Maps or GPS?

[K...]

Hi everybody,

I'm planning a trip from Reading to Portsmouth, then Bilbao to Barcelona, Genoa to Venice and then maybe cycle Greece (I know it can be dangerous, I'm from there, so I'm still thinking about it).

Up until now I've done some trips up to 70 - 80 miles in the south of England and I've been using Ordnance Survey maps with a 1:100.000 scale, which has been more than adequate. The point is that for the trip I'm planning I'm gonna need too many maps of this scale resulting in a lot of weight-space and money.

So I'm wondering:
Is 1:400.000 scale good enough to find back roads in an unknown country. The Michellen atlas for example? Would it be any good?

Should I completely forget about maps and go for a GPS or should I always have maps for backup? (in case battery runs down, GPS breaks down etc).

Thanks,
K.

 

[slowmotion]

Greetings K...

I'm old. I love paper maps and the romance of looking at them and imagining what the countryside looks like.

Just a personal preference.

 

[K...]

Greetings K...

I'm old. I love paper maps and the romance of looking at them and imagining what the countryside looks like.

Just a personal preference.

I couldn't agree more, but I thought I'd stick to the practical aspects and then add some romanticism myself before making the final decision.

Thanks anyway,
K.

PS. Any comments on the scale? What do you usually use?

 

[slowmotion]

I'm really no expert at all, but my guess is that the scale depends a whole lot on the complexity of the route. If you stick to roads, road map scales will be fine. If you are on cycle tracks, as I was in Holland recently, 1:50,000 seemed a good idea. If you are on a MTB going over rocks and stumps in the middle of nowhere, bigger detail might be needed. ( I do not do the last stuff!)

One thing that you might want to consider is the weight of paper maps. On long trips, I am told that people sent them home by post to save weight. They probably cut their toothbrushes in half as well. Sorry, but I love paper maps, even the old ones that are falling apart. I have drawers full of them.

Sorry, but I'm old!

 

[slowmotion]

Sorry K... I just reread your first post. 1:400,000 would be no good at all to find back roads.

 

[ontheroadtofrance]

I went to France last year and i had a Garmin 605 with maps on and i also took the michelin map with me just in case the Garmin started playing up

 

[marzjennings]

First off I'd suggest GPS, even though I love my OS maps and have a collection going back 40 years, as it's the simplest thing to have on your handle bars.

Saying that, you could always make your own maps. I've used google maps in the past to plan out an entire tour. I print off each stage of the journey, marking off places of interest and where I plan to stay. I print two copies, one for me and one for the family to hold onto so they'll know roughly where I'll be on each day. You can end up with a detailed map without having to carry maps of entire regions you don't even plan to visit. You could print double sided and get them laminated for next to nothing.

Or even just a compass. I've done a couple of trips where time wasn't important and I've just ridden in the general direction of where I was planning to end up. Free camping and asking directions along the way.

 

[andym]

Is 1:400.000 scale good enough to find back roads in an unknown country. The Michellen atlas for example? Would it be any good?

Should I completely forget about maps and go for a GPS or should I always have maps for backup? (in case battery runs down, GPS breaks down etc).

Short answer to the first question is that if you want a map that shows the back roads you need 1:150K or better.

As for the second question: there's no reason why it has to be either-or. A large-scale paper map can be very useful for providing an overview, while a GPS (with Garmin City Navigator) can provide the detail - a GPS with a small screen is not very useful for providing an overview but it does come in to its own for providing the detail. I'd use the two in tandem (excuse the pun).

 

[rich p]

I only use maps and I mainly use back roads and 1:300k is fine. If it's too detailed they're too big and you need too many IMHO.

 

[psmiffy]

1:400k is about the least detailed you can get away with - I agree with Rich P 1:250k - 300k is about right - any more detailed then the roads do not go anywhere.

I did just under 9600k around Europe last summer and I bought maps as I went and trashed them as I left - Its a good idea to start looking for the new map as soon as you can - falling off the edge can be a little disconcerting - additionally I had a 1:4.5M of the whole of Europe so that I could make sure that I was heading in the right general direction

I find GPS as much good as a choclate fireguard for general navigation on a long trip when I am making it up as I go. Notwithstanding this I have one on the handlebars - its very useful for getting in and out of cities & recording where Ive been (I send gpx files home by email to use on google earth)

 

[andrew_s]

I use a GPS for local navigation, and take 1:400k (ish) paper maps for strategic navigation (i.e. deciding where to go next)

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Take maps, and post them back to your home as you finish with them. If you're really organised, you can post the maps you'll need out to post offices you'll encounter en route. However, this would require a level of organisation far in excess of that which I possess and I don't know how well it would work outside the UK. The other option is to buy a European road atlas and tear out the pages covering your route.

 

[andym]

I've uploaded a couple of screenshots of Michelin maps (from the ViaMichelin site). I think that the larger-scale on is 1;400,000 and the other is 1:100,000 - but I could be wrong. They don't have maps on the site between these - it would have been interesting to compare a 1:150,000 or 1:200,000.

I had the larger-scale map with me when I went toured Brittany this summer. It was great for providing an overview but when I found that one of the d-roads was closed to bikes, the alternative route through country lanes simply wasn't shown. Fortunately I had my GPS with me which did have the necessary detail - even if you are a fervent believer in paper maps, a GPS can be really useful as a backup, and to save on expense and weight of buying detailed maps.

 

[xilios]

1:400k is about the least detailed you can get away with - I agree with Rich P 1:250k - 300k is about right - any more detailed then the roads do not go anywhere.

Its a good idea to start looking for the new map as soon as you can - falling off the edge can be a little disconcerting -QUOTE]


Totaly agree, also the part about getting new maps asap rode off one once

 

[snorri]

If you're really organised, you can post the maps you'll need out to post offices you'll encounter en route.

Some of us don't know which countries we might find ourselves in whilst on tour, never mind which POs we might pass.