Metric Maps

[Wild]

I'm looking for metric maps, specifically a map of the Sawtooth Range south of Lake Placid. All I have ever come across are the ADK maps that come with the trail guides, which are useful, but apparently not as accurate as the metric series. Does anyone know where I could find metric maps, online or otherwise? Thanks in advance for the info.

Wild

 

[Mountainhound]

any outdoor store should have them if your talking about USGS maps becuase there all metric. if your outdoor store doesn't carry what you need you can get them straight from USGS in washington dc i believe they have a web site but never looked.

 

[JimB]

The maps that come with McMartin's "Discover the High Peaks" are metric and Tyvek. I bought mine at the ADK Museum gift shop but I'm sure they are available wherever the book is sold. It is very detailed and includes all of the herd paths and a few bushwacks.

 

[Doc McPeak]

Wild, you want the map I was looking at this morning...

The USGS 1:25 000-scale metric topographic map of Ampersand Lake.

I bought mine at the Mountaineer in Keene Valley last year. It shows all 14 peaks in the range, including the Sawtooth Eleven, and the five on the ADK100.

It doesn't show where everyone has lost limbs, appendages, eyes, and liters of blood. That's on a different map...

I believe they are online at www.mountaineer.com

 

[KZKlimber]

A word of advice..

The altitude contours on metric maps are less frequent - so visually when you look at the map and see fewer contour lines you can get a false sense that a climb or ridge is not very steep.

I found myself underestimating the amount of climbing the first few times I used a metric map.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

I'm looking for metric maps,
....... maps that come with the trail guides, which are useful, but apparently not as accurate as the metric series.

I don'T really think the metric are more accurate. The scale is larger, but there doesn't seem to be any more accuracy that a larger scale allows.

I have both, and I find, more often than not, I prefer the non-metric (which hve more accuracy in the contours).

If you want a larger scale on the non-metric maps, use a magnifying glass, or photocopy/enlarge the section you want.

Now, what I'd like to do, would be to superimpose the metric over the non-metric. This would produce some interesting contours. I guess, whith the computers I have, I could do this with a bit of work, but I'm lazy.

 

[Papa Bear]

My understanding is that the metric version are just reprints of the old "feet" versions derived from the same surveying data and the same photometric data. The data are just run through a computer and the map is presented with a different contour interval. Some have a contour interval of 6M. which is close to 40' but I don't know any as accurate as 20'.

I dislike the fact that these quads have a variety of different intervals, usually 6M or 10M with no apparent rhyme nor reason.

Check on each map quadrant for the underlying surveying date and you will see most pre-date the shift to metric presentation of the data.

Pb

 

[Wild]

Thanks everyone. I just ordered the USGS 1:25 000-scale metric topographic map of Ampersand Lake. Bearing in mind what Pete and Papa Bear said, I'll bring my non-metric map, as well. With the two maps, I should be able to find my way out eventually.

So far as the lost limbs, appendages, eyes, and liters of blood go, that's part of the fun of bushwhacking, isn't it?

Thanks again.

Wild

 

[Pete_Hickey]

TSo far as the lost limbs, appendages, eyes, and liters of blood go, that's part of the fun of bushwhacking, isn't it?
Wild

Watch the eyes. I had an accident a few years ago that left me somewhat blind for almost a week. Once I lost vision in one eye, my perspective was off, and half an hour later, I got my other eye.

I was lucky, and made it out. I didn'T loose my vision until the next day, but it did scare me. The thought of having to bushwhack a few miles and not being able to see is a sobering thought.

 

[leduc]

Free USGS maps of NYS online

The maps can be downloaded from
http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us/quads/usgsdrg.htm
- click on the map you want
- clicking on the uppermost "download quad" gives you the black & white map, separated in 2 parts: A) the contour lines, B) everything else. It is up to you to use them separately, or to copy-paste them together to have the full map
- clicking on the bottommost "download quad" gives you the color map.


Hope this helps

Charles

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Quoted above:

"Some have a contour interval of 6M. which is close to 40' but I don't know any as accurate as 20'.

I dislike the fact that these quads have a variety of different intervals, usually 6M or 10M with no apparent rhyme nor reason."


Actually, the 6 M contours are essentially equivalent to 20 FT, and 3 M contours equivalent to 10 Ft (3.28 FT = 1 M). The heavier contour lines (every fifth) are usually 30 M (or 100 FT) or 15 M (50 FT). The contour line map base is the same for metric or non-metric topographic maps; only the label base is different.

The real issue about topo map accuracy pertains to how the contour lines were originally plotted from aerial photographs, whether by human eye and hand or by machine. Assuming an equal amount of ground truth, such as provided by benchmarks and survey points, the older topo maps that were plotted by the human eye and hand, even the 15-minute maps, are generally more accurate than the 7.5-minute maps, which were plotted by machines over the past couple of decades. The human eye can discern subtleties in the shading on aerial photographs that the machines usually do not. Newer is not necessarily better.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

not unless you are measuring your speed vertically as opposed to horizonally : > )

 

[RoySwkr]

Actually, the 6 M contours are essentially equivalent to 20 FT, and 3 M contours equivalent to 10 Ft (3.28 FT = 1 M). The heavier contour lines (every fifth) are usually 30 M (or 100 FT) or 15 M (50 FT). The contour line map base is the same for metric or non-metric topographic maps; only the label base is different.

I agree that for hikers 6m = 20' but that doesn't mean than 600m = 2000', you need one more metric contour hence they can't just use the same contour lines and relabel them.

You can also get maps with 1.5m and 5' contours, but not in the high peaks

Assuming an equal amount of ground truth, such as provided by benchmarks and survey points, the older topo maps that were plotted by the human eye and hand, even the 15-minute maps, are generally more accurate than the 7.5-minute maps, which were plotted by machines over the past couple of decades.

I agree with this, a good example is a peak just E of the Twin Mtn bandstand, where the 15' map shows 2 bumps and the 7.5' map only 1. Climb it and count them.

For some reason, the newer maps also seem to omit contours in steep areas instead of packing them in, so if you are judging slope by eye on the maps it makes them look easier. Have a look at Lizard Head CO.