Possibly, although I would have a hard time believing that the Pinelands Commission/DEP only had access to certain year quads.
Pinelands Commission Resolution: MAP 2.0
- Thread starter SuperChooch
- Start date
It is partially explained here:
http://www.opentrailsnj.org/why-is-the-2014-or-2011-usgs-topographical-map-invalid/
Prior to 2009, the USGS created their maps by actually doing a field study. As you could imagine this is very costly and so they only updated the maps on a periodic basis. They also were updated in a staggered fashion to level load the work, so not all quads are updated in the same year. Post 2009, they began updating their maps using publicly available data. (Think google maps) Since these sources don't contain the level of detail that that was manually surveyed, all the remote roads "disappeared" from the maps. Due to the staggered updates, the various pre 2009 Wharton quads were updated in different years with the most recent being done in 1997. The long story short is that the PLC picked the most recent update that was created prior to 2009.
Each old school 7.5 minute conventional USGS quad has a different date of initial draft and last revision. Most of the last revisions are "photorevised" where they added a blob of purple shading to highly developed areas. I would think that is the reason for the varying dates cited.
A few years ago the old quads were replaced with new digital versions that lack the color, vibrancy and detail of the old maps. The new maps are more accurate from a digital standpoint and are in NAVD 88 vertical and NAD 83 horizontal datums. The old maps on the USGS site download at 13 meg +/- and the new ones are in the 30+ meg range. The thing I hate the most about the new ones is that the contour labeling is so sparse it is nearly impossible to follow a contour to its label.
For instance, take a look at the latest Hammonton quad on the USGS Map Store site and then compare that to your old, dog-eared green map. I'll take dog-eared.
A few years ago the old quads were replaced with new digital versions that lack the color, vibrancy and detail of the old maps. The new maps are more accurate from a digital standpoint and are in NAVD 88 vertical and NAD 83 horizontal datums. The old maps on the USGS site download at 13 meg +/- and the new ones are in the 30+ meg range. The thing I hate the most about the new ones is that the contour labeling is so sparse it is nearly impossible to follow a contour to its label.
For instance, take a look at the latest Hammonton quad on the USGS Map Store site and then compare that to your old, dog-eared green map. I'll take dog-eared.
May be the reason for their map montage. If you don't have the roads on a map, you can't close them.
Usgs had budget cuts and ink was one of them. they said that they refer anyone who asks for topos to use the 97 down as some rds are not complete on the newest topo's.
They even left out cemeteries. Check out the missing Chew Cemetery inside Rusnak's property on Chew Road.
Commission map vote tabled.
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/...ssion-puts-brakes-on-off-roading-plan-for-now
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/...ssion-puts-brakes-on-off-roading-plan-for-now
One of the sad things is that the new USGS maps would be absolutely worthless for teaching orienteering and the woodsmanship that goes along with the ability to use a map and compass to determine where you are and how to get somewhere else in the wilds.
Coming across a railroad or other significant, physical landmark when you are lost is critical if you are using map and compass. The current 7.5 minute map could only be used for starting a fire or poor quality toilet paper in this instance. But if your compass has one of those little magnifiers in it, you could amuse yourself by burning ants while you wait to die.
The ubiquitous use of GPS systems perpetuates the dumbification of America. So, in a few years, none of these map quality issues will matter anyway.
Last edited:
The ubiquitous use of GPS systems perpetuates the dumbification of America so in a few years, none of these map quality issues will matter anyway.
Time to scan the good stuff.
And for those fortunate to know of his work, there are Boyd's maps!! He could become a trillionaire
This sums it up pretty well, and it makes me sad too.
https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9797/7471
Traditional national mapping programs gathered data from primary sources, including direct field observation. Such maps were compiled, drawn, and edited by hand. In the United States, the era of traditional topographic mapping lasted from about 1880 to about 1990, and was primarily the responsibility of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). By today's standards these traditional methods were very expensive, and USGS no longer has either mission or funding to make maps this way.
Maybe the comments sent in did make a difference. Now to see if they listen to what the DEP has to say.
I thought I was the only one to ever pop ants with a magnifying glass? I guess I"m actually the one to start the war between Me and ants.I think fire ants have more then evened the score now.I"m going to have to break out a bigger glass.One of the sad things is that the new USGS maps would be absolutely worthless for teaching orienteering and the woodsmanship that goes along with the ability to use a map and compass to determine where you are and how to get somewhere else in the wilds.
Coming across a railroad or other significant, physical landmark when you are lost is critical if you are using map and compass. The current 7.5 minute map could only be used for starting a fire or poor quality toilet paper in this instance. But if your compass has one of those little magnifiers in it, you could amuse yourself by burning ants while you wait to die.
The ubiquitous use of GPS systems perpetuates the dumbification of America. So, in a few years, none of these map quality issues will matter anyway.
We used to use 'punks' to crisp them. Kid's would be medicated and put away if they tried that today. They may never experience the sweet aroma of crisped ants on a 'punk'.
A friend of mine sent me a Facebook link, it appears that this is on the commission's agenda for this Friday's meeting:
http://www.nj.gov/pinelands/home/meetings/documents/2-agenda 9-8-17.pdf
http://www.nj.gov/pinelands/home/meetings/documents/2-agenda 9-8-17.pdf