just been reading a guide book of mine for Scotland and seen these Harvey maps?
looking online but not sure if they are any good compared to the typical OS maps ?
do they really show the crags/ climbs on there too?
what’s the difference between Harvey map and OS map ?
They are on a different scale, 1:40000 on the mountain map version and have a different contour interval which can be a bit funky If you are swapping between them and 1:25/50k.
They often have blown up areas of interest at a larger scale and sometimes feature prominent crags with basic topos. They also often have geographic info too.
I find the contour colours easier to read than OS and find them quite user friendly for quick big feature nav (real world nav).
Harvey maps started as a specialist producer of orienteering maps and for many years they produced special maps for the Karrimor Mountain Marathon races. They beat OS maps into the proverbial cocked hat. The cartography is extremely clear and the detail is greater than OS 1:50,000. For many purposes the OS 1:25,000 maps have too much detail but the Harvey maps are much more discriminating in what they show and what is too small to show usefully. The 1:40,000 scale Harveys use typically is the perfect compromise and makes the maps much less bulky.
Other useful features include the contours changing from brown to black on steep rocky terrain; colours to distinguish different land use/vegetation; maps usually printed on waterproof material so map case not needed.
The contours, which are the most important thing on a mountaineering map, are produced by Harveys photogrammetry based on Harvey arial photography and show a remarkable amount o detail for those who understand those brown squiggles.
Harvey maps don't include all the administrative 'clutter' that OS maps have to show (especially various administrative boundaries), they're designed specifically for walkers / mountaineers / climbers etc. Yes, they take a little bit of adjusting to, and I still use the OS 1:25s when walking in the Brecon Beacons but that's because I'm familiar with them. In Scotland I'll take a Harvey over an OS any day. The scale of 1:40k is much more useful for Scottish hillwalking and as others have said, they show the topography much more clearly through the clever use of shading.
They show major climbing areas for both summer and winter.
They're also a thing of beauty and the recent Harvey map volume of the Munros is a fab present to any Scottish hill-lover (or to oneself!!)
> They beat OS maps into the proverbial cocked hat.
I think it's a personal preference thing rather than one being better than the other.
Harveys also do 1:25000 Super Walker maps tnat are very clear and have all the info you need to navigate without too much clutter.
In my experience, particularly in upland areas, Harvey's map are much more precise. If the map show a crag/boulder then there is a crag/boulder just there, whereas on OS maps the 'topography artists' just seems to scatter rocky symbols around to indicate generally rocky areas without much attention to specific details or locations. I also tend to find the scale and size of Harveys maps more convenient when out in the hills.
> whereas on OS maps the 'topography artists' just seems to scatter rocky symbols around to indicate generally rocky areas without much attention to specific details or locations.
You've exactly put into words what I wanted, but failed to say.
Harvey's don't cover everywhere. I like them, I also like OS, it's good to use both. You can get Harvey's on the viewranger app, so I have both on there and can use whichever fits best for what I am doing
I've just received a new Harvey map of the Cuillin. It's double sided -one side is 1:25000 and the other shows greater detail of the ridge at 1:12500. There is also a very useful inset diagram showing routes across the ridge which I shall make use of at my next visit. Their maps often show very large individual boulders which can be a big help in certain circumstances. I think I'm right in saying they show the huge boulder on the floor of the Lost Valley in Glencoe. I highly recommend them.
> I've just received a new Harvey map of the Cuillin. It's double sided -one side is 1:25000 and the other shows greater detail of the ridge at 1:12500. There is also a very useful inset diagram showing routes across the ridge which I shall make use of at my next visit.
Second this. Once you've used a Harvey's for the Cuillin you'll never go back!
It's a personal preference thing. I tried them years ago when they were first bringing out general use maps rather than just orienteering maps but never got on with them on the hills. Mainly, I think, because I find the scale and contour intervals are not intuitive, which I think they are on OS maps. (I've always liked them for looking at in the warmth of my house for route planning though). Navigationally when the pressure is on I think I'm less likely to make an error in calculation than I am with Harveys. I'm in Scotland and exclusively use 1:50k which admittedly are not perfect but certainly plenty good enough. I think the contour interpretation is absolutely fine (although I've always wondered why they don't put fence lines on - anyone know?).
The positive comments on here though are making me reconsider so I think I'll give them another look. Maybe the switch in scale and contour interval is worth the effort.
Friend of mine is pretty senior in the OS, he's a Harvey fan but you mustn't tell anyone.
> Second this. Once you've used a Harvey's for the Cuillin you'll never go back!
