| Pages:
1
2
3 |
jack
Nomad
Posts: 148
Registered: 12-21-2005
Location: Kamloops BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: Eat Heavy
|
|
GPS maps
For my next trip to the Baja I was thinking on buying a Baja GPS map. From what I can find the two best are the Baja "Navigator" GPS map and the Baja
"Expeditioner" Topo GPS map. I wonder if anyone has any views as to how good these are? Is it worth moving up to the more expensive topo map? Is the
detail on these as good as the Baja California Almanac?
|
|
|
Roberto
Banned
Posts: 2162
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
It all depends on what you are after. Bottom line, if you travel only (or almost only) paved roads, the Baja Navigator is what you want. If you go on
dirt roads quite a bit, I would get the other one.
In terms of comparison to the Baja Almanac, the Almanac has more detail (in most, but not all cases), but is notoriously inaccurate in terms of where
things are. The expeditioner is quite accurate.
[Edited on 4-3-2006 by Roberto]
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Wow, Roberto--------
------------it surprises me when you say the "Atlas" has inaccuracies----------from my experience, it is the most accurate map of Baja I have ever
used, albiet there are a few mistakes, as ALL maps have. Of course, I have never compared the Atlas to actual GPS readings-----is that where the
inaccuracies show up???
The "Expeditioner" software must be really fantastic!!!
|
|
|
bajalou
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4459
Registered: 3-11-2004
Location: South of the broder
Member Is Offline
|
|
They certainly show up when comparing to GPS locations - but - it's still the best available paper maps.
No Bad Days
\"Never argue with an idiot. People watching may not be able to tell the difference\"
\"The trouble with doing nothing is - how do I know when I\'m done?\"
Nomad Baja Interactive map
And in the San Felipe area - check out Valle Chico area |
|
|
Roberto
Banned
Posts: 2162
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yes, the map is wildly inaccurate when compared to GPS readings. The INEGI maps are right on the money but are missing some detail, though not a lot
especially outside populated areas.
P.S. The Expeditioner map is created directly from INEGI vector data.
[Edited on 4-3-2006 by Roberto]
|
|
|
Mike Supino
Nomad
Posts: 351
Registered: 10-16-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
Re: inaccuracies.
I've head that almost all maps have intentional inaccuracies.
Some type of copyright issues????
Other posters may be better informed.
Therianthropic
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
At the risk of over-killing this subject------
-----is the problem with the Atlas that the Lat. and Long. coordinates are not correct, or are the maps actually distorted??
(if this is getting entirely too technical, then just ignor the question)
|
|
|
Roberto
Banned
Posts: 2162
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
-----is the problem with the Atlas that the Lat. and Long. coordinates are not correct, or are the maps actually distorted??
(if this is getting entirely too technical, then just ignor the question) |
Barry, the coordinates are wrong, plain and simple - in some cases more than others, but pick virtually any spot on any page, and it will be
incorrect. I haven't noticed distortion, other than what seems to be caused by the splitting of the maps into multiple pages, particularly the case
where one map is split into left and right sections. But the errors are of different kinds. Each page seems to follow it's own rules - for example
sections where more than one map covers the same area have different coordinates.
There are other errors as well, such as missing/extra roads, for example. Now most of this won't make much difference if you're driving down the road
with a copy of the Almanac in your lap and occasionally use the GPS to figure out, mas o menos, where you are. You will be able to do that. But if
you're an anal retentive engineer (that's me) who has digitized the maps and often uses OZI to monitor location, measure distance, etc., etc., you
will find yourself driving in the ocean, or several miles from where the map says you are.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Roberto, great response---and now I understand.
-----thank you very much.
|
|
|
wornout
Senior Nomad
Posts: 595
Registered: 10-24-2004
Location: San Felipe, Baja California
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Bad Days
|
|
Personally I would go with the Expeditioner. I have the Navigator (because I bought it before the Expeditioner was out) and it is a great product but
the Expeditioner is full of good off-road stuff. I don't think paper maps come in to play here as you can't put a papermap in the GPSr and your
original question was about the best map for a GPSr.
This Space Available, E-Mail Me If Interested.
|
|
|
Roberto
Banned
Posts: 2162
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by wornout
Personally I would go with the Expeditioner. I have the Navigator (because I bought it before the Expeditioner was out) and it is a great product but
the Expeditioner is full of good off-road stuff. I don't think paper maps come in to play here as you can't put a papermap in the GPSr and your
original question was about the best map for a GPSr. |
Yes, but he was asking for a comparison of the level of detail with the Baja Almanac - and you CAN put a paper map in the GPS, it just takes a little
work.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64857
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Roberto is right on on this Barry...
