|
This page gives my reviews of several types of topo maps, based on
the print quality. It doesn’t address other reasons that you might
prefer one map over another, such as coverage area or paper types.
What you see below are scans of each map displayed at 1-to-1, i.e.,
one scanned pixel corresponds to one screen pixel. The 150-dpi samples
roughly approximate what the map looks like to the naked eye at perusal
distance, say 20-25 cm or so, while the 300- and 600-dpi samples
are what you’d see if you looked closer or through a magnifying
glass or loupe. If you want to really see the gory
details, download the 1200-dpi large sample (but beware, they’re
big).
The grades are somewhat subjective and based on my impression of the
maps on paper in addition to the images shown here.
Copyright info: these image samples are excerpts for reviewing
purposes, so as far as I know they are not protected by copyright. Use
them for any purpose you wish. (Note that I am not a lawyer.)
Comments and suggestions welcome: please e-mail me at
reid@reidster.net. In particular, if you have a topographic map
not here, I’d love to include it.
|
|
USGS 7.5 minute quad
“Deer Point”, UT.
Large sample (8.5 cm):
600 dpi (6.3 M),
1200 dpi (18 M).
|
|
Grade: A.
Still the gold standard. (Plain paper.)
|
|
|
|
|
Trails Illustrated
#207, “Grand Canyon National Park”, AZ.
Large sample (8.5 cm):
600 dpi (8.0 M),
1200 dpi (24 M).
|
|
Grade: B+.
Good maps. Nice companions to the USGS quads (the scale is too small to
stand alone, but they show some things the USGS quads don’t).
Paper shows some yellowing with age, visible in the 150-dpi sample as a
vertical streak on the right side. (Plasticized paper.)
|
|
|
|
|
McKenzie
#8, “Knife, Kekekabic Lake”, MN, 2006 ed.
Large sample (8.5 cm):
600 dpi (11 M),
1200 dpi (34 M).
|
|
Grade: B-.
Good maps. Alignment of color plates is sometimes a problem.
(Plasticized paper.)
|
|
|
|
|
mytopo.com 1:24 k custom quad
Grand Canyon area, AZ.
Large sample (8.5 cm):
600 dpi (6.4 M),
1200 dpi (20 M).
|
|
Grade: C-.
Marginally acceptable. Recommend only if edge interactions or paper of
USGS quads are unworkable. Note that on paper the area shown has
somewhat more contrast than you see here. (Plasticized paper.)
|
|
|
|
|
offroute.com 1:24 k custom quad
Grand Canyon area, AZ).
Large sample (8.5 cm):
600 dpi (8.8 M),
1200 dpi (28 M).
|
|
Grade: C-.
Marginally acceptable. The resolution is the same as the mytopo.com map,
but the printing technique is different. While there aren’t any
funky color effects in the type, the overall impression is somewhat less
crisp. You can see the individual pixels even at perusal distance, which
isn’t evident from the 150-dpi sample here. Personal preference
may lead you to one or the other, but I think the print quality is
overall very similar. Special thanks to Bob Holland, who loaned me this
map across the country to review. (Plain paper.)
|
|
|
|
|
DeLorme Topo USA 6.0 1:25 k custom map
Targhee National Forest, ID.
Large sample (8.5 cm):
600 dpi (6.4 M),
1200 dpi (21 M).
|
|
Grade: D.
Not acceptable. Printing is very crisp, but there are several
significant flaws. Most importantly, the minor topo lines are illegible.
(Oddly, in the scan they are not visible over white, and faint but
visible over green, while on paper the situation is reversed.) Text is
styled and laid out awkwardly. Weights of different elements are poorly
balanced (e.g., the blue UTM grid is visually overwhelming). Special
thanks to Ray Fink, who mailed me this map to review. (Plain paper,
home-printed on inkjet.)
|
|
|
|
|