This is fabulously ambiguous!
The scale "oddity " in my view is not an issue because a grid square is still 1km.
As an orienteer at the time they first came out I had no difficulty tuning in to Harvey maps, and I used them for several years in the 70s doing the KIMM.
any idea where i can buy other than online?
Quite a lot of outdoor shops sell them.
I love the BMC/Harvey Lake District mashup Collab thing. It's the best map in the entire world.
My first experience of Harvey was my first OMM. This was a deeply traumatic initiation involving being completely perplexed by the scale and being overwhelmingly uncertain at every turn.
Since then though, I love a Harvey map.
You may be a bit young but did you ever orienteer against Keith Picksley?
I looked at your name and wondered. Indeed, I knew Keith quite well, but haven't orienteered for about 25 years, so lost touch with most of my old competitors. I started in the very early days of the sport in this country, as did Keith, in 1968 I think. Is Keith your Dad?
He is indeed my dad. I'm James, the youngest son. I thought I recognised your name as well. Yes, he was an early adopter! Along with Bert Bradshaw. He's 82 now. Still lives in nottingham. Unfortunately he's a widower and has the early stages of dementia. I'll talk to him about you when I'm next home. See what he can dredge up. I hope you're well, Roger. Nice to speak to you. I'll retry Harvey's maps based on your positive comments. Take care.
Give him my regards.
Harveys maps often seem to cover more logical areas so that you don't need to carry two OS maps. Being waterproof and easy to fold are both plus points - but you can rub the print off completely so beware of map constantly rubbing against other things in pockets or rucksacs. After solely using OS for many years I still struggle to get my head round the maths with the 1:40,00 scale though!
> After solely using OS for many years I still struggle to get my head round the maths with the 1:40,00 scale though!
I'd be interested to hear what maths you might need to do.
I think the 1981 Karrimor (Langdale), which was my first, was the first time I'd come across Tyvek as a map base. Overnight snow, a very rude awakening !
I'll try to explain my issue with the 1:40k scale and I'd be interested in you telling me if I'm completely wrong/missing something and/or a quick way of making it easier.
With a 1:50k I know that 2cm = 1km, so 20mm = 1km, so 1mm=50m. I like to use my ruler rather than the romer as I think it's more accurate. This is easy and intuitive for me, so when I'm under pressure I can be confident in my working and accurate with the ruler.
With 1:40k, 2.5cm=1km, so 25mm = 1km, so 2.5mm = 100m, so 1.25mm = 50m. Yes, I can do the maths but I don't think it's as intuitive and I think I'm more likely to take longer and make an error when under pressure. I also don't like having memory prompts on bits of card. I like to be able to do it fast and in my head particularly in the middle of winter on the Cairngorm plateau.
Have I got something horribly and embarrassingly wrong here? Is there some trick I'm missing?
I'd appreciate your input.
Hmm. How did people cope with 1: 63360, I wonder.?
> (although I've always wondered why they don't put fence lines on - anyone know?)
I don't know but I've occasionally found it really frustrating. It's all well and good up in the mountains but it can be infuriating when you're nearly back at the road after a long day, and suddenly find that the way is either barred or rather trickier than you imagined.
> Hmm. How did people cope with 1: 63360, I wonder.?
Used a ruler marked in inches?
> Hmm. How did people cope with 1: 63360, I wonder.?
Used a ruler marked in inches?
Edit: Maybe that's the idea of Harvey Maps. 1 Inch = 1 km, what could be simpler?
Keith Picksley was my geography teacher in the early to mid 70s and inspired me to take up cross country running - a fine teacher - sad to hear of his current circumstances
That is a really kind message. Thank you.
Some probably did but I never took a ruler out with me. In the days before I owned a Silva compass and protractor I used an army stores compass and two fingers to represent a mile.
Even now when skywatching I guesstimate 10 degrees by using a closed fist upright and 2 degrees for a finger.
You measure in degrees not mils?
One big advantage of the Harvey maps is the waterproof paper which makes using them in foul weather much easier than OS maps. But as has been said, they don't cover all areas so a mix of OS and Harveys seems best. They also do great linear maps for long distance trails.
The BMC Harvey maps are great to use, with higher resolution for key crags. The BMC shop has these and other good specialist UK mountain maps as well.
For instance ISS visibility predictions are in degrees so I know that any path lower than three fists isn't worth going outside for because of trees and buildings.
Distances between objects for telescope/ binocular viewing are usually in arc minutes and arcseconds and I struggle to find body parts to match that sort of range......
