. You can never have too many maps. :D

User avatar
aiwetir
Posts: 503
Joined: December 10th, 2014, 11:54 am
Contact:

Re: Mt Hood maps

Post by aiwetir » August 12th, 2019, 4:37 pm

I'll make anyone custom maps at just half the rate your car mechanic charges you. That's a deal at $60 an hour.
- Michael

User avatar
Chip Down
Posts: 1780
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Mt Hood maps

Post by Chip Down » August 13th, 2019, 6:48 pm

The Adventure maps have a curiously cartoony style, as if they don't want to be taken seriously, kind of a touristy feel. That doesn't make them inferior; in fact, in many respects it makes them easier to work with. That wouldn't keep me from buying one, but maybe in a brick/mortar store (where decisions are quick and based on first impressions) I might balk.
aiwetir wrote:
August 12th, 2019, 4:37 pm
I'll make anyone custom maps at just half the rate your car mechanic charges you. That's a deal at $60 an hour.
I can beat that: I'll work on your car for half of the Aiwetir Cartography rate. At $30/hr, that's a steal. Services I'm qualified to provide: Detailing, air filter changes on some models, tire inflation, headlight replacement. I can subcontract other services; inquire via PM for rates.

User avatar
aiwetir
Posts: 503
Joined: December 10th, 2014, 11:54 am
Contact:

Re: Mt Hood maps

Post by aiwetir » August 13th, 2019, 11:39 pm

Chip Down wrote: I can beat that: I'll work on your car for half of the Aiwetir Cartography rate. At $30/hr, that's a steal. Services I'm qualified to provide: Detailing, air filter changes on some models, tire inflation, headlight replacement. I can subcontract other services; inquire via PM for rates.
What would you charge to fix this?
5495-2019-06-01-10-19-27.jpg
- Michael

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12744
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Mt Hood maps

Post by retired jerry » August 14th, 2019, 5:18 am

That "cartoony style" is so old people can read it. I love it :)

Webfoot
Posts: 1186
Joined: November 25th, 2015, 11:06 am
Location: Troutdale

Re: Mt Hood maps

Post by Webfoot » August 14th, 2019, 10:59 am

Not only is it easier to read, the Mt Hood map at least appears to be far more accurate than either the USGS Quad or Ranger District maps, and it's waterproof.

User avatar
Chip Down
Posts: 1780
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: Mt Hood maps

Post by Chip Down » August 20th, 2019, 8:12 pm

Let's compare maps of my adventures last weekend.

I was trying to follow a knife-edge moraine magnetic-west to a broad spot where the moraine briefly flattened at a spot that presumably wasn't glacier carved at the last advance. This is shown very clearly on the Google map below (marked with "x"). In comparison, GeoGraphics and GreenTrails and NatGeo didn't portray this spot well. The representation on those maps don't conform to what I saw. It's tempting to say the Google map is just enhanced, not necessarily more accurate. But I guarantee nobody at Google is tinkering with how their map portrays some obscure moraine that nobody in their right mind hikes to or cares about. Clearly there's something in the Google algorithm that worked really well here (and, I'd bet, in countless other places). Even if it could be demonstrated that the Google map isn't objectively more accurate, I like how it looks. For trip planning and navigation, it gets a gold star from me.

So Google wins on topography/shading. Let's look at snow. GeoGraphics is always the clear winner. That 1990 map shows where perennial snow is, with great reliability. Other maps look like they were based on early July data, as if the cartographer picked a date at random, and didn't give an eff that there's a difference between seasonal snow and perennial snow. I don't get that. It's just bizarre.

Interesting that NatGeo and GreenTrails obviously share snow data, but there's a difference in water (creeks). Also, I like the elegant simplicity of GreenTrails, compared to the clumsy shading on NatGeo. (Google shades more than NatGeo, but I think they do a better job.)

I like the lack of extraneous junk on the Google map. The other three feature grid lines and other "helpful features".

Generally, I'm not a fan of Google maps. Accuracy is atrocious. But for this little excerpt, especially if you take out the snow from the other three to level the field, Google is easily the most useful.

There was some discussion of Adventure maps above. The little preview is hard to judge, but on the little segment I'm looking at here, they seem to do a pretty good job. It's possible Adventure would be my favorite here, but I'd have to see a full-size version to be sure. Maybe somebody who has the map can post the appropriate excerpt here.

Bonus comparison: Imagine you're at the lower left corner of the Google map, which is in Paradise Park, and you hike NE. Eventually you'll hit an obvious canyon rim. Looking at the map, it's hard to see that's it's pretty rugged terrain that most hikers would avoid dropping into, but at least you can see that there's the potential for difficult travel if you try to continue traveling NE. On the other three maps, most users wouldn't even notice. If you look at the other three maps, knowing that there's a canyon there, you can see it. But if you weren't forewarned, and you were looking at those maps blind, I bet you wouldn't recognize the difficulty that bearing poses.
Attachments
google.JPG
google
GeoGraphics1990.jpg
GeoGraphics 1990
GreenTrails2010.jpg
GreenTrails 2010 (disregard shading on right edge; that's just because it's a bad photo of a paper map)
NatGeo2012.jpg
NatGeo 2012

Aimless
Posts: 1471
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: Mt Hood maps

Post by Aimless » August 21st, 2019, 9:24 am

The Google map looks like it might be incorporating LIDAR images, which are available for the MT. Hood area largely because it is an active volcano near a population center. The other maps appear to be more 'shaded relief' or straight unshaded topo maps. The LIDAR stuff is amazingly detailed and easy to read.

Post Reply