UKC

The Ordnance Survey have altered their map rendering at 1:25,000 scale (explorer) with rock/crag detail being shown in an almost imperceptible light grey.

My personal opinion is that I think this change has made reading 1:25,000 mountain maps much more difficult. In fact I find the new maps so poor I refuse to buy any more, and am now currently buying any new explorer maps from Ebay, making sure they're the older style.

It is so frustrating to me that the 'perfect' map has taken a step backwards.

Anyone else feel the same?

I've written to OS with some questions and am waiting for a response

In reply to Jamie Hageman: I haven't seen this yet, so all the crag details are in grey? Do you have a link? Seems like it would be next to useless for micro nav etc

In reply to Jamie Hageman: Wasn't this done quite a while ago?

In reply to jezb1: Yes, a while back now. I've just been quietly fuming until now

In reply to ChrisHolloway1:

Not next to useless, just more difficult to read.

It's now really difficult to quickly visualise the steep ground, and be able to judge which slopes are going to be just about safe to descend, and which aren't. The pale grey is too pale

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

Sounds like this will make it easier to see and work off contours?

I've always found craggy ground on the 1:25s to be a hopeless mess of black hatching (which from experience can mean anything from a boulder field to Tower Ridge), with the countours largely obliterated as a result.

To my mind at least contour recognition/interpretation is THE fundamental nav skill; maybe someone agrees with me if the OS have made this change?

In reply to Jamie Bankhead: But at 1:25,000 scale, crag detail is rendered with great accuracy, not a mess of black hatching.

I've bought a new style Explorer map of Arran, and the intricate detail of the Rosa Pinnacle/Cir Mhor area is pale and insignificant. Yes, the contours are easy to see, but they were easy to see before. Now it's just very orange!

A large part of my work involves picturing and sketching ideas for paintings purely by looking at maps (this planning saves a lot of wandering around looking for the best views). Now I find it very difficult to visualise the way a mountain will look from different angles.

In reply to Jamie Hageman: I will also add that being short-sighted, I can focus on a map from literally 2 inches so can see its detail in full. I can imagine this sin't the case for an able-eyed person or someone suffering from long-sightedness

In reply to Jamie Hageman:
It sounds like they've reverted back to an even older (early 1980s?) and much less clear style of the sort that preceded the style we're used to. Comparing the rock/crag detail it was exactly the same, but much less clear and fainter on the older (early 1980s?) copy.

In reply to elsewhere: Not sure when the whole country was first mapped in 1:25,000 scale, but I have older 1970s Pathfinder maps and they're all fine.

In reply to Jamie Hageman: You're right though. I use my older maps when I can.

I heard the AMI had spoken to OS about this but that was just hearsay.

They're still very useable, but not, imo, as instantly clear.

In reply to Jamie Hageman:
that prompts me to look in my map box and find the OS Snowdonia 1:25000 Outdoor Leisure Map that I don't like - it says (c) 1977.
The rocks/crags are thin & grey rather than bold & black and I find it much less clear.
It may be I'm talking about the wrong map series, I'm only familiar with the Outdoor Leisure series for 1:25000.

In reply to elsewhere: Oh that's interesting to hear. Yes the Outdoor Leisure maps were key recreation areas, now replaced by Explorer over the whole of the British Isles.

In reply to jezb1:

Do you mean the AMI wanted the crag detail to be shown in pale grey, or they wanted to revert back to the black?

In reply to elsewhere:

No, they used to be much better. It seems that they have become continually less stylish and ever more difficult to read over the last 20-25 years. They must now rank as among the most un-stylish and un-user-friendly maps in the western world.

In reply to Jamie Hageman:
My least favourite map is 1:50000 with 50ft contours marked in metres, Landranger Glen Orchy (c) 1982 - always check you're not buying old stock!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
lets just hope it's not just our eyesight deteriorating...

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

I agree with that statement about the contours and nav Jamie, but I prefer having my contours represented at 1:50k scale (Landranger) - maybe blown up to 1:25K for ease of reading - and my crag/ridge detail in black on the Explorer 1:25k. I usually print off memorymap at both scales and have them back to back in my case.

Having said that I've not seen the new Explorer series yet.

In reply to Jamie Hageman: I "heard" they had received lots of negative comments regarding the change to the new style grey lines.

In reply to elsewhere:

Well, it is partly my eyesight deteriorating, but it is just so boring using maps where there is no attempt to help you read the contours, without shading. All this chasing around of contour lines with a magnifying glass to compare heights. Bear in mind that for a short while in the late 60s/early 70s the OS did have some stylish shaded one-inch maps. God knows why they gave up on that.

