What do other people think about the new NG GMNF Maps?

I've been using them quite a bit this summer, and I must say that I'm slightly disappointed with them. It's not that I've found anything printed on the map to be wrong, but that some stuff seems to have been left off.

For example, the Bucklin Trail up Killington Peak is missing. So are quite a few of the side trails used to access summits on the Long Trail where the Long Trail doesn't quite go over the summit itself (Like Pico and Killington). I'm not sure who was responsible for proofing the drafts, but some of these omissions (like the Bucklin Trail) seem pretty major.

And I miss the mileage markers. They have always proven to be a great asset for planning trips on the NG Adirondack Maps.

I also don't understand why the northern map covers eastern VT. The only significant hiking trail there is the AT, and they use an entire side of the map to cover literally just that, and maybe 1 or 2 short trails. It's a lot of wasted space. It would have been much nicer, I think, if they'd used that side to cover the LT north of the GMNF. As it is, the 4,000 foot peaks Ellen, Camel's Hump, and Mansfield have been left off the maps. The inclusion of these peaks plus the Monroe Skyline and the Worcester Range would have been nice, and a much better use of space. I can only guess that NG wanted their GMNF maps to line up with their WMNF maps, without any gaps.

That's not to say that they are bad maps in every way- they are still pretty nice in general. It is nice to finally have hiking maps of Vermont that cover a large area, instead of just the GMC maps which are often limited in their scope. Even if they are missing some trails, they've also introduced me to some new areas that I might never have learned about otherwise.

Overall, decent maps that should be in every Vermont hiker's arsenal, but it's disappointing because I feel that they could easily have been better.

I cannot say anything about the NG maps dealing with Vermont but I do enjoy the ones I have for the Georgia Mountains, The Smoky Mountains and Pisgah N.F in NC. one of the things I like about them is color coded trails designating trail use. IO will second the negative on mileage though.

Hmmm. I understand they are in the process of coming out with new NG maps for the Adirondacks to coincide with a new series of trail guides. I sure hope they don't drop the mileage from those. That is such a helpful planning feature!

I've noticed close to a dozen trails missing, and that's just ones that I've been on before and so actually noticed. Overall the maps look nice, but I'm now wishing I hadn't bought them since there's so much missing. If I was National Geographic I'd be ashamed that my name was on them.

As for why they don't cover things further north, it was my understanding that they are meant to cover the Green Mountain National Forest area which doesn't extend as far north as you're talking about. There are other maps that cover the areas you're talking about which are much better, imo.

SteveHiker said:

As for why they don't cover things further north, it was my understanding that they are meant to cover the Green Mountain National Forest area which doesn't extend as far north as you're talking about. There are other maps that cover the areas you're talking about which are much better, imo.

Click to expand...

I considered this too, but with the northern map, the entire northern section of the GMNF is covered on the west side. The east side only shows a tiny little bit of the GMNF, which is redundant, because that section of the GMNF is also on the other side. Again, I think it's because they wanted to show the AT, and have their maps line up with the WMNF maps.

Recently I went to the High Peaks for the first time and bought several maps. One was the NG. As I studied them I found places on my other maps that were missing on the NG map. I too was disappointed.

It is a good map but I liked the other one that was more all encompassing.

Maddy said:

Recently I went to the High Peaks for the first time and bought several maps. One was the NG. As I studied them I found places on my other maps that were missing on the NG map. I too was disappointed.

It is a good map but I liked the other one that was more all encompassing.

Click to expand...

What was missing from the ADK map? There aren't any major ommissions from the NG Adirondack Maps that I know of... They don't show campsites, but I'm pretty sure that was a deliberate decision. Including campsites, especially in the High Peaks area, would clutter the maps quite a bit...

DSettahr said:

What was missing from the ADK map? There aren't any major ommissions from the NG Adirondack Maps that I know of... They don't show campsites, but I'm pretty sure that was a deliberate decision. Including campsites, especially in the High Peaks area, would clutter the maps quite a bit...

Click to expand...

You're right. It wasn't anything big but rather the small ponds, trails, in the area. I did use my ADK club map which gave me more details. I was so new to the area that I wanted very specific info that I found on that map. I have an ADK "centennial" map which is good to but it is enormous. I used my NG map at home but not once in high peaks. It's very nice but I felt more comfortable with the "club" map.