Trail maps that are underwhelming

NELSAP

Some trail maps exaggerate a ski area - making it appear much larger than it really is. Much rarer are maps that make an area look a lot smaller than it really is. What examples can you think of?

This 1989 trail map of Gore is an example-this was a 2100' vertical mountain then, but the map makes it look so much smaller, with lots of wasted space below the base lodge.

https://skimap.org/data/320/260/1283033184.jpg

slatham

Wow, yeah. That doesn’t look like 2,100’ of vert.

lotsoskiing

Can't think of too many, but the maps from many midwest areas crack me up...some make it look like they are huge peaks.

I do recall Stowe's was pretty underwhelming over the years

NewEnglandSkier13

BMOM's trail map makes the mountain look way smaller than it is and doesn't even show half of the signed glades.
https://www.skiblackmountain.org/images/OfficeForms/PocketMap2019.pdf

However, a new map is in the works that will portray the mountain much more accurately.

millerm277

Montage's 2007 map made it seem like it wasn't a mountain all: https://skimap.org/data/248/7/1209847742.jpg

newpylong

NewEnglandSkier13;c-43814 wroteBMOM's trail map makes the mountain look way smaller than it is and doesn't even show half of the signed glades.
https://www.skiblackmountain.org/images/OfficeForms/PocketMap2019.pdf

However, a new map is in the works that will portray the mountain much more accurately.

Glades aside, I think their map makes it actually look bigger than it actually skis. It's hard to guage size from a map but the mountain does not ski big in general IMO. Again, trees aside.

Treilly

lotsoskiing;c-43813 wroteCan't think of too many, but the maps from many midwest areas crack me up...some make it look like they are huge peaks.

Yes Midwest makes things look much bigger. The avg run at Caberfae is .3 tenths of a mile top to bottom

NewEnglandSkier13

newpylong;c-43825 wrote
NewEnglandSkier13;c-43814 wroteBMOM's trail map makes the mountain look way smaller than it is and doesn't even show half of the signed glades.
https://www.skiblackmountain.org/images/OfficeForms/PocketMap2019.pdf

However, a new map is in the works that will portray the mountain much more accurately.
Glades aside, I think their map makes it actually look bigger than it actually skis. It's hard to guage size from a map but the mountain does not ski big in general IMO. Again, trees aside.

Compare the map to a drone shot of the mountain (current glades in green, planned glades in orange). Even not taking into account the glades, you can see how much more terrain the trails on the right and left sides of the map cover than the map makes it seem like. The drone shot doesn't even mark the many unofficial glades around the mountain.

newpylong

Putting the actual on top of the trail map makes it even more of a fair depiction IMHO.

newpylong

I'll toss in Sugarloaf to the pile. The Trail Map certainly depicts an expansive ski area, but it doesn't do the place any justice. I believe it shows everything smooshed together when in reality things are far more seperated.

jaytrem

I remember Sipapu had a crappy trail map the first time I was planning a NM trip. Before the season started they replaced it with a Niehues. I remember becoming much more excited about skiing there. Turned out to be even more fun than I expected. It was demo day for all kinds of crazy contraptions that you could ride down the hill.

https://skimap.org/SkiAreas/view/337

ciscokid

lotsoskiing

ciscokid;c-43860 wrote

That is one of the ones I was thinking of...makes it look downright Alpine; at the very least, like it is in the drumlins of E Quebec.

NewEnglandSkier13

lotsoskiing;c-43861 wrote
ciscokid;c-43860 wrote
That is one of the ones I was thinking of...makes it look downright Alpine; at the very least, like it is in the drumlins of E Quebec.

I think that map is the opposite of what this thread is looking for. This map seems the ski area look more impressive than it is.

rickbolger

newpylong;c-43840 wroteI'll toss in Sugarloaf to the pile. The Trail Map certainly depicts an expansive ski area, but it doesn't do the place any justice. I believe it shows everything smooshed together when in reality things are far more seperated.

Agree 100%. IMHO the problem is the perspective is completely wacked, instead of looking straight at the front of the mountain, it looks at the corner. As a result, 1/4 of the map, particularly the foreground, is not much of anything.

