Maps, GPS, signs...what do you rely on, when, and why?

[AsphaltPlanet]

I use paper maps pretty exclusively.  I don't own a proper GPS, but will occasionally look at my phone to confirm my route.  Usually when I travel, I just use a large size RouteMaster (née MapArt) truckers atlas.  It's more or less the Canadian equivalent to a Rand McNally style truckers atlas.  I like these maps a lot.  Their coverage is a little bit more suited to the needs of a Canadian traveler than the US equivalent.  (Much better coverage in Canada, and an emphasis on the states that the average Canadian is most likely to spend some of the winter in).

When visiting the US, I never buy data for my phone, so unless I pull off somewhere that has WiFi, phone GPS is not an option.  Typically when I have a reservation to a hotel, or need to get to a  specific destination, I'll make hand written notes of how to navigate there from the main highway before I leave the hotel in the morning.  I can usually get to within the last mile or so of a destination without needing much navigational aid.

As said by others above, I do miss the tactile experience of a paper map collection.  I have many memories of flipping through road atlases in my younger days.  I remember checking bookstores and convenience stores pretty religiously looking for latest editions -- when MapArt's 1999 Toronto and Area Deluxe edition road atlas came out, it pretty much blew my teenage mind.  Nowadays though, I almost never find the time to peruse those old paper maps.  The internet really has made them pretty irrelevant.

[bzakharin]

When visiting the US, I never buy data for my phone, so unless I pull off somewhere that has WiFi, phone GPS is not an option

You can download maps for later offline use. With Google the region you can get is pretty limited, but HERE WeGo for example lets you download whole states and countries.

[slorydn1]

I use signs for actual navigation, for the most part. I still use paper maps for pre-trip planning (although I have been cheating a little more with Google maps than I used to, lol).

My GPS in my car really is only for use as a digital speedometer and to keep track of where I have been-I download the track info to my computer via Garmin Basecamp.

[jakeroot]

Rant ahead...

I could see using a paper map to plan out an extremely long journey, but, once you get to the city in question, (as far as I'm concerned) they are completely worthless. Mostly because, I'm not going to a city to do fuck-all. I'm going somewhere. That "somewhere" is most-often an address. Paper maps work great for getting someone from generic area to generic area, but they are completely worthless for finding local businesses and locating exact street addresses.

For example, a few weeks ago, I was in Portland. I know how to get to Portland without using a phone. It's a straight shot down the five. I don't need a paper map to get there. But, once I got to Portland, I needed to visit a T-Mobile store. Rand-McNally isn't going to help me find a T-Mobile store. And therein lies my problem with paper maps. They don't help me find exactly where I need to go. Should I be able to get around by assessing house and street numbers? Of course, and I can do that just fine. But I can't get the specific address without the internet, or at least Google Maps. Why anyone would take that address, and then go to a paper map and route things out, is beyond my 21-year old brain's comprehension abilities.

I'm not here to shit all over paper maps. I get why they were helpful even 10 years ago. But now, I just don't see where they fit in. Even long-distance planning is stupid easy with any computer. Planning a route out on Google Maps, you can send it to your phone, where you can download the route for offline use. No excuse for not having service.

The only time I could see using a paper map would be if I was trying to find things to do, and my local hotel had a tourist-map. Those things are actually pretty helpful. The hotel where I work has them, and it really helps out a lot of the guests. But even they (the guests) just take the map, and plug in the relevant location into their phone. The only people who use them to navigate are either international visitors without data plans, or old people without smart phones.

Paper maps will never go away. Digital maps are simply digital versions of paper maps, and as long as one is capable of failure, the backup will always have a place. But, seeing as the failure rate of digital maps is generally pretty low (Apple Maps is way better than it used to be, so don't bring that up), the usage of paper maps will continue to decline.