The embarrassment really kicks in when you go abroad and see how they do mountain maps in France, Switzerland, Germany and Norway, for example. And America.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Hi Gordon, I know we differ in opinion here because we've talked about this before, but I believe OS 1:25,000 maps to be more accurate than anything else I've seen. I agree that French/Swiss maps are beautiful to look at, but I see OS maps as beautiful too - beautiful in their mathematical and intricate detail.
Ps. did you see me on the telly? Oh dear!

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

I've been wearing glasses for a quarter of a century and had never realised that if I took them off I'd be able to see more detail! Thanks for the tip.... Doesn't work when I'm wearing contact lenses of course, which always am when out in the hills!

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

No, sorry, would love to have done. But I don't have a telly any more. (Not for about 4 years now ... and my quality of life has improved enormously thereby.)

In reply to Jamie Hageman:


Not sure if it's any help, or if you are aware, but Harveys do a 1:40,000 (and iirc 1:25,000) of Arran?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
But I don't have a telly any more. (Not for about 4 years now ... and my quality of life has improved enormously thereby.)

Gordon, Could you elaborate how your life has improved by not having a TV?

Serious question, as I've been trying ( coincidentally for about 4 years!) to persuade family to give up TV, even for a trial year!! Brick wall & head!
pad

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

One word solution for many areas: Harveys.

In reply to Toreador:

Actually my solution is to buy the slightly older versions on Ebay. Much as I admire Harveys as a small family-run business here in Scotland, I am used to and prefer reading OS maps.

In reply to Jamie Hageman:
Each to their own!
Harveys maps are much clearer to me, as they show relevant detail (form lines, and different coloured contours depending on terrain), while missing off superfluous noise like boundaries.

In reply to Toreador:

Problem I have with Harvey's is the 15m contour interval, just can't seem to get my head around it after years of using OS maps

In reply to Jamie Hageman: I always thought the crag details wern't accurate, and just existed to show craggy ground? Have I been doing it wrong for the past couple of years? :s

In reply to jdawg_85: At 1:25,000 scale, OS maps are pretty accurate with crag/rock detail. Small rocky gullies and ridges are shown with black outlines as they really are. Look at the Tower Ridge area of Ben Nevis at 1:25,000 scale. Glover's Chimney and Garadh Gully are both shown to be deep clefts with steep retaining walls. The same goes for the Central Gully L/Hand and R/Hand - both very complex and small features, but shown as they really are by the OS. Magic. It's just that now these features are very pale grey and hard to distinguish.

In reply to Jamie Hageman: it would be interesting to see a comparison if you have time. i'd also like to see you on tv- what program was it?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


This is where truly open OS mapping would be advantageous; third-party companies could take the mapping data, and present it in a way best suited to their customers. Want a map with relief shading? Go to ReliefShadingMapsRUs... As it is, we're stuck with the fudge mapping that OS provide.

Electronic mapping tools should be able to apply relief shading, and do all sorts of fancy tricks. Again, it would be better for companies to be able to use the underlying data, rather than using the OS mapping rasters (so vector mapping, rather than raster, allowing proper GIS mapping systems best suited to end user).

I used LandSerf to process SRTM data for a small area, used it to create a solar shading monochrome image, and added that to a section of OS mapping. It was the Brecon beacons, IIRC. It does make terrain much easier to interpret.

In theory, the new mapping imagery should be visible at the OS GetAMap interface, if someone can identify an example area to look at.

http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

Of course, the other point to make is that if you think the imagery is poor, tell the OS. If enough people do this, and present a cogent case, the OS may take notice. They certainly listen to accuracy issues.

In reply to captain paranoia: I have written to them and am waiting for a response. It was a nice letter not having a go at them, but asking questions like why had they changed to light grey? Who made the decision? Has anyone else complained?

In reply to Padraig:

Well, I am someone who has always preferred to do/create rather than spectate, and if I want to see a movie, like to see it in my local cinema (The Ritz, Belper - excellent). Otherwise, for news and current affairs, I used the internet ... which allows me to read or watch just what I want in my own time.

I have always seen my life as a series of creative projects, and typically find there are not nearly enough hours in the day. Not watching telly frees up several hours each day. Also, when I am not walking I much prefer to be having conversing with friends etc. either at home, or over a meal at a pub. Also, I like to read for several hours each day, both fiction and non-fiction. All this becomes much easier if one has not got a telly.

In reply to Jamie Hageman: to be honest i think its a better idea to have the crags in a slightly lighter grey anyway. you can see contour detail a bit clearer which is what you should be using for your micronav rather than the crag lines

In reply to Gordon Stainforth

It's not just me then, I often lose the contour somewhere when I'm having to follow it round the sides of a mountain, this is where different colours would help.