1:50k Ordnance Survey Maps - Are they good enough

[Stompy]

I've got a SatMap Active 10 GPSr and have been using 1:25k (explorer) level OS maps with it for Geo Caching and it works a treat. But.... The 1:25k scale maps are expensive so was looking at buying a 1:50k (Landranger) scale card which will cover a larger area for less cost. But before I buy, does anyone have a view to whether the 1:50k scale is sufficient detail for Geocaching.

 

Any views or expeiriences of using this scale are greatly received.

[+melmur]

I've got a SatMap Active 10 GPSr and have been using 1:25k (explorer) level OS maps with it for Geo Caching and it works a treat. But.... The 1:25k scale maps are expensive so was looking at buying a 1:50k (Landranger) scale card which will cover a larger area for less cost. But before I buy, does anyone have a view to whether the 1:50k scale is sufficient detail for Geocaching.

 

Any views or expeiriences of using this scale are greatly received.

 

1:50k is plenty detailed enough. You only need 1:25k maps if you're micronavving (& I don't mean finding stupid little film containers). I have 1:25k and 1:50k for Memory map, so I tend to use the 1:25k more, but there really is no need though.

[+bouton]

I've got a SatMap Active 10 GPSr and have been using 1:25k (explorer) level OS maps with it for Geo Caching and it works a treat. But.... The 1:25k scale maps are expensive so was looking at buying a 1:50k (Landranger) scale card which will cover a larger area for less cost. But before I buy, does anyone have a view to whether the 1:50k scale is sufficient detail for Geocaching.

 

Any views or expeiriences of using this scale are greatly received.

 

1:50k is plenty detailed enough. You only need 1:25k maps if you're micronavving (& I don't mean finding stupid little film containers). I have 1:25k and 1:50k for Memory map, so I tend to use the 1:25k more, but there really is no need though.

 

I agree - 1:50 Mmory Map is what we always use with no problem.

[+longwayround]

I've got a SatMap Active 10 GPSr and have been using 1:25k (explorer) level OS maps with it for Geo Caching and it works a treat. But.... The 1:25k scale maps are expensive so was looking at buying a 1:50k (Landranger) scale card which will cover a larger area for less cost. But before I buy, does anyone have a view to whether the 1:50k scale is sufficient detail for Geocaching.

 

Any views or expeiriences of using this scale are greatly received.

 

1:25k is useful for walking in wilderness areas as it is better at showing the routes of paths and contours. I would suggest that you buy the 1:50k mapping for now and only invest in the Explorer maps if you plan to hunt around National Parks and the like.

[+uktim]

I've got a SatMap Active 10 GPSr and have been using 1:25k (explorer) level OS maps with it for Geo Caching and it works a treat. But.... The 1:25k scale maps are expensive so was looking at buying a 1:50k (Landranger) scale card which will cover a larger area for less cost. But before I buy, does anyone have a view to whether the 1:50k scale is sufficient detail for Geocaching.

 

Any views or expeiriences of using this scale are greatly received.

 

1:50k is plenty detailed enough. You only need 1:25k maps if you're micronavving (& I don't mean finding stupid little film containers). I have 1:25k and 1:50k for Memory map, so I tend to use the 1:25k more, but there really is no need though.

 

I agree - 1:50 Mmory Map is what we always use with no problem.

 

What device are you using 1:50k MM on? I find that 1:50k is not good enough if GPS reception is poor and the cache is well hidden with an unhelpful hint

[yatesDELTA]

I dont know what micronavving is... lol

 

I have a 1:25 and a 1:50 for my local area. I find the 1:25 is easiar to read and use but if the place you are at is on the edge of the map then it will be more cost effective to get a 1:50 for that area.

 

Also if the cache is near a road then surely the maps on cache listings should suffice? If its in a isloated place then fair enough and a 1:25 would be better, unless you are cycling as you would likely need to maps

[+PopUpPirate]

The map scale has nothing to do with GPS accuracy, providing you are relying on an arrow to point you on your way Probably the main difference between the two scales is that 1:25 shows field boundaries.

[+uktim]

The map scale has nothing to do with GPS accuracy, providing you are relying on an arrow to point you on your way Probably the main difference between the two scales is that 1:25 shows field boundaries.

 

If you're under trees the map is a lot more useful IME. Small variations in the position that the GPS reports can cause the arrow to swing all over the place and unless your GPS has an electronic compass you need to keep up a reasonable speed to get the arrow to hold steady. I always use the map screen alone to iron out this problem. I think there's also an element of being happier with maps and a strong element of my own navigation rathe rthan blindly following an arrow due to learning to navigate pre-GPS

 

TBH I very quickly got fed up with caching in the early days when the need to use a non-mapping GPS left me over reliant on an LCD arrow. Discovering Memory Map was largely responsible for reviving my interest

[+Lost in Space]

Personally, I find the 1:25K Memory Maps too detailed.

 

Remember, you can have the best maps in the world, but when geocaching, you are reliant on the accuracy of the co-ordinates given by the setter............

[Stompy]

 

What device are you using 1:50k MM on? I find that 1:50k is not good enough if GPS reception is poor and the cache is well hidden with an unhelpful hint

 

I'm using the SATMAP ACTIVE 10. I bought it for walking and at that time I hadn't heard about Geocaching at all.