[J N Winkler]

I could see using a paper map to plan out an extremely long journey, but, once you get to the city in question, (as far as I'm concerned) they are completely worthless. Mostly because, I'm not going to a city to do fuck-all. I'm going somewhere. That "somewhere" is most-often an address. Paper maps work great for getting someone from generic area to generic area, but they are completely worthless for finding local businesses and locating exact street addresses.

Navigation inside cities is not really the use case for single-sheet state maps.  Before GPS and online mapping became both widespread and convenient, people would get hold of city street maps for large cities where they preferred not to rely on state map insets or their own orienteering skills.  Map cognoscenti were also quite good at sniffing out which brands of maps had information that was useful for localization, such as block numbers.

For example, a few weeks ago, I was in Portland. I know how to get to Portland without using a phone. It's a straight shot down the five. I don't need a paper map to get there. But, once I got to Portland, I needed to visit a T-Mobile store. Rand-McNally isn't going to help me find a T-Mobile store. And therein lies my problem with paper maps. They don't help me find exactly where I need to go. Should I be able to get around by assessing house and street numbers? Of course, and I can do that just fine. But I can't get the specific address without the internet, or at least Google Maps. Why anyone would take that address, and then go to a paper map and route things out, is beyond my 21-year old brain's comprehension abilities.

I-5 is one route and one route number without TOTSOs between Seattle and Portland.  Paper maps are useful when one chooses to go off-Interstate, or to follow an itinerary across multiple routes, and wants easy confirmation of routing without having to fiddle with a phone behind the wheel.

The old-school approach to finding a T-Mobile store in Portland would be to look up the address in a phone book and then find it on a paper city map.  Yes, Google Maps on a phone combines these two searches into one and makes it much easier to find the closest, but the dead-tree method is still useful and relevant when you do not have access to mobile data.

I'm not here to shit all over paper maps. I get why they were helpful even 10 years ago. But now, I just don't see where they fit in. Even long-distance planning is stupid easy with any computer. Planning a route out on Google Maps, you can send it to your phone, where you can download the route for offline use. No excuse for not having service.

Some of us travel without computers and without every mile of a 4,000-mile route planned in advance.  And Google Maps can be tricky to use in certain route planning scenarios, e.g. where it assumes turns that are perfectly legal are forbidden, or shows a construction project in progress and refuses to allow routings down roads that the user knows with certainty are still open.  The ability to play with itinerary routing and check both distance and time is a valuable feature of Google Maps, but has no mobile implementation.

The only time I could see using a paper map would be if I was trying to find things to do, and my local hotel had a tourist-map. Those things are actually pretty helpful. The hotel where I work has them, and it really helps out a lot of the guests. But even they (the guests) just take the map, and plug in the relevant location into their phone. The only people who use them to navigate are either international visitors without data plans, or old people without smart phones.

Hi.  I have a smartphone with a data plan, and I am not an old person.  I actually use those maps for navigation.  Sometimes I take multiple copies:  one to hold in sweaty fingers, and another to keep for the trip file.  I have had enough experience with misleading cartography (both paper and digital) not to repose all of my eggs in one basket, and a paper map can never embarrass me by running out of juice.

[SSOWorld]

Paper Maps don't lose signal in remote areas - or lose signal because the provider hasn't any coverage in an area.

[Roadgeekteen]

Rant ahead...

I could see using a paper map to plan out an extremely long journey, but, once you get to the city in question, (as far as I'm concerned) they are completely worthless. Mostly because, I'm not going to a city to do fuck-all. I'm going somewhere. That "somewhere" is most-often an address. Paper maps work great for getting someone from generic area to generic area, but they are completely worthless for finding local businesses and locating exact street addresses.

For example, a few weeks ago, I was in Portland. I know how to get to Portland without using a phone. It's a straight shot down the five. I don't need a paper map to get there. But, once I got to Portland, I needed to visit a T-Mobile store. Rand-McNally isn't going to help me find a T-Mobile store. And therein lies my problem with paper maps. They don't help me find exactly where I need to go. Should I be able to get around by assessing house and street numbers? Of course, and I can do that just fine. But I can't get the specific address without the internet, or at least Google Maps. Why anyone would take that address, and then go to a paper map and route things out, is beyond my 21-year old brain's comprehension abilities.

