# Map Innaccuracies



## jon44 (Sep 27, 2011)

I just hiked up Great Gulf trail to Mount Washington, and was very surprised that all the maps for the area, except for the one by Brad Washburn, have a significant innaccuracy  on  one part of the trail (they show the trail staying on one side of a river, when it fact it crosses back and forth a few times.)

Is this par for the course for hiking maps?--i.e., do they often have little mistakes like this?  (The mistake I mentioned cost me 30 minutes of wandering around trying to find the trail...)

thanks,

Jon


----------



## Angus (Sep 28, 2011)

the example you cite happens frequently - I can think of at least two hikes this summer where the trail had either been relocated or I had to bushwack due discrepancy in conditions on ground versus what my map (AMC recent edition) was telling me. Just head up or down stream recognizing distance and side of stream you will ultimately be continuing from. When I'm in the lower forest, I do sometimes lose my way which is definitely disconcerting but I just retrace my steps and usually find I've missed a trail blaze. Many of the popular trails in whites have portions moved due to erosion and other man-made problems.


----------



## David Metsky (Sep 28, 2011)

Yes, depending on the age of the map there may be many places where trails have been moved due to erosion or the need to replace bridges.  This is especially true for trails along rivers.  Except for a few specific places (like the Dry River trail) following trails in NH isn't something that usually requires consulting the maps frequently.

While there are occasional inaccuracies in maps, the AMC maps are quite up to date.  Which maps were you using that you found to be inaccurate?  And which printings of those maps?

In the Wilderness Areas like the Great Gulf trail maintenance is held to a different, more rustic standard than for trails in the main forest.  There are fewer blazes and signage, for example.  But the foot bed should be clear in most cases.


----------



## billski (Sep 28, 2011)

To add to the above dead-on explanations, "instantaneous" beaver ponds surrounded by brush are my greatest frustration.  Oh yeah, "instantaneous" logging and big-storm blowdowns can boggle the mind.

I love inconsistent and in-congruent mappings. In fact, I find following old trails and paths, all unmarked to be a real hoot. It brings out the explorer in me.   I tend to reference a number of "maps" before I head out - USGS, USGS Historical, Garmin map and Google maps.  Each one gives me a slightly different perspective, more or less.  Most USGS maps are getting pretty old these days.  A TR now and then never hurts.


----------



## jon44 (Sep 28, 2011)

David Metsky said:


> Which maps were you using that you found to be inaccurate?  And which printings of those maps?



For what it's worth, this was on Great Gulf Trail, right before intersection with Sphinx trail.  The trail actually is confusing to follow here as the continuation on the other side of two or three river crossings isn't directly across from the point you first enter the river.

And I was actually using the trip as a way to play with/see if I could get any use out of a Delorme PN-60 GPS I received as a gift.  The topo map I loaded up theoretically is the same as current USGS quad.  But at the summit, I also checked the current AMC hiking map and some other "recreation" map, and both had the same mistake as well (as mentioned, the "Washburn" map of the Presidentials is the only one that has trail correctly).

On a side note, I could not see the point of a GPS.  Besides map inaccuracy, my location on the map was also usually way off, and once I got lost, it didn't help at all, as the historical track was also screwed up by the occasional outlyer reading (e.g., one point every mile or so would show up 400 to 500 feet off actual location, completely confusing the track.)


----------



## Gnarcissaro (Sep 29, 2011)

Maps aren't always 100 percent accurate over the miles and miles of trails!?!?! Wow pal, you're really breaking this case wide open! :dunce:


----------



## billski (Sep 29, 2011)

Gnarcissaro said:


> Maps aren't always 100 percent accurate over the miles and miles of trails!?!?! Wow pal, you're really breaking this case wide open! :dunce:



Now, now, settle down.  A little benzo might be in order.   Anyways, nothing a little old compass won't help...


----------



## Gnarcissaro (Sep 29, 2011)

billski said:


> Now, now, settle down.  A little benzo might be in order.   Anyways, nothing a little old compass won't help...



Haha, or just a little good sense in the woods.


----------



## billski (Sep 29, 2011)

Gnarcissaro said:


> Haha, or just a little good sense in the woods.


Billski says:
Navigation skills - check
Water - Check
hiking boots - check
common sense - nada :grin:

I can get lost all by myself without any help from anyone else.  :grin:

Isn't that the male way? Take no instructions or directions from anyone!  :grin:


----------



## jon44 (Oct 1, 2011)

Gnarcissaro said:


> Maps aren't always 100 percent accurate over the miles and miles of trails!?!?! Wow pal, you're really breaking this case wide open! :dunce:



Now I know why you seem familiar--for sure, you're the obnoxious fat lady Bill Bryson talks about in his book about hiking the AT, who barges into people's campgrounds and tells them why they have the wrong boots, how slow they're hiking etc....


----------



## Angus (Oct 2, 2011)

Walk in the Woods - good book.


----------



## David Metsky (Oct 3, 2011)

Angus said:


> Walk in the Woods - good book.


But not even a remotely accurate portrayal of hiking the AT.


----------



## Angus (Oct 3, 2011)

OK, but I can't make a cup of coffee in the morning when I'm camping without thinking of the grotesque taste of drinking coffee brewed/filtered by pink scented toilet paper.


----------

