"jacques" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> As far as I know, the green Michelin maps are enlarged versions of the yellow ones. They
> are easier to read but do not provide more information. Standard 1:200000 Michelin will
> show you almost every usable paved road. Their weak point in mountaneous areas is that they
> only show little
altitude
> information. If you want to know more precisely what lies ahead, use the
> 1:100000 IGN. However, in my experience, the IGN will wear out faster in wind and rain, and may
> also contain (few) errors, one thing I have never
seen on
> a Michelin map.
>
> Jacques (try to find me on the Michelin map #520 !)
>
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:25:37 +0000, Terry Morse wrote:
>
> > I'd like to pick up some Michelin maps of the French Alps and Pyrenees. Are the green (high
> > resolution) maps better for cycle touring, or are the yellow (lower resolution) maps adequate?
The old green maps weren't just enlarged versions of the yellow ones: some of them definitely
included more info. That said, I believe Michelin has revised its line of maps. The old yellow
1:200000 maps are being replaced by a new yellow series at 1:150000 or 1:175000, on thicker paper,
and printed on both sides. As far as I can tell, the 1:150000 don't appear to have any greater
detail than the 1:200000; they're just easier on the eyes and easier to handle. I think these newer
maps are pretty good. They're called "Local" maps.
At the same time, I have a weakness for topographical maps so depending on my purposes I often
prefer the IGN maps even though the paper is less sturdy. I have occasionally found errors in
footpaths on IGN maps but thus far (knock on wood) I've never found an error in a paved road.
I have mixed feelings about the Lonely Planet book, which I just received as a gift, though my
reservations are sorta common to any book that gives specific routes.