I'm not here to shit all over paper maps. I get why they were helpful even 10 years ago. But now, I just don't see where they fit in. Even long-distance planning is stupid easy with any computer. Planning a route out on Google Maps, you can send it to your phone, where you can download the route for offline use. No excuse for not having service.

The only time I could see using a paper map would be if I was trying to find things to do, and my local hotel had a tourist-map. Those things are actually pretty helpful. The hotel where I work has them, and it really helps out a lot of the guests. But even they (the guests) just take the map, and plug in the relevant location into their phone. The only people who use them to navigate are either international visitors without data plans, or old people without smart phones.

Paper maps will never go away. Digital maps are simply digital versions of paper maps, and as long as one is capable of failure, the backup will always have a place. But, seeing as the failure rate of digital maps is generally pretty low (Apple Maps is way better than it used to be, so don't bring that up), the usage of paper maps will continue to decline.

They are good when you in a rural area without cell service and need to get to a place, you can check your phone when you get service.

[jakeroot]

Got it, guys. Paper Maps win when there's no data. That's pretty obvious.

Navigation inside cities is not really the use case for single-sheet state maps.  Before GPS and online mapping became both widespread and convenient, people would get hold of city street maps for large cities where they preferred not to rely on state map insets or their own orienteering skills.  Map cognoscenti were also quite good at sniffing out which brands of maps had information that was useful for localization, such as block numbers.

So, using digital maps makes more sense in cities then, yes?

I-5 is one route and one route number without TOTSOs between Seattle and Portland.  Paper maps are useful when one chooses to go off-Interstate, or to follow an itinerary across multiple routes, and wants easy confirmation of routing without having to fiddle with a phone behind the wheel.

You still have to fiddle with a paper map. Though I will concede that it's easier to screw around with your route with a paper map, assuming you don't have data. But I seldom do that, so it's not a scenario that occurred to me as I wrote my above comment.

The old-school approach to finding a T-Mobile store in Portland would be to look up the address in a phone book and then find it on a paper city map.  Yes, Google Maps on a phone combines these two searches into one and makes it much easier to find the closest, but the dead-tree method is still useful and relevant when you do not have access to mobile data.

Assuming I'm in a city looking for a T-Mobile store, I have never been to a city that doesn't have at least some mobile data coverage. Yes, the dead-tree method is still relevant if you don't have mobile data. But that's not a scenario I, nor many people, face.

Some of us travel without computers and without every mile of a 4,000-mile route planned in advance.  And Google Maps can be tricky to use in certain route planning scenarios, e.g. where it assumes turns that are perfectly legal are forbidden, or shows a construction project in progress and refuses to allow routings down roads that the user knows with certainty are still open.  The ability to play with itinerary routing and check both distance and time is a valuable feature of Google Maps, but has no mobile implementation.

Google Maps isn't perfect. But are you trying to suggest that a map produced nine months before your cross-country holiday is somehow more likely to show up-to-date information about a route? Many things are played by-ear, even with paper maps. Would a paper map come in handy, if Google tries to get you to cross a bridge that's out? Yes, assuming you don't have data. And that's why I'm not completely against paper maps. But that scenario is, again, very uncommon. Having a paper map as backup is genius. You'd be stupid not have one. But, the chances that I would use it over a phone, under most circumstances, is unlikely.

Hi.  I have a smartphone with a data plan, and I am not an old person.  I actually use those maps for navigation.  Sometimes I take multiple copies:  one to hold in sweaty fingers, and another to keep for the trip file.  I have had enough experience with misleading cartography (both paper and digital) not to repose all of my eggs in one basket, and a paper map can never embarrass me by running out of juice.

Fair enough. You are definitely an anomaly, though (no offence!)

[kalvado]

Got it, guys.