When the latest Almanac came out, I made a list of errors or emissions I noticed in a casual look over and posted that on Amigos... I am sure I have
made simular posts here on Nomad as well... I also have the older, bigger, more detail Baja Atlas (one with notes that is worn, and one that is
untouched I picked up at the used book store for something like 8 dollars!!!
The new Almanac pages are not all on the same scale... Landon sized each one to fit the page, I guess... You need to use the scale bar on each map
just for THAT map...
|
|
|
jack
Nomad
Posts: 148
Registered: 12-21-2005
Location: Kamloops BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: Eat Heavy
|
|
Wow, I never expected so many replies. I will be using the GPS maps for finding my way around cities but mostly I will be using them for guidance and
locating my position for exploring back roads and hard to reach areas with my motorcycle. Map accuracy and detail is quite important and these
products sound better than the Almanac which I believed to be one of the best. The topo GPS map cost $30 more than the other. I don't mind paying the
extra $30 but only if the map is $30 better. My big concern is map clarity with the topo map. With Topo Canada the contour lines make it just about
impossible to see secondary roads. I wonder if this might be the case with the Expeditioner map. On the internet they show sample screen shots from
both products but its pretty hard to tell which is the best from those few shots.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Map/Chart
What's the best chart available that covers the areas of the Sea of Cortez north and south of Mulege? Where to obtain it? Thanks.
|
|
|
Roberto
Banned
Posts: 2162
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
If you are using the map for exploring back roads, get the Expeditioner.
The "best" map - it's a compromise the INEGI maps (1:250,000) are the most accurate, period. In fact, they are dead on. They have, in some cases less
detail than the Almanac. They are at http://www.bicimapas.com.mx.
But since you use the term chart, I'm guessing you're looking for a marine map? This gets more difficult than even the land maps. As far as I know ALL
marine charts for Mexico are based on the same set of surveys, some done quite some time ago, and accuracy, in some areas can be an issue. I have the
Garmin BlueChart charts, which are as good as any. You will need to supplement with local knowledge, books, etc for navigation, as they are, as I
said, inaccurate in some places and incomplete in others. For paper charts, the same applies - check MapTech http://www.maptech.com
|
|
|
Neal Johns
Super Nomad
Posts: 1687
Registered: 10-31-2002
Location: Lytle Creek, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In love!
|
|
Good posts, Roberto.
I have been gone, so there is nothing left to add.
(I have the Expeditioner and think it is the best available non-paper map available)
My motto:
Never let a Dragon pass by without pulling its tail!
|
|
|
Taco de Baja
Super Nomad
Posts: 1913
Registered: 4-14-2004
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dreamin' of Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
What's the best chart available that covers the areas of the Sea of Cortez north and south of Mulege? Where to obtain it? Thanks.
|
For GPS the best is probably Garmin. But you have to have a Garmin chart plotter....
[EDIT] These will work on ANY garmin that accepts micro SD cards like the handheld Garmin 60csx, 60cx, 76csx, 76cx, Legend cx, or Vista cx.
Blue Chart - West Coast
List of charts used
[Edited on 4-4-2006 by Taco de Baja]
|
|
|
leadmoto
Junior Nomad
Posts: 64
Registered: 3-2-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Froggy
|
|
A color GPS works best for clarity for the Baja "Expeditioner" topo. I have both the "Navigator" GPS map and the Baja "Expeditioner". I haven't had
time to put the Expeditioner to the test yet. I am happy with what I have seen so far. A couple of years ago nothing was available, so I am stoked
that LBmaps has made this software available.
|
|
|
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
I use a Garmin 172 chartplotter and it is very accurate and detailed but I made a big mistake when I bought the Garmin Blue Charts for Mexico. I live
at San Lucas Cove in the winter and my achorage is about 1 to 1 1/2 miles on shore according to the chart. I have spent the last two months talkiing
to Garmin about this problem and so far have not gotten anywhere. On the old Furono's it was possible to recenter to take care of the discrepencies
of actual location and map location, and then as long as you were within a couple hundred miles, everything was very accurate. I guess Garmin never
figured on anything like that and assumed that the charts were good. You can imagine that it makes it real exciting to come in and out of San Lucas
Cove with that inaccuracy or trying to go to the harbor at Santa Rosalia in the dark. Guess the Mexicans are smarter with their triangulation after
all.