[+maxkim]

I've got a SatMap Active 10 GPSr and have been using 1:25k (explorer) level OS maps with it for Geo Caching and it works a treat. But.... The 1:25k scale maps are expensive so was looking at buying a 1:50k (Landranger) scale card which will cover a larger area for less cost. But before I buy, does anyone have a view to whether the 1:50k scale is sufficient detail for Geocaching.

 

Any views or expeiriences of using this scale are greatly received.

We use 1:50K all the time and they are fine, showing footpaths etc. Go with them and you will be OK. M

[+L8HNB]

Personally, I find the 1:25K Memory Maps too detailed.

 

Remember, you can have the best maps in the world, but when geocaching, you are reliant on the accuracy of the co-ordinates given by the setter............

 

Absolutly! Don't get hung up on the advertising and hype, lots of folks do this (daft game) with a yellow Etrex and bits of paper. It should be fun!

 

Enjoy the finds. Select caches that are not too difficult to find initally and work up to the tricky stuff. There is a thread on here that recommends "good" caches, check this out.

 

You seem to be experienced walkers so use it as an extension to that.

 

We wish you well, L&H.

[+Labtech28]

i only have experience with paper maps at 1:50k but i have found they are good if you are traveling a long distance over a short time becuase main routes are shown in reasonable detail. However when you are in a small area i would prefer a smaller scale as it means i can find the routes that may not show on a 1:50k. hope that helps.

[Stompy]

Thanks everyone some reassuring and helpful comments. Cheers

 

[+The Bongtwashes]

I've only used paper maps, and have cached successfully with both 1:25k and 1:50k, in fact when I first started walking (school rambling club) we learnt our map-reading / navigating using the (proper) 1" to a mile (1:63360) scale maps. Obviously the 1:25k are better, but the others are sufficient. However, I would point out that the most important thing is to have your brain fully engaged, a few years ago my brother in law (the non-caching one) went walking on dartmoor armed with a 3 miles:1 inch streetmap . He got lost!

 

PS. He's a geography teacher!!

Edited August 28, 2008 by The Bongtwashes

[+Delta68]

We use 1:50k Memory Map on a P550 and it gives a good enough idea of where to go.

 

The tracking is pretty inaccurate actually and frequently shows we are on the other side of a river for example

 

 

 

M

[+melmur]

1:50k maps are only accurate to 100m, so that could happen.

 

Surely when you get to a river though, you know which side of it you are, providing you know which direction you are walking.

 

Water, gridlines, trig points & anything else blue are the most accurate things on an OS map, as they are laid on first, then everything fits around that to a certain extent.

[+JUSTHEJOB]

Hi i use 1:25 Memory map on my PDA its great, you have a instant thumb nail position when i switch it back on and if your eyes are abit failing you can zoom in, you can also add waypoints so you can walk to cache location etc by map and then use the GPS to home in on the cache

[+drdick&vick]

Always print a map of the area from Memory MAp and take a compass with m just in case I need it, although I only use the map for checking footpaths and just rely on the GPS and intuition.

[+JUSTHEJOB]

1:50 would still be good, its not always possible to walk in a stright line to a cache so like any map is worth the money. Merory map give salot of features, printing your maps to usable area size meads you dont have to fight with it and if it get damaged print another for next time

[+Birders]

<<I don't mean finding stupid little film containers>>

 

It's whatever one enjoys that matters. We love micros.. but we hate dogs! Takes all sorts!!

 

We have used Landranger maps (Memory Map) on our PDA since we started caching and have no problems. We don't know about the accuracy of 1:50k maps being only 100m but that has never proved a problem with us and we reckon we can get considerably closer than 100m to any cache just using those maps. We use Memory Map to get us to the nearest parking spot and then use our GPS for the walking bit..

[+agentmancuso]

1:50k is plenty detailed enough. You only need 1:25k maps if you're micronavving (& I don't mean finding stupid little film containers). I have 1:25k and 1:50k for Memory map, so I tend to use the 1:25k more, but there really is no need though.

 

Yes. In the days before GPS, 1:25k were useful for navigating farm land trouble free, because fences are marked. But if you're using a GPS the 1:50k scale is fine in normal circumstances.

Edited August 30, 2008 by agentmancuso

[+Pharisee]

1:50k is plenty detailed enough. You only need 1:25k maps if you're micronavving (& I don't mean finding stupid little film containers). I have 1:25k and 1:50k for Memory map, so I tend to use the 1:25k more, but there really is no need though.

 

Yes. In the days before GPS, 1:25k were useful for navigating farm land trouble free, because fences are marked. But if you're using a GPS the 1:50k scale is fine in normal circumstances.

 

My GPSr doesn't show fences (which one are you using?) so I still use 1:25k Explorer maps (if I have them) or segments printed off MemoryMap (if I don't). You can't have too much detail but you can have 'not enough'

[+agentmancuso]

My GPSr doesn't show fences (which one are you using?) so I still use 1:25k Explorer maps (if I have them) or segments printed off MemoryMap (if I don't). You can't have too much detail but you can have 'not enough'

 

Sorry for the lack of clarity, I was referring primarily to the paper 1:25k maps, which show all fences (in theory anyway). I use Anquet 1:50k on the PC at home, but get by with Open Source mapping on my Vista Cx.

 

One of the problems with using 1:25k (paper again) for hillwalking is that sometimes they do have too much detail - contour lines getting obscured by rock symbols etc.