Pinelands Commission Resolution: MAP 2.0

[SuperChooch]

The maps they are using aren't bad, but there are still some concerns, nonetheless.

http://www.opentrailsnj.org/provide-your-comments-to-the-pinelands-commission-map-resolution/

 

[46er]

We don't need no stinkin maps.

 

[Jon Holcombe]

Chooch, do you know if there is a PDF of the 2.0 Motorized Access Plan available? I would sure like to see it if it's been made public.

 

[SuperChooch]

Here it is:

http://www.nj.gov/pinelands/home/me...general boundary 1997 USGS topoquads11x17.pdf

 

[Teegate]

The maps they are using aren't bad, but there are still some concerns, nonetheless.

http://www.opentrailsnj.org/provide-your-comments-to-the-pinelands-commission-map-resolution/

I sent in my comment and added in your information below it saying I supported it.

Guy

 

[92 Blazer Jeff]

The maps they are using aren't bad, but there are still some concerns, nonetheless.

http://www.opentrailsnj.org/provide-your-comments-to-the-pinelands-commission-map-resolution/

I also sent in you're text outlining you're concerns. I don't think it will make a difference in the way they will vote,
but you never know. Thanks for posting the link.

 

[Jon Holcombe]

The site rollback ate my original post, so I am reposting this. I compared the original 2015 MAP with the latest 1997 USGS Map(s), which is quite a poor, low resolution map, compared to modern maps. The "Road Classifcation" Key on the 1997 USGS Map shows all of the existing sand trails in and around Friendship, and many of the dikes themselves, some of which are impassable and wetland areas, as "unimproved roads". Wouldn't that mean than anyone could drive right onto the dikes? If I am understanding this correctly, and maybe I'm not, then the adoption of the 1997 USGS map is very generous, and gives me access to everywhere that I want to go. On the other hand, it gives everyone permission to drive into impassable and wetland areas around Friendship. Am I confused or is the Pinelands Commission just too disinterested or too limited in budget to come up with a better map? I also submitted the Open Trails info to the Pinelands Commission site.

 

[manumuskin]

The site rollback ate my original post, so I am reposting this. I compared the original 2015 MAP with the latest 1997 USGS Map(s), which is quite a poor, low resolution map, compared to modern maps. The "Road Classifcation" Key on the 1997 USGS Map shows all of the existing sand trails in and around Friendship, and many of the dikes themselves, some of which are impassable and wetland areas, as "unimproved roads". Wouldn't that mean than anyone could drive right onto the dikes? If I am understanding this correctly, and maybe I'm not, then the adoption of the 1997 USGS map is very generous, and gives me access to everywhere that I want to go. On the other hand, it gives everyone permission to drive into impassable and wetland areas around Friendship. Am I confused or is the Pinelands Commission just too disinterested or too limited in budget to come up with a better map? I also submitted the Open Trails info to the Pinelands Commission site.
View attachment 9396

Some of those roads are a challenge to walk

 

[Teegate]

This tells us that the best option is to ditch the map idea and just close the confined area's where they have concerns. It just can't be better than that. It can't!

Today we drove down a road which came to a sign telling us that Motor Vehicle were not permitted. Well, nobody but us obviously followed that. So how does anyone think that a MAP that most everyone might not even have in their vehicle will stop someone from traversing that road. It just will not stop anyone except someone like me who has Jessica in the car telling me to not go there.

It is obvious the Pinelands Commission are in their own little world when it comes to motor vehicle access. They need to close their ears and do what's best. Drop this subject altogether.

 

[Jon Holcombe]

Drop this subject altogether.

Drop this subject altogether? You can of course ban me from posting, and delete my post that is supportive of your position, from this site if that's how you roll.

 

[Teegate]

I was not telling you anything. I was telling the Pinelands Commission that.

 

[Tony]

They already have the concern areas closed off. What more to they want

 

[Jon Holcombe]

I was not telling you anything. I was telling the Pinelands Commission that.

Apologies. I thought that was directed at me.

 

[Teegate]

Apologies. I thought that was directed at me.

No problem. For a second there I thought you were a commissioner. Then I would have been talking to you.

 

[46er]

So how does anyone think that a MAP that most everyone might not even have in their vehicle will stop someone from traversing that road.

I would wager that if you stopped some folks on one of those roads and asked them to point out their location on a map, any map, they would not be able to do it. We live in a gps world, I doubt any gps, except those with Boyd's maps , have those roads in them

 

[Teegate]

I agree 46er.

 

[Ben Ruset]

What's the rationale for picking different years for different quads?

 

[46er]

What's the rationale for picking different years for different quads?

I wondered the same thing. The only thing I could think of is that doing so shows only what they want shown. I would like to know who on the commission, if it was someone on the commission, recommended those year's.

 

[Broke Jeep Joe]

What's the rationale for picking different years for different quads?

I was curious also, thought maybe it had to do with property ownership, deed dates, etc.

 

[lj762]

What's the rationale for picking different years for different quads?

Might be overthinking this. I keep some USGS Topo Quads in PDF on my PC. I just looked at a few of them and they all have different years. I got them all from the same place, and I thought they were the latest.

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.