BajaNomad

Compare Baja Atlas '91/ Almanacs '98 & '03

David K - 12-20-2007 at 06:10 PM

To see the difference in detail of the same area...

Reduced for Nomad posting.

1991 Baja Topographic Atlas





[Edited on 12-22-2007 by David K]

Atlas91r.JPG - 47kB

David K - 12-20-2007 at 06:13 PM

Almanac '98

Almanac98r.JPG - 45kB

David K - 12-20-2007 at 06:15 PM

Almanac '03

[Edited on 12-22-2007 by David K]

Almanac02r.JPG - 47kB

David K - 12-20-2007 at 06:31 PM

Close up (Camp Gecko area) 1991 Atlas:

Camp Gecko is located just north of the end of the airstrip runway shown on all three maps...



[Edited on 12-21-2007 by David K]

Atlas 91r.JPG - 31kB

David K - 12-20-2007 at 06:35 PM

Close up 1998 Almanac

Almanac98.jpg - 26kB

David K - 12-20-2007 at 06:36 PM

2003 Baja Almanac

[Edited on 12-22-2007 by David K]

Almanac02.jpg - 38kB

Skipjack Joe - 12-20-2007 at 07:15 PM

I didn't like the atlas nearly as much as the almanacs.

The atlas was:

a. too bulky. the pages so large it didn't fit anywhere.

b. there were too many pages. It became difficult to see the big picture and zero in on an area.

c. most pages contained very little actual information. there just wasn't enough information to make any page meaningful. Usually a single dotted line crossing from one side to the other and nothing else.

The almanacs were a big step forward IMHO.

Thank you for asking for my opinion.;)

Mexitron - 12-20-2007 at 07:51 PM

The thing that drove me crazy about the Baja Atlas was, as Skipjack mentioned, not being able to see the big picture. I ended up just ripping the pages out and placing them side by side. How is the Almanac, is it better?

David K - 12-21-2007 at 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
The thing that drove me crazy about the Baja Atlas was, as Skipjack mentioned, not being able to see the big picture. I ended up just ripping the pages out and placing them side by side. How is the Almanac, is it better?


Steve, that's why I posted the images of all three... The Almanac was only 1/2 as detailed as the BIG Atlas... However, only backpackers probably needed that much detail in topography? The Almanac is 8 1/2 X 11 inches so much more convenient to use...

Hook - 12-21-2007 at 10:35 AM

AFter seeing this, I think I'll keep my dogeared Atlas.

Thanks for the comparison, David.

pappy - 12-21-2007 at 11:12 AM

i'll use both-one to get a better overall picture and the other for a little more detail........

Slowmad - 12-21-2007 at 01:15 PM

Yeah, Pappy.
And they both feature locations named for the publisher's kids and dogs.

Which, come to think of it, is a far cry better that adventure-stripping, anal-retentive blog logs.

Barry A. - 12-21-2007 at 01:45 PM

I photo-copied the pages of the big old "Atlas", and then taped 4 of them together at the edges, and then had the big resulting sheet laminated in plastic----4 sheets on one side, and the adjoining 4 sheets on the other. This gave me a detailed, but more comprehensive and useable map, tho pretty darn big.

All this got pretty expensive, tho, so I only did it for the particular areas I was interested in. Being laminated, they wore like iron, and I still have all of them after many a trip.

When the new "Almanac" came out, I found that I was using it most when actually driving. But when we got to camp, or stopped for planning our next move, we usually looked at the big laminated maps.

All these maps are useful, and it is fun to compare and contrast them.

Thanks David for that excellent comparison, so graphically laid out.

barry

motoged - 12-21-2007 at 02:26 PM

Nomads,
Last year I scanned my 2002 Almanac and just print out the pages I need for my adventures....I sent copies to several Nomads for a nominal fee ($10) to cover my costs.....carrying the disk works well for laptoppers....

I am sure others could do the same.

Printed maps are as clear as the original and you don't need to worry about wrecking your "only map" by spilling Tecate on it or greasing it up with snack fingers :light:

mgray - 12-21-2007 at 04:54 PM

Thanks for the close ups, seems like the 91 used a smaller scale (more detail?) than the subsequent releases.

Its weird that you guys say 2002 was the last edition, because there is someone selling "Brand New" 2003 Almanac ISBN 0965866327 and they are asking $129.99.....so I'm a little sceptical as its sounds kinda fishy. But the seller is on some reputable book sites so they must be legit.

Any ideas?

David K - 12-21-2007 at 06:39 PM

MY MISTAKE GUYS!

The last Almanac WAS 2003!!!

It was promoted at my Viva Baja #4 party in Feb., 2003, and came out soon after!