mrssanta wrote:DopeyLoser wrote:Lightfoot2017 wrote:Half the coverage, but twice the detail.
And four times as much white space.
Yes 25k can be good in complicated areas. But this is Carn na Caim & A’ Bhuidheanach Bheag. The latter especially is a mound of nothingness. If Hugh Munro hadn't put it on a list no one would go there.
There
is no detail. Maybe a line of old fence posts along the 'ridge'. A spot of track that's on the 50k map. Not much else but blasted heath if I recall correctly.
Oh I disagree! A'Bhuidheanach Bheag has two summits. Also there is a nice bit of left turn you need to do on the summit of A'Bhuidheanach. and in poor visibility, knowing where on the map the line of old fence posts is supposed to be might be quite handy, given they are not marked on the 1:50 000. I can use both, but I prefer the 25 000 which is probably more down to my personality than anything because I like to identify little wiggles in the contours and so on.
I liked A'Bhuidheanach Bheag actually. Such an expanse of emptiness, and a great place for a wild camp.
I agree. Two things I very much like
(1) "boring" hills like the Grampians, Monadh Liath etc. The sense of space, the shifting light over the slopes, the wildlife
(2) the detail in the 1:25000 map - all those little bumps, hollows, craglets and ponds.
But then, I am the sort of person who reads maps at bedtime, the way other people read novels. The latest OS edition or Harveys publication is like the latest Margaret Atwood to me. So I'm probably a bit odd.
Tim