No you didn't. Saying you don't like paper map on this board is a bigger offense than saying you drive 30 mph on a highway in left lane without a spare. Acknowledge you wrongdoing, order 3 atlases, cancel your data plan - and your inner roadgeek will see the headlights of oncoming car!

[briantroutman]

But, once I got to Portland, I needed to visit a T-Mobile store. Rand-McNally isn't going to help me find a T-Mobile store. And therein lies my problem with paper maps. They don't help me find exactly where I need to go.

I'd assert that roadgeeks don't turn to paper maps to give them clear instructions on how to get from A to B...because they're not looking for clear instructions. Roadgeeks want to look at the larger system and understand how it works. Undoubtedly, Google Maps or Waze could shave off a few minutes by finding the most direct route with the least traffic. But by looking at a huge map that covers an entire coffee table, you might discover that an alternative route traces the old alignment of a US route–and you find that interesting. Maybe another route parallels a large rail yard and you like trains. Or another route follows gentle curves along a river shore which you find scenic.

To criticize a roadgeek for using paper maps would be like ripping Techmoan for making a half-hour video documenting his struggle to use a thirty year old machine that plays movies from a vinyl disc because he could have downloaded movies from iTunes instead. Yes, that may be true, but his goal wasn't to view a movie as quickly and economically as possible.

I'm a tech savvy millennial who's had an iPhone for a decade and uses a Mac to make a living. And if I'm trying to get to a specific point as quickly as possible, yes, I'll use Apple Maps CarPlayed through my car's touchscreen. But I still enjoy paper maps, too, and when I pull one out, it's not because I'm trying to get from A to B as quickly and economically as possible.

[jakeroot]

^^
I'm not trying to rip people for using paper maps as a fun tool to add to your cross-country drive. Certainly, they can make a trip more enjoyable, if you're the roadgeek-type. I was attempting to rip into those who find mobile phones with built-in GPS's somehow inferior to the paper map. Which they can be, when there's no data. But for the most part, they're by miles the best tool for getting from A to B. The paper map does not compare when traveling from known-point A to known-point B.

My rant above was in response to the vast number of replies that indicated a preference for paper maps when planning journeys. This surprised me, because for the most part, you can plan out a trip from the get-go all on your computer. Is it as fun? Probably not. But that's what sets us roadgeeks apart from the general public.

Sorry if I offended anyone here. I forget that we're a special breed!

[J N Winkler]

Got it, guys. Paper Maps win when there's no data. That's pretty obvious.

They are also more convenient for certain types of information lookup that would result in multiple episodes of zooming in and out with a digital map.  Moreover, a well-designed paper map better distinguishes roads according to cross-section, surface type, maintenance jurisdiction, and traffic importance.  ("Well-designed" is an important caveat, though.  I personally prefer official state maps to Rand McNally/AAA cartography since the scales tend to be larger and the gradation of detail to be better, even if the rendering is a bit more hard-edged, and the choice of detail shown often reflects local knowledge of what types of information are most advantageous to the traveller.  Rand McNally/AAA are the Muzak of American highway cartography.)

Here's an example:

Near Severy, Kansas

Both US 400 and K-99 are shown using yellow lines, while all other roads are shown using white lines regardless of surface type.  On the Kansas official state map, US 400 is shown as a red line ("Principal Highway"), while K-99 on either side of the US 400 dogleg overlap is shown as a black line ("Other Highway").  Of the county section line roads, only a few are shown, including two paved roads (thin black) indicating that Severy has paved connections to both K-99 and US 400.  Only the important gravel roads are shown, in thin brown.

In this case, the additional information you receive from the paper map is that US 400 (the red line) is considered a principal through route and so is more likely to have full paved shoulders and alignment that supports comfortable cruising at a 65 limit.

With Google Maps you do gain the ability to sample using StreetView, but this is at spots only.  For comprehensive evaluation across multiple sections that reflect different standards of improvement (and thus the reality that state DOTs upgrade their networks, if they have the funds for it, just a few miles at a time), you need photologging.

So, using digital maps makes more sense in cities then, yes?

