Good Mapping site

Mark W

Mark W

Well-known member
I went out and did some boating around this weekend looking for some new hunting spots. I used some aerial navigation maps to cruise around but found they weren't very accurate nor up to date. Anyone have a great site that has relatively up to date maps? Looking for MN and Wisconsin coverage.

Overhead maps from outer space would be great.

Mark W
 
I can't say anything about the midwest, but I have found Google Earth to be the best source online. I have a subscription to Delorme through a GPS receiver I got as a gift that allows unlimited downloads of both color and B+W aerial images, and I routinely find the image quality and resolution on Google Earth is as good if not better.

Google Earth generally shows you the most recent image, but it also allows you to look for older images at the same site. This can be helpful.

You can also probably get recent aerial photos in hard copy at your local USDA NRCS office. You'd have to order and pay for copies you can take home, but you can use the images in the office if you want.

The biggest issue I've found with aerials is water levels. Tidal areas seem to mostly be shot at low tide, which is very helpful, but inland areas are often shot in spring just before leaf out. This means high water levels in streams and lakes, and high groundwater levels. A lot of channels that look navigable by canoe on the aerial are non-existent during the dry season.
 
Or the other way around. What looks good on the aerial turns out to be weed choked and inaccessible when you actually want to go through the area. I found some interesting places on Mississippi river maps but when push came to shove, what was suppose to be wasn't. Found where I wanted to get to, I just can't get to it.

I am thinking of purchasing the Navionics maps for my phone. This may be of some help and if nothing else, will get me contour maps for fishing.

Mark W
 
Yep, Mark brings up the other issue. In addition to water levels changing from when the photo was taken to when you show up to hunt, so does vegetation. In areas where winter ice takes out much of the emergent vegetation each spring, the difference in where you can get a boat in May vs where you can get it in October can be large. Also, don't forget the beavers. That nice, open looking meandering stream may look boatable, but it probably has a beaver dam full of wader-eating punji sticks every 200 yards. What looks like an easy paddle may turn into the portage from hell.

Still, Google Earth is a whole lot better than trying to interpret the USGS topo map . . . .

Once you know your local area well, you begin to get a sense for what to expect.
 
I like the Bing maps better also. Much higher resolution images, you can zoom in much closer, and you have the option of the aerial or birds eye images. I have about a 4' tide where I hunt, and the bonus is most of the pictures were taken at low tide, so if you know the creeks and ditches, you know what is going to go dry on you. Most of the images for this area were also taken in winter or early spring, so while the vegetation grows in in the warmer months, if you can get through in December chances are you can get through in June, just might be a little harder. Google Earth has newer images than they used to, but they still aren't the resolution of Bing. I believe there is a version of Google Earth that you pay for that has much higher resolution stuff on it.
 
My experience with various levels of GIS programming is that it works pretty decent for my job (forestry) but when I try to use it to scout for duck hunting or dog training spots, what looks good on the map never looks good on the ground!

Don't know if that's just the nature of the beast, or if it's murphy's law!

As mentioned, it's good for getting a general idea, but you definitely have to proof it on the ground . . . maps are just someone's opinion of what the world looks like, and satellite photos are just a snapshot of what it looked like on that day.

Looking forward to checking out Bing.
 
I use anything I can, GIS mapping, photos. for aerials I use google and mapquest, photos are different, bing looks to be the same but maybe better resolution. I also use the NAIP photography its up to each state though if they make it available and how often its flown. Each state is different but some have their own work they do its just finding it.
 
I use anything I can, GIS mapping, photos. for aerials I use google and mapquest, photos are different, bing looks to be the same but maybe better resolution. I also use the NAIP photography its up to each state though if they make it available and how often its flown. Each state is different but some have their own work they do its just finding it.
Click to expand...


Have you used "birds eye view" in Bing - amazing.
 
Just tried it, ok that is a nice feature. Only a couple of my spots here in MD are covered and none in ND. you would think ND would be first on the list. :-)
 
Just tried it, ok that is a nice feature. Only a couple of my spots here in MD are covered and none in ND. you would think ND would be first on the list. :-)
Click to expand...


They are working there way west. It is an amazing tool around here. Did you see that you can turn the view from 4 directions - VERY POWERFUL!!! Often the 4 directions are at different times/days/light angles so you can see the features really pop under certain situations.

Their plane captured me out hunting and me and the boat are in there :).

T
 
no kidding, new way for people to cyber scout, just pull it up and look for decoy spreads.

I would love it to zoom out more, to give a wider perspective. But the rotation and the angle does help in scouting spots and that is some great resolution. Some areas photos seem newer, but my house view though has to be 3-4 years old.
 
Mark,
I'm a GIS professional, like some others, and the imagery world is very compartmentalized. Google/Bing both get contracts with satellite imagery providers for their imagery, and while one may offer some features/resolution over the other, they are still satellite imagery (generally), and have limits for true scouting or detailed mapping applications. USGS regularly updates imagery from overflights, etc...in addition to satellites. Also, your nearest university could probably help point you to some local source aerial imagery. Just talk with their geography/GIS folks. Your soil conservation service will also have aerials that may/may not be useful. The most useful stuff for our purposes are old-school winter overflight aerial photos that are ortho'd (aligned) with a coordinate system, digitally...so they can be combined with other map data, on computer software. Black and white can actually be much more useful than color for detail. Sadly, it's becoming 'outdated' for many sensing formats these days. Maybe I'm just getting old? The newer or more popular satellite imagery from Google, Bing, etc. is relegated to the most recent pass, regardless of time of year (usually summer), and vegetation disguises things, water level is different, etc. Just some thoughts.
 
Bill,
you are sure right about the old black and whites.

The detail of the winter shots was amazing.
No vegetation made a huge diff. in New England to see what was really on the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top