I think the difference is that you are trying to be very accurate. I really like the 1:40k scale on Harveys and have done a fair few mountain marathons so have adjusted to the scale accordingly. When running and navigating on the fly, I00m accuracy is enough as I'm trying to pick a feature and a tactic that will allow me to keep running until I hit something that I can handrail/use to guide me in. It's as much about navigating the features and terrain than accurate distance, I have always felt i can get a reasonably accurate mental map of the ground from the contours etc on the map.
I have a jet compass with a bit of tape on the side marked with 100m intervals for a 1:40k. If it's between the intervals I'll add 50m on.
That's sounds like a good strategy. I suspect I need to give it a few goes and see if I get used to it. And I can also use the romer scale, of course, which may well give me enough accuracy. To be fair, I have got a couple and like using them at home for planning so I'm not dead set against them. I just never got used to them in the hills. Time to buy a couple, try again then and embrace change! Thanks for the reply.
Harvey maps are great, apart from 15m contour lines. Bit more maths needed compared to OS 10m contours.
On the plus side, when going from OS to Harvey everything looks much flatter and steep hills look much more feasible.
Just seen your surname. Don't tell me, you're son or grandson of Bert Bradshaw, (mentioned by James Picksley above, and another early Notts orienteer).
Except when orienteering I've never really found a problem such as you're describing. Grid squares on all scales of map represent 1km and I've never found it difficult to look at a distance I'm about to cover and match it up to the nearest grid square. It's only really the same as you're doing when you give a 6 figure grid reference, i.e. estimating tenths of a grid square each of which then give you 100m which is enough for most purposes. I do remember having orienteering compasses which had interchangeable scales for different map scales which fitted on the front of the compass base plate. I also remember making my own paper scales and taping them to the front of the compass. I'm not sure if the above answers your question or not, but it seems to me that it cuts out the maths and works for any map scales which uses the national grid.
It doesn't help with actually pacing out a distance, say in a white-out. Under orienteering conditions it was usually easy to know how many double paces you did for 100m and could make small adjustments according to whether you were going uphill or whether you were on a path or not. From what I remember about being on the Cairngorm plateau in a howling gale trying to pace across a snow-covered area of scree and boulders in darkness or white-out accuracy was totally impossible. If I were still doing such things - I'm not - I'd be using a GPS.
Your posts have reminded me how much I enjoyed orienteering, either midweek club events or full national badge events. There was quite a bit of crossover in this area which got me involved in one off annual challenges like the Headstone Headache and easier fell races like the Tigger Tor, and eventually The Trunce which had its own cult status even thirty years ago (870).
> The contours, which are the most important thing on a mountaineering map, are produced by Harveys photogrammetry based on Harvey arial photography and show a remarkable amount o detail for those who understand those brown squiggles.
Is this definitely true? The OS do a lot of "smoothing" in their contours (by choice) but I think the underlying data is quite possibly the same. There are also quite a few areas (admittedly fewer mountainous) with open LIDAR data which has far greater precision and accuracy than photogrammetry derived data.
Easy, 1/8th inch = 1/8th mile and similar
Simplest way I've found to deal with 1:40k, 1:25k or 1:50k is to remember that a grid square is a kilometre ( even on 1: 63350 IIRC).
Harveys deserve a Nobel Prize for their Ultramap series. These revolutionise map carrying for any hills they cover. Tiny, intelligent coverage, double sided, waterproof. If you haven't seen them, go have a look.
Just been in to Harveys in Doune to pick up the fantastic new "the Munros - the complete collection of maps" book. They are selling out fast and will, I'm sure, need a reprint soon, so grab one while you can. Second the comment on the Ultramaps - couldn't resist picking up a couple of those as well.
I saw that book, and it looks very nice - but what actual use does it have? You're not exactly going to take it out on the hill!
Well, it's a planning book, for starters, instead of rummelling through all your full size maps and unfolding full size map sheets. And, obviously, you can flip between options in seconds. In the same way, you're not going to carry The Munros, or The Corbetts or The Grahams on the hill either.
And, I'd say, it's also quite a beautiful book, in its own right.
No doubt there will be various opinions, and the sales will speak for themselves.
It's just for looking at, surely? I can gaze at maps of interesting areas for hours!
Each to their own - personally I rather like rummelling through my maps and unfolding them!
But unless I'm wrong, many/most of the hills aren't currently available on individual Harvey maps, I'd rather they made them available this way.
One of four Olympic selection events that were postponed three times this year finally happened last week: the IFSC European Championships in Moscow. A 10-day climbing marathon of individual Speed, Boulder and Lead events and the all-important...