If data is accessible and the device has juice--yes.

I-5 is one route and one route number without TOTSOs between Seattle and Portland.  Paper maps are useful when one chooses to go off-Interstate, or to follow an itinerary across multiple routes, and wants easy confirmation of routing without having to fiddle with a phone behind the wheel.

You still have to fiddle with a paper map. Though I will concede that it's easier to screw around with your route with a paper map, assuming you don't have data. But I seldom do that, so it's not a scenario that occurred to me as I wrote my above comment.

It is not uncommon to fold a paper map only partially so that the area of interest is on top, and set it down on the front passenger seat.  This saves pulling out the phone, unlocking it, loading the digital map, etc.  A dedicated GPS unit could achieve much the same, but not everyone wants to bother with one.

Google Maps isn't perfect. But are you trying to suggest that a map produced nine months before your cross-country holiday is somehow more likely to show up-to-date information about a route?

A paper map would not be up to the minute, but as a general rule paper maps are also less likely to show false roads.

[J N Winkler]

I'd assert that roadgeeks don't turn to paper maps to give them clear instructions on how to get from A to B...because they're not looking for clear instructions. Roadgeeks want to look at the larger system and understand how it works. Undoubtedly, Google Maps or Waze could shave off a few minutes by finding the most direct route with the least traffic. But by looking at a huge map that covers an entire coffee table, you might discover that an alternative route traces the old alignment of a US route–and you find that interesting. Maybe another route parallels a large rail yard and you like trains. Or another route follows gentle curves along a river shore which you find scenic.

This paragraph actually had me doing the "sometimes" hand gesture.  Yes, roadgeeks like a view of the total system.  But in some of the specific examples mentioned, digital mapping can actually be better:  old alignments are conveniently labelled "Old . . .," while StreetView imagery affords the ability to preview railyard views and determine which river-following highways are scenic and which ones are merely a pain to drive.

Ultimately, keeping an open mind about using paper versus digital maps instead of habitually using one or the other is about choices.  Maps are not reality:  they are constructed objects that reflect a selection of information to present.  By not tying ourselves to a particular series of maps, or even a broad type of map, we maintain the ability to reach out and access what is of interest to us in a given situation.

The real weirdos here are not roadgeeks using paper maps in the age of Google Maps.  They are the ones using pre-1960 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles, painstakingly downloaded in PDF format, to plan a cross-country trip.  But you know what?  That's all right!

[kalvado]

Sorry if I offended anyone here. I forget that we're a special breed!

You just don't realize how useful paper maps can be even on the road!
For example, this summer I was driving a long east-west trip. Sun was really hot, and my legs in black jeans were feeling the heat. But I had a solution! I put paper map on my knees (happened to be map of the other state, but who cares) - and my legs were comfortable for the rest of the trip...
Paper map can also serve as a tablecloth, curtain, clean pad if you need to get under the car... and many other great reasons to have a few in a car.
Cm'on, man, get a few!

[kkt]

Rant ahead...

I could see using a paper map to plan out an extremely long journey, but, once you get to the city in question, (as far as I'm concerned) they are completely worthless. Mostly because, I'm not going to a city to do fuck-all. I'm going somewhere. That "somewhere" is most-often an address. Paper maps work great for getting someone from generic area to generic area, but they are completely worthless for finding local businesses and locating exact street addresses.

For example, a few weeks ago, I was in Portland. I know how to get to Portland without using a phone. It's a straight shot down the five. I don't need a paper map to get there. But, once I got to Portland, I needed to visit a T-Mobile store. Rand-McNally isn't going to help me find a T-Mobile store. And therein lies my problem with paper maps. They don't help me find exactly where I need to go. Should I be able to get around by assessing house and street numbers? Of course, and I can do that just fine. But I can't get the specific address without the internet, or at least Google Maps. Why anyone would take that address, and then go to a paper map and route things out, is beyond my 21-year old brain's comprehension abilities.