Here I divided the map in four equal sections, this is the front lower right:

...that's 1/4 of the map. roads, trees, condos, cross cuts, and part of a lift that I've never seen operate.

lotsoskiing

NewEnglandSkier13;c-43830 wrote
newpylong;c-43825 wrote
NewEnglandSkier13;c-43814 wroteBMOM's trail map makes the mountain look way smaller than it is and doesn't even show half of the signed glades.
https://www.skiblackmountain.org/images/OfficeForms/PocketMap2019.pdf

However, a new map is in the works that will portray the mountain much more accurately.
Glades aside, I think their map makes it actually look bigger than it actually skis. It's hard to guage size from a map but the mountain does not ski big in general IMO. Again, trees aside.
Compare the map to a drone shot of the mountain (current glades in green, planned glades in orange). Even not taking into account the glades, you can see how much more terrain the trails on the right and left sides of the map cover than the map makes it seem like. The drone shot doesn't even mark the many unofficial glades around the mountain.

They should scrap the map and use the picture. I had no idea it was that big an area, and the pic shows off the sidecountry really well

NewEnglandSkier13

lotsoskiing;c-43865 wrote
NewEnglandSkier13;c-43830 wrote
newpylong;c-43825 wrote
NewEnglandSkier13;c-43814 wroteBMOM's trail map makes the mountain look way smaller than it is and doesn't even show half of the signed glades.
https://www.skiblackmountain.org/images/OfficeForms/PocketMap2019.pdf

However, a new map is in the works that will portray the mountain much more accurately.
Glades aside, I think their map makes it actually look bigger than it actually skis. It's hard to guage size from a map but the mountain does not ski big in general IMO. Again, trees aside.
Compare the map to a drone shot of the mountain (current glades in green, planned glades in orange). Even not taking into account the glades, you can see how much more terrain the trails on the right and left sides of the map cover than the map makes it seem like. The drone shot doesn't even mark the many unofficial glades around the mountain.

They should scrap the map and use the picture. I had no idea it was that big an area, and the pic shows off the sidecountry really well

I agree and that's exactly what they're doing! The new map isn't finalized yet, but the drafts look really nice.

Here's a low resolution sneak preview:

xlr8r

Sugarloaf and Loon both have newer James Niehues Maps that are not as good as their old James Niehues maps.

The old JN Sugarloaf map is oriented correctly to face the mountain, I bet they had current map made oriented differently to better show the Timberline area. The current Sugarloaf map also has the trails look too cluttered together, making it hard to distinguish trails from each other.

The new JN Loon map makes Loon look small, its as if Loon only payed for a half scale map as the trees and cars look way to big in proportion to the mountain. The old map had a much better scale and shows the contours of the mountain much better.

It seems as if James Niehues in some cases as moved his perspective to be more Birds Eye/plan view in his new maps. Doing this the mountains lose a lot of their contours and character lines.

newpylong

NewEnglandSkier13;c-43867 wrote
lotsoskiing;c-43865 wrote
NewEnglandSkier13;c-43830 wrote
newpylong;c-43825 wrote
NewEnglandSkier13;c-43814 wroteBMOM's trail map makes the mountain look way smaller than it is and doesn't even show half of the signed glades.
https://www.skiblackmountain.org/images/OfficeForms/PocketMap2019.pdf

However, a new map is in the works that will portray the mountain much more accurately.
Glades aside, I think their map makes it actually look bigger than it actually skis. It's hard to guage size from a map but the mountain does not ski big in general IMO. Again, trees aside.
Compare the map to a drone shot of the mountain (current glades in green, planned glades in orange). Even not taking into account the glades, you can see how much more terrain the trails on the right and left sides of the map cover than the map makes it seem like. The drone shot doesn't even mark the many unofficial glades around the mountain.

They should scrap the map and use the picture. I had no idea it was that big an area, and the pic shows off the sidecountry really well
I agree and that's exactly what they're doing! The new map isn't finalized yet, but the drafts look really nice.

Here's a low resolution sneak preview:

I get what you're talking about now. The new map has a better sense of the scale.

conrad

Much as I like his maps overall, I always thought that James Niehues mid-2000's Sunday River trail map was inferior and worse at displaying the ski area than the one it replaced.
https://skimap.org/SkiAreas/view/459