Memory Map users with latest 1:25000/1:50000 maps

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

I’ve used memory map (using OS maps) indoors on tablet/pc and outdoors on phone for many years at 1:50000 both for planning and basic navigation. I’m looking to update as my version is old and thought 1:25000 would be good nowadays.

It is mainly for exploring on my hybrid bike btw so I use all types of roads and tracks (including walking paths if suitable) - fine detail could be handy to minimise dead end tracks/footpaths I guess.

I have download a “preview”, aka limited trial, of MM’s 2021 version of OS 1:25000 before purchasing today. One thing I note so far is that cycle routes have less detail on them than my old OS 1:50000 do.

Orange circles used, repeated frequently, on cycleways/minor roads just stop when a more major road is used and the map ID is then just the national cycle route official number, but only very very infrequently. This means there can be many miles of a not knowing which roads the cycle route is on especially in towns with multiple road options. (I know many cycle routes do not take what a car would use and prefer to stick to cycle routes where roads otherwise are very busy.)

My old maps have a solid green circle on cycleways/minor roads that changed to a green outlined circle on all other roads. It is continuous (though does lack the national cycle route number mostly) so is therefore very easy to see at a glance which road and turns were needed at all times.

Appreciate info on:
1. Is the paid for 1:25000 map really the same as my trial copy, i.e. uses only the national cycle route ID infrequently when on more major roads in and out of towns? (I guess it is as can’t imagine MM having a less detailed map for trials!).

2. If so, does the 2021 version of 1:50000 map have the same “problem” do you know?

3. I would prefer to stick with MM, but if anyone knows anything better using OS maps, happy to hear.

I’ve tried to view OS maps online, but neither the OS nor MM websites seem to allow me to view a sample of the actual details of maps before committing.

Thanks in advance; I was hoping to take advantage of MM’s sale currently on this week 😬!

In reply to Climbing Pieman:

Just had a look at my MM setup. I've got the 2016 1:50k and 2020 1:25k maps on my phone. When I zoom in and out between the maps there is an obvious drop off in detail on the 1:25k map. Looking at Route 62 in Hadfield it's continuous in the 1:50k map but has a significant gap on the 1:25k map where the route leaves the old Woodhead railway line. 

 timjones 23 Jun 2021
In reply to Climbing Pieman:

> I’ve used memory map (using OS maps) indoors on tablet/pc and outdoors on phone for many years at 1:50000 both for planning and basic navigation. I’m looking to update as my version is old and thought 1:25000 would be good nowadays.

> It is mainly for exploring on my hybrid bike btw so I use all types of roads and tracks (including walking paths if suitable) - fine detail could be handy to minimise dead end tracks/footpaths I guess.

> I have download a “preview”, aka limited trial, of MM’s 2021 version of OS 1:25000 before purchasing today. One thing I note so far is that cycle routes have less detail on them than my old OS 1:50000 do.

> Orange circles used, repeated frequently, on cycleways/minor roads just stop when a more major road is used and the map ID is then just the national cycle route official number, but only very very infrequently. This means there can be many miles of a not knowing which roads the cycle route is on especially in towns with multiple road options. (I know many cycle routes do not take what a car would use and prefer to stick to cycle routes where roads otherwise are very busy.)

> My old maps have a solid green circle on cycleways/minor roads that changed to a green outlined circle on all other roads. It is continuous (though does lack the national cycle route number mostly) so is therefore very easy to see at a glance which road and turns were needed at all times.

> Appreciate info on:

> 1. Is the paid for 1:25000 map really the same as my trial copy, i.e. uses only the national cycle route ID infrequently when on more major roads in and out of towns? (I guess it is as can’t imagine MM having a less detailed map for trials!).

> 2. If so, does the 2021 version of 1:50000 map have the same “problem” do you know?

> 3. I would prefer to stick with MM, but if anyone knows anything better using OS maps, happy to hear.

> I’ve tried to view OS maps online, but neither the OS nor MM websites seem to allow me to view a sample of the actual details of maps before committing.