|
|
|
Roberto
Banned
Posts: 2162
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Pescador
I use a Garmin 172 chartplotter and it is very accurate and detailed but I made a big mistake when I bought the Garmin Blue Charts for Mexico. I live
at San Lucas Cove in the winter and my achorage is about 1 to 1 1/2 miles on shore according to the chart. I have spent the last two months talkiing
to Garmin about this problem and so far have not gotten anywhere. On the old Furono's it was possible to recenter to take care of the discrepencies
of actual location and map location, and then as long as you were within a couple hundred miles, everything was very accurate. I guess Garmin never
figured on anything like that and assumed that the charts were good. You can imagine that it makes it real exciting to come in and out of San Lucas
Cove with that inaccuracy or trying to go to the harbor at Santa Rosalia in the dark. Guess the Mexicans are smarter with their triangulation after
all. |
Pescador, this is exactly what I was referring to in my post above. The problem is not with the Garmin charts, the problem is with the survey they are
based on. Check out this letter from Jerry Cunningham:
| Quote: |
picked up a copy of the Latitude's free First Timer's Cruising Guide To Mexico as I left the Crew List Party at the Encinal YC, and I want to commend
you on an excellent piece of work. It should be required reading for any cruiser going to Mexico, no matter if they are going on the Ha-Ha or not.
But I'd like make one clarification. When it comes to your comments on 'Charts and Cruising Guides', you write the following: "When Charlie and the
other authors say their charts are 'Not to be used for navigation,' they mean it." I don't know if you've noticed or not, but there are no such
caveats on the various cruising guides I produce for the Sea of Cortez. You see, I assume that the reason cruisers buy charts is to aid their safe
navigation of those waters. As such, I do not use the old 1873-5 government charts for my grids and shorelines. True, these Defense Mapping Agency
charts served me well for over 40 years in the Sea of Cortez when we sailed with nothing but a compass and my eyes for navigation. However, now that
we have GPS telling us within feet of where we actually are, such inaccurate charts can be dangerous.
And these charts can be more than a little inaccurate and dangerous. For example, #21008 Golfo De California, Northern Part, is as much as two miles
off station at Santa Rosalia and to the north. And it's a mile off around Conception Bay, up at Puerto Refugio, and north of San Carlos on the
mainland. These errors are naturally perpetuated in all of the copies of these charts, whether paper or electronic. This is why I use the only modern
survey made of the Sea of Cortez. Back in the '60s, the United States and Mexico did a well controlled aerial survey of all of Mexico, and all the
current topographical charts for Mexico are based on that data. These maps have proved out nicely with GPS.
A few weeks ago, we had occasion to make our way into the little harbor at Santa Rosalia. There was a rambunctious squall, and naturally it was the
middle of the night. We'd plotted a waypoint off the harbor entrance from my Santa Rosalia Mini-Guide, and as nearly as we could tell in the dark, it
put us right where we expected to be. Had we taken this waypoint off #21008, we would have been a mile or so inland.
Although using those original charts may be 'romantic', you have to remember they are not accurate. The 'Not For Navigation' caveat should be on those
oldies as well as many of the current 'sketch charts'.
Gerry Cunningham
Patagonia, Arizona
Readers - Gerry Cunningham has been cruising the Sea of Cortez since the mid-'60s and knows what he's talking about. He is the author of the Cruising
Guide to the Middle Gulf, the Cruising Guide to the Lower Gulf, and several other guides to the Sea of Cortez. Our comments about not using charts for
navigation was aimed at the sketches of anchorages, so we're glad he reminded us of the problems with the main charts.
Just to remind everyone, if you take off for Mexico - or just about anywhere else - and rely solely on GPS and charts, you're asking for big trouble.
The problem is not with GPS, which is very accurate, but with the charts, which in many cases are based on very old and sometimes imprecise data. If
you sail close to shore down the Pacific Coast of Baja and check your GPS positions versus the paper charts, you'll see that they often don't agree.
This is yet another reason why mariners are always advised never to rely on just one aid to navigation. Unless it's perfectly clear when we're
approaching the coast, we'll use our paper charts, GPS, depthsounder, radar and one or more cruising guides. There's just no such thing as too much
information.
|
P.S. the "shoreline" survey he's referring to is what you will find in the INEGI maps. Unfortunately, they are not marine charts, and do not have
depth contours, rocks, reefs, etc.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