I'm not here to shit all over paper maps. I get why they were helpful even 10 years ago. But now, I just don't see where they fit in. Even long-distance planning is stupid easy with any computer. Planning a route out on Google Maps, you can send it to your phone, where you can download the route for offline use. No excuse for not having service.

The only time I could see using a paper map would be if I was trying to find things to do, and my local hotel had a tourist-map. Those things are actually pretty helpful. The hotel where I work has them, and it really helps out a lot of the guests. But even they (the guests) just take the map, and plug in the relevant location into their phone. The only people who use them to navigate are either international visitors without data plans, or old people without smart phones.

Paper maps will never go away. Digital maps are simply digital versions of paper maps, and as long as one is capable of failure, the backup will always have a place. But, seeing as the failure rate of digital maps is generally pretty low (Apple Maps is way better than it used to be, so don't bring that up), the usage of paper maps will continue to decline.

There are paper maps that indicate house numbers at selected cross streets.  You could also look up the address of your destination before you leave and what the cross street is.  Before we had the internet, we'd call the person or business and ask, or get the address from the phone book.

[kalvado]

Rant ahead...

I could see using a paper map to plan out an extremely long journey, but, once you get to the city in question, (as far as I'm concerned) they are completely worthless. Mostly because, I'm not going to a city to do fuck-all. I'm going somewhere. That "somewhere" is most-often an address. Paper maps work great for getting someone from generic area to generic area, but they are completely worthless for finding local businesses and locating exact street addresses.

For example, a few weeks ago, I was in Portland. I know how to get to Portland without using a phone. It's a straight shot down the five. I don't need a paper map to get there. But, once I got to Portland, I needed to visit a T-Mobile store. Rand-McNally isn't going to help me find a T-Mobile store. And therein lies my problem with paper maps. They don't help me find exactly where I need to go. Should I be able to get around by assessing house and street numbers? Of course, and I can do that just fine. But I can't get the specific address without the internet, or at least Google Maps. Why anyone would take that address, and then go to a paper map and route things out, is beyond my 21-year old brain's comprehension abilities.

I'm not here to shit all over paper maps. I get why they were helpful even 10 years ago. But now, I just don't see where they fit in. Even long-distance planning is stupid easy with any computer. Planning a route out on Google Maps, you can send it to your phone, where you can download the route for offline use. No excuse for not having service.

The only time I could see using a paper map would be if I was trying to find things to do, and my local hotel had a tourist-map. Those things are actually pretty helpful. The hotel where I work has them, and it really helps out a lot of the guests. But even they (the guests) just take the map, and plug in the relevant location into their phone. The only people who use them to navigate are either international visitors without data plans, or old people without smart phones.

Paper maps will never go away. Digital maps are simply digital versions of paper maps, and as long as one is capable of failure, the backup will always have a place. But, seeing as the failure rate of digital maps is generally pretty low (Apple Maps is way better than it used to be, so don't bring that up), the usage of paper maps will continue to decline.

There are paper maps that indicate house numbers at selected cross streets.  You could also look up the address of your destination before you leave and what the cross street is.  Before we had the internet, we'd call the person or business and ask, or get the address from the phone book.

Also, people had to pay their bills by check in the mail, buy newspapers to get news, ride on horseback and bake their own bread..
Those are niche activities these day..  And I don't see a reason to treat paper maps and thick phone books any different than the list above. That had been the way to do it. Past perfect.

[PHLBOS]

Also, people had to pay their bills by check in the mail, buy newspapers to get news, ride on horseback and bake their own bread..
Those are niche activities these day..  And I don't see a reason to treat paper maps and thick phone books any different than the list above. That had been the way to do it. Past perfect.

Whoa there!  I can see riding horseback & baking one's own bread as being niche activities for today; but to say that paying bills via mailing a check and/or reading a newspaper are niche activities today is a tad premature and out of line (IMHO).

If one lives in an apartment; many landlords/rental agencies still require that their rents be paid by check and mailed to a P.O. box.  And, no, I'm not referring to a hick-town out in the middle of nowhere.  That's just one example but there are probably others.

