Pinelands Commission Resolution: MAP 2.0

SuperChooch

Explorer
Aug 26, 2011
391
428
47
What's the rationale for picking different years for different quads?

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cherokee261

RednekF350

Piney
Feb 20, 2004
4,944
3,080
Pestletown, N.J.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SuperChooch

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
14,153
4,258
Pines; Bamber area
I find it easier to believe they just grabbed the quads they had and glued them together, versus deliberately and deviously picked specific years to show or hide things. I could be wrong though.

No, I can't believe that. There is likely some craft work going on.
 

RednekF350

Piney
Feb 20, 2004
4,944
3,080
Pestletown, N.J.
A graphic of the current 2016 digital Hammonton Quad and the 1981 classic 7.5 minute map.
Many roads have disappeared along with adequate contour labeling and road intersection elevations.
2016usgsNoname.jpg
1981usgs.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 46er

Piney4life

Explorer
Oct 8, 2015
381
128
51
Waterford
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.
 

RednekF350

Piney
Feb 20, 2004
4,944
3,080
Pestletown, N.J.
The rail road tracks and right of way is also missing.

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:

Boyd

Administrator
Staff member
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
9,504
2,766
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
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 compas

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.
 

manumuskin

Piney
Jul 20, 2003
8,552
2,465
59
millville nj
www.youtube.com
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. ;)
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.
 
Top