Write a comment below about a map you have used. These maps cover all the Pacific Coast from California to Washington State. Check out all the other titles we carry for the Pacific Region . Tell us which maps worked for you and what needed improvement.
Just click on the COMMENTS link below to rate any of our Pacific Maps
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Monday, September 22, 2008
Not lost in Seattle
We recently flew into Seattle and circumnavigated Puget Sound by way of ferry and the magnificent bridge from Whidbey Island to the mainland over Deception Pass.
A key resource here was Rand-McNally's Seattle map. The only thing to beware of is that it does not cover the area south of the airport in Tacoma. Other than that, all the exits are clearly marked.
You can get one here...http://www.mapshop.com/Travel_Maps/Pacific_US_Maps/Seattle/Seattle_map.asp
Enjoy your next rip to the NorthWest.
Ted
Monday, May 5, 2008
Costa Rica Map Comparisons
During my recent trip to Costa Rica, I had the benefit of having two different maps as reference material.The first publication was "Costa Rica & Panama" by Rough Guide. The second was "Costa Rica" by National Geographic. Both had surprisingly accurate information. There were some minor differences with benefits and detriments . Each map made my trip more informational and interesting overall.
Both maps had accurate road information; and, the only difference between the two were labelling, font size and coloring. Road information was the most important point of reference. Costa Rica's infrastructure isn't very dense, but it is heavily traveled. (pedestrians, cyclists, farm equipment, etc...) Every road I traveled was only 2 lanes and mocked any sort of classification. The only applicable differences in road type were paved, barely paved and unpaved. The National Geographic map was superior reflecting this. It seemed the Rough Guide classified the roads strictly by highway type, while the National Geographic (http://www.mapshop.com/Travel_Maps/Central_America/Costa_Rica_mapByNG.asp )seemed to know which roads had miraculously experienced some sort of improvements. (Road improvements are very rare in Costa Rica according to the locals.) Both seemed to be up to date and accurate enough to navigate the countryside without fear of discombobulation. I was able to follow the progress of every tour and transfer we took.
Costa Ricans are very proud of their country, espcially the beauty of the land. It is very beautiful. Costa Rica is a land of diverse ecosystems with some of the most interesting microclimates in the world. The cause of most of this diversity is terrain which causes hinderance to prevailing winds and rain clouds. The central mountain chain of the country is the reason for the rainy and dry seasons. Both maps include topographical information. The National Geographic showed the mountains and volcanoes better than The Rough Guide. The National Geographic uses shaded relief in conjunction with contour lines. This was definitely the easiest way to quickly locate large physical features. Both maps basically showed the same hydrology. Neither map showed the system of man made canals in the Guanacaste Province.
Tourism is one of the top money generating industries in Costa Rica. Their beaches, weather, national and provincial parks, resorts and natural wonders are very attractive to world travelers. I understand now why they are such a hot destination, literally and figuratively. Here is where I found the most contrast between the publications. The National Geographic highlighted the parks and natural feature boundaries better than The Rough Guide. The Rough Guide identified the recreational points and tourist sights better than the National Geographic. Since most tourists are looking for site specific place names, the Rough Guide was the superior map for locating points of interest.
Both maps are very good publications. Depending on the plans of the user I would recommend either of these maps to a customer. Costa Rica has many publishers producing maps for the country, but these two in particular are really good reference materials. Both are under ten dollars and worth every penny.
Steven Marek
Senior Cartographer
Both maps had accurate road information; and, the only difference between the two were labelling, font size and coloring. Road information was the most important point of reference. Costa Rica's infrastructure isn't very dense, but it is heavily traveled. (pedestrians, cyclists, farm equipment, etc...) Every road I traveled was only 2 lanes and mocked any sort of classification. The only applicable differences in road type were paved, barely paved and unpaved. The National Geographic map was superior reflecting this. It seemed the Rough Guide classified the roads strictly by highway type, while the National Geographic (http://www.mapshop.com/Travel_Maps/Central_America/Costa_Rica_mapByNG.asp )seemed to know which roads had miraculously experienced some sort of improvements. (Road improvements are very rare in Costa Rica according to the locals.) Both seemed to be up to date and accurate enough to navigate the countryside without fear of discombobulation. I was able to follow the progress of every tour and transfer we took.Costa Ricans are very proud of their country, espcially the beauty of the land. It is very beautiful. Costa Rica is a land of diverse ecosystems with some of the most interesting microclimates in the world. The cause of most of this diversity is terrain which causes hinderance to prevailing winds and rain clouds. The central mountain chain of the country is the reason for the rainy and dry seasons. Both maps include topographical information. The National Geographic showed the mountains and volcanoes better than The Rough Guide. The National Geographic uses shaded relief in conjunction with contour lines. This was definitely the easiest way to quickly locate large physical features. Both maps basically showed the same hydrology. Neither map showed the system of man made canals in the Guanacaste Province.
Tourism is one of the top money generating industries in Costa Rica. Their beaches, weather, national and provincial parks, resorts and natural wonders are very attractive to world travelers. I understand now why they are such a hot destination, literally and figuratively. Here is where I found the most contrast between the publications. The National Geographic highlighted the parks and natural feature boundaries better than The Rough Guide. The Rough Guide identified the recreational points and tourist sights better than the National Geographic. Since most tourists are looking for site specific place names, the Rough Guide was the superior map for locating points of interest.
Both maps are very good publications. Depending on the plans of the user I would recommend either of these maps to a customer. Costa Rica has many publishers producing maps for the country, but these two in particular are really good reference materials. Both are under ten dollars and worth every penny.
Steven Marek
Senior Cartographer
Monday, February 18, 2008
Hawaiian Islands by Nelles
Their new map of Hawaii does a nice job of showing both the road network and the terrain. (topography) We recommend it. You can find it here.. Hawaiian Islands Map
Let us know how you this map of the Hawaiian Islands and what your favorite memory of Hawaii might be.
Let us know how you this map of the Hawaiian Islands and what your favorite memory of Hawaii might be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