Last time I checked; despite having such available on-line, newspapers are still around and being purchased.  Similar to a paper map; a newspaper allows one to see several articles at-once without scrolling through a screen.

[bzakharin]

Got it, guys. Paper Maps win when there's no data. That's pretty obvious.

Again, you can download maps ahead of time. Paper maps are only needed if there is no *GPS Signal*. And that seems to happen a lot less often than it used to. I've lost signal in the mountains sometimes, but very rarely. And even then, you can still browse these maps, they just don't know your location... just like paper maps

[US71]

All 3, plus gut feeling.

[kkt]

You can download the maps you expect to need, but end up somewhere unexpected -- ooh! that road looks interesting! -- it's quicker to wander off your GPS map and wish you'd brought a regional paper map instead.

Paper maps also make nice time capsules and souvenirs.

Of course if GPS works for you, great.

[kphoger]

Got it, guys. Paper Maps win when there's no data. That's pretty obvious.

They are also more convenient for certain types of information lookup that would result in multiple episodes of zooming in and out with a digital map.  Moreover, a well-designed paper map better distinguishes roads according to cross-section, surface type, maintenance jurisdiction, and traffic importance.  ("Well-designed" is an important caveat, though.  I personally prefer official state maps to Rand McNally/AAA cartography since the scales tend to be larger and the gradation of detail to be better, even if the rendering is a bit more hard-edged, and the choice of detail shown often reflects local knowledge of what types of information are most advantageous to the traveller.  Rand McNally/AAA are the Muzak of American highway cartography.)

Here's an example:

Near Severy, Kansas

Both US 400 and K-99 are shown using yellow lines, while all other roads are shown using white lines regardless of surface type.  On the Kansas official state map, US 400 is shown as a red line ("Principal Highway"), while K-99 on either side of the US 400 dogleg overlap is shown as a black line ("Other Highway").  Of the county section line roads, only a few are shown, including two paved roads (thin black) indicating that Severy has paved connections to both K-99 and US 400.  Only the important gravel roads are shown, in thin brown.

In this case, the additional information you receive from the paper map is that US 400 (the red line) is considered a principal through route and so is more likely to have full paved shoulders and alignment that supports comfortable cruising at a 65 limit.

Oh yes, ten times over.  Do you want to evaluate the pros and cons of route alternatives between two points hundreds of miles apart?  A paper atlas lets you know what roads through there are major corridors, which ones are multi-lane highways, how big the towns are that you have to drive through along the way, what points of interest you might see along the way, how easy it is to avoid tolls, etc, etc, etc.  Using the internet for all that requires a lot of zooming in and out and even searching the web; and then you're left (or at least I am) feeling like you still don't have a good overall understanding of the region.

I can think of so many examples of wanting to know an alternate route on the fly, when a paper atlas fit the bill.  Maybe the most memorable for me are from west Texas.  One of those was wanting to avoid driving through Odessa on my way south from Seminole to Fort Stockton.  Pop open the Rand McNally, and it was easy:  TX-158 to Goldsmith, then south on FM-866.  On Google Maps, FM-866 is just a white line and doesn't stand out in any way, so I wouldn't necessarily trust it.  But because it was in RMN, I was confident it was a good road, and that it was.  That was back in the 90s, though, so cell phone internet wasn't a thing.



Just this past summer, my family and I ended up with an overheated car on the side of the road in 100° weather with near-zero cell coverage and certainly no data coverage.  We needed to find a good mechanic that was both not too far away from our location and also somewhat along the way back towards home.  Not only could I not use my cell phone because it was (a) almost dead and (b) worthless without coverage, but Google Maps simply wouldn't have given me the same overall view of my general area, let alone allowed me to easily calculate in my head how far away different towns were.  Once we actually arrived to the town I decided upon, we pulled over and did internet searching (having charged our phones along the way) for a hotel and a mechanic.  But it was paper that got us that far.