> Thanks in advance; I was hoping to take advantage of MM’s sale currently on this week 😬!

If you could highlight a location where you have encountered this problem I would be happy to check it out on OSmaps if it would help you.

 timjones 23 Jun 2021
In reply to timjones:

> If you could highlight a location where you have encountered this problem I would be happy to check it out on OSmaps if it would help you.

However, a quick check on some local cycle routes suggests that this is pretty much standard on 1:25k mapping where the route uses main roads.

In reply to Deleated bagger:

Thanks. It seems that the 1:25000 map does have less details.

Further googling and checking online, I “think” it is probably that the 1:25000 only highlights continuous stretches of vehicle traffic free cycle routes, whereas the 1:50000 highlights the continuous cycle route irrespective of vehicular traffic (differentiating a difference with solid and outlines circles.

In reply to timjones:

Thanks. I was just randomly looking at routes I’ve done. One example is the Route 76 into Stirling from the SE , then N and out E. There is a huge gap within Stirling itself of not knowing which roads the Route 76 takes.

I found a limited “work around” on OS’s own website by selecting custom maps and zooming. Seems the colouring and legend is still the same for new 1:50000 maps. If so I will be better sticking with an updated map of that scale.

Maybe I should just buy latest of both if extra other details on the 1:25000 would be good!

Edit: correction of typo error direction out 🥴.

Post edited at 20:09
 deepsoup 23 Jun 2021
In reply to Climbing Pieman:

You can get a look at the current 1:50k and 1:25k maps via the 'Ordnance Survey' layer on Bing (though I just had a look and it seems rather glitchy at the moment): https://www.bing.com/maps

If you're interested in numbered national cycle routes, are you aware of the Open Cycle Map?  (It's a fork of the Open Street Map project - the maps are free and open source.)
http://opencyclemap.org/

In reply to deepsoup:

Excellent thanks, appreciate the links which I didn’t know about.

Checking Bing, it does seem there is a significant difference in the way cycle routes are shown on OS between scales.

I do use cycle routes, but more as a means to get to and link different areas to explore more off the normal ways to bike to, so that opencyclemap.org could be useful when mobile reception is good or during rough planning at home.

I still like to use OS maps, albeit digital, offline for the exploring parts and this is where MM for me just works anywhere and has served the purpose well at 1:50000 scale up to now as it’s all in one app on my phone. My version is a bit old nowadays so needing to update for all the changes that’s happened over the years since I last updated.

I’ll sleep on it, but might just get both scales via MM and can them easily swap between the two as necessary.

Appreciate all the comments.

 timjones 23 Jun 2021
In reply to Climbing Pieman:

Route 76 through Stirling definitely has big gaps on the 1:25k on osmaps. either side it is relatively easy to trace using the red 76 "flags" on the roads but it is impossible in the urban areas.

Scanning random areas one advantage in some places appears to be that quite a few offroad cycle routes are marked on the 1:25k but not the 1:50K.

In reply to timjones:

Thanks for that.

I did note some extra off road routes in my preview 1:25000 map and particularly so since my 1:50000 map is an old out of date version. Also, seen some new (to me anyway) designated walking but potentially rideable routes eg John Buchan Route in the borders.

I’ve decided that I like the potential extra detail of 1:25000 so will give it a try under the one yr subscription which includes update to 2020 version when released. I can then review what’s best next year.

I appreciate that national routes should usually be well sign posted with finger posts, but maybe I’ve been unlucky lately. In a lot of areas I’ve been sign are lacking, some are well “hidden” by trees etc, and some are just wrong. There has also been a noted increase in other signs confusing the original route eg private road, no access to … , newish designation multiple walking routes at junctions (good for my exploring though!) and a few diversions whether official or not I don’t know.

Thanks to all; helped considerably.

 Fat Bumbly2 24 Jun 2021
In reply to timjones:

In Cockenzie the “75” has been covered up on all the signs.. Sustrans wiped out a lot of designations last year. NCN is probably a passing idea now.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...