[busman_49]

Google Maps (and to a lesser extent these days, paper) when planning a trip.  This way I can visualize the route and compare with my own notes what might be worthy of a stop along the way to wherever I'm going.

GPS, handwritten notes, and Google Map directions during the trip, in that order of importance.  The GPS guides me along the way, and also recalculates when I decide to stray off course.  I turned the voice thingy off on it because of how often I decide to stray off the "approved" route.  I joke that I'm one of a small number of people who tells the GPS where I'm going and lets the machine figure it out from there.  Notes are used as sort of a last-minute deviation in the trip; I often will key the address into my GPS.  I will occasionally keep a set of directions on hand, but it's easier following a GPS screen than a piece of paper, especially when I travel at night.

I think signs for me play a lesser part, mainly just serving as confirmation that I'm on the right track...er, road.

[slorydn1]

Ok OK, I have to admit that I have, on occasion, once I reach my destination, that I have looked up a resturant on Google and plugged in its address into my GPS. Not often, but I have done it- especially when I didn't see the type of resturant that I had a taste for on the way in.

I don't stay away from GPS navigation for a big trip because of any roadgeek morality that says I that I can't, but I have always had this built in GPS in my head that once I have looked over the general route I want to take on a map I usually have no problems getting to where I need to be by just following the signs. My wife and my little brother can both attest to that.

Now, once I get to point B, if its a place that I really am not familiar with, then I will use the GPS to navigate to point C if I need to.

[1995hoo]

I certainly use a sat-nav (built into the two cars we use most on trips) to guide me to addresses in unfamiliar places. I'd rather have it guiding me than rely on my wife to tell me where to turn using a paper map because she's not good with directions and frequently misses turns. I do not normally have the sat-nav active on long highway drives because it won't help much and I don't want it interrupting the music or whatever. I'll also regularly use it to find a gas station or restaurant. While I have a nice app called iExit that lists what's available at Interstate exits, I can't very well use that while I'm driving.

Signs are still important because a sat-nav won't always know about road reconfigurations due to construction or similar. Sat-navs also generally won't guide you into restricted lanes that might be useful (HOV being the obvious example).

For planning a trip, usually a combination of paper maps from AAA and Google Maps. Google Maps is so useful for comparing alternate routes for time estimates and the like, but I still like paper for the big picture. Unless we're going someplace familiar or somewhere for which I already have a map, I'll usually go to AAA to pick up some maps and the TourBooks. I don't use the TourBooks as often as I may have 20 years ago for finding lodging, but sometimes we get a good discovery through them. Last month an ad in the TourBook led me to Gervasi Vineyard in Canton. Turned out to be a great place to stay and I never would have found it otherwise. But in general, I'll use the TourBook more for finding tourism sights of interest and maybe restaurants.

Paper maps are also useful beyond the sat-nav's coverage (our most recent trip to Nova Scotia being a good example–the map ended just east of Yarmouth and near Church Point).

[Bitmapped]

I generally try to plan out where I'm going before I leave. That generally occurs with a combination of Google Maps and paper state-issued maps if I'm going to a new area. Google Maps gives me ideas on distance and time, and the paper maps let me better explore what's in the area.

In the car, I have a Garmin Nuvi GPS and state-issued paper maps for my home state (WV) and each of the surrounding states (PA, MD, VA, KY, OH) in the glovebox. I also keep a Rand McNally atlas and a WV DeLorme atlas in the back. If I'm going somewhere in a backwoods area in another state, I'll frequently bring along DeLorme atlases for those states. I'll also bring along National Forest or National Park maps as appropriate.

I use the GPS for navigating within cities/urban areas. For longer distances, I'll generally pull out a paper map to see where I am, although I'll sometimes also pull up my destination on the Garmin to get an idea on ETA and remaining distances.

I geocache and also keep my Garmin loaded with current POI files containing geocaches for the areas I'm traveling. I'll use it pull up geocaches nearby and will use it to navigate to geocaches.