I Bought The World's MOST Comprehensive ATLAS
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 чер 2023
- With claims of being "the world's most authoritative atlas," and even "the greatest book on earth," I couldn't help but spend as much money as it took to get my hands on what surely must be the most impressive atlas I've ever seen. Join me as I thoroughly put this to the test!
Support me on Patreon here:
Follow me on twitter @theatlaspro
Shoutout to Caelan's dad for spending those $50 and subsequently making this channel possible
Thank you, Caelan's dad!
Butterfly effect at its best
Parents who support their kids are nothing less than angels. I love them all, they are the ones who contribute in making the world better.
Yes. But I don't think he can say he got his money's worth. It was his father's money!
And it would be interesting to see what the Nat Geo atlas costs today.
@@rogink I instantly checked the price after watching this video. It's priced about $100 in my country. Probably because it's imported
This dude is a pro with an Atlas
Maybe we should call him an Atlas Pro!
And truly has a pro atlas.
ooomagaa
he must be some sort of atlas pro, could you imagine the geographical things he must know?? he should make a youtube channel
Nope he is not!
AtlasPro himself misidentified a post WW2 political globe to be an post WW1 globe few videos ago...
All this actually showed me is just how amazing Google Earth actually is.
Find Palestine...I bet you cant
@@CStoph1979on Google maps?
@CStoph1979 terrorist state??
@@ashya1 Israel is a terrorist state
@@CStoph1979Not really sure what your point is. Palestines borders and even its legitimacy as a state is largely contested. You could consider it to be inaccurate to show it, or to not show it. It’s kind of a catch 22.
The difference here is that the Times atlas is authoritative in the sense that it only includes places officially named. This means you won't screw up a news report or article with a non-official designation, which makes it a reliable reference. Lots of geographical features are known locally by one name or many, but that is not an official name. The price of being official is that it cannot include some of the obscure stuff that you are looking at which has not been ratified by the respective governments. There is also a philosophical question about how much detail is actually useful (to all but the obscure geographer) and that less information on a map might actually make it a better map.
I think it is also important to consider the question of how we conceiv “authority” in naming things. Not only in terms of obscurity of a name or designation but also in terms of localization.
Also, as a mariner, an Atlas would be next to useless. if you're using this as a reference for work, then you probably also have another equally expensive set of local oceanic charts. You don't compile these because in order to ensure the accuracy of a volume like this, you'd have to talk to the myriad of Oceanographic Agencies of virtually every country, many of whom dispute the features and boundaries of their own waters. This doesn't even take in the fact that the Ocean is just not very well charted in general.
All this to say, I agree. The family Atlas is more of a book, the comprehensive one is more of a reference.
My own experience with atlases over the past 50+ years has been filled with equal parts wonderment and frustration. I have very often found myself crawling through the online archive of old maps at the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection to locate towns and places that are generally lost by merit of being lost to the amorphous blobs of cities on more recent maps. And as far as special purpose maps go, National Geographic never fails to impress.
Natgeo is dying rn, unfortunately. The last employed writers got laid off after the parent company Disney made budget cuts, and newsstand sales will stop as of next year.
@@gavinchaston8105 That's a crying shame. My family has been supporting the National Geographic Society since at least 1908 and I have at hand most of the magazines since 1927 (conspicuously absent from my collection are the issues during the years of World War II).
Thanks for mentioning the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection. Forgotten about that.
The internet killed Nat Geo and Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm an old fogy who prefers holding a book to staring at a screen but I have adapted to modern ways out of necessity..
Heres something you may find interesting. :)
The name of my country has nothing to do with the interesting and delicious bird ''turkey'', well let me explain. :)
Name of my country has always been Turkiye, that is Turk-iye, it's been known as such since around the 1200's, spelled to phonetically resemble ''Turkiye'' in different languages, where the -iye suffix means ''land of/belonging to''....
...just like the Latin suffix -ia in such countries as Latv-ia, Roman-ia, Eston-ia, Austr-ia, Austral-ia etc etc. Another example; decades ago Czechoslovakia Republic changed it's name to Czech Republic and a few years ago changed that to Czechia (that is Czech-ia).
Anyways, most likely the Latin -ia suffix was derived from the Turkish version -iye,
as Turkish is much much older.
Because in old times people of different languages could only pronounce it as their languages allowed them, we got various differences in spelling like Turchia (in Italian), Turquie (in French) and Turkey (in English) all trying to resemble the pronounciation of ''Turk-ia'' thus Turkiye.
Mind you this was way BEFORE the animal we currently know as 'turkey'' was found by the europeans when they explored the north americas, the bird was sent to europe from north americas in the year 1519, so upuntil that they there was no bird named 'turkey'....
...they came across the bird and thought it was a specie of the fowl/chicken they had been buying from the country of Turkiye at the time, so they named the bird ''Turkey Fowl'' meaning ''Turkish Chicken''.....
....just like how a dog breed is known as German Shepherd (because it's from Germany), Rhodesian Ridgeback (because it's from Rhodesia), American Bulldog, British Terrier, Greek Harehound etc etc.
In time you don't get to call the Greek Harehound as simply as ''Greek''; or you don't call the British Terrier as ''British''; or the German Shepherd as ''German'', but in time the Turkish Fowl started to be called just ''turkey'', and has been going on for hundreds of years.
Now in 2023, this is causing confusion, especially when we have people across the world unable to point to their OWN country on the atlas, this ''confusion over the naming'' needed to be corrected.
So my country decided to rectify this confusion that has been going on for so long and corrected the name in other languages to Türkiye, which it always was, we basically didn't change the name of our country, we changed the mistake made in the English language. : )
So, there's some tid bit information for you to have a great day, if you read upto this point you have a great night too, ohh just have a wonderfull life. : )
Best wishes. ;)
I feel this is more a case of the authors intended use 'the times' is a broadsheet newspaper and as such their atlas is probably more one of political geography whereas 'national geographic' is fundamentally a geographical atlas and as such its contents differ greatly
The Times is no longer a broadsheet but a 'compact ' (tabloid).
I feel that at least if they're so political focused they should highlight that point when talking about being authoritative or even had it pointed in the title, at the very least not using such a topographic map for it's cover.
Also worth noting the Times is a british paper so less likely to have a map of Hawaii than the American National Geographic Atlas, in the same way my Australian atlas has more focus on Australian maps
I hope this isn’t lost in the comments but your atlas review inspired me to check if my own atlas had the obscure geographic locations yours did/didn’t. I was surprised when I saw that my atlas, the NatGeo Atlas of the World 11th Edition included many of the locations your family atlas did. Included as well was: A detailed map of Greenland, a full page on the Hawaiian Archipelago, two pages on the surface of Mars (sadly no Badwater xanyon), Oceanic Map of the Mascarene Plateau with banks listed, the Hudson canyon, oceanic map of Doggerland, a visible representation of the lost African river basin (with a paragraph explaining the geopolitical conflict in Western Sahara), multiple maps representing the flow of the Albert Nile, and a Oceanic map of the Sala Y Gomez Ridge. I think it would be a good investment as it’s a large Atlas and contains most of the locations represented in your family atlas. :)
That's dope! If I had an Atlas I would probably done the same test, lol.
To be honest looks like old atlases are better than the one he bought
If you look at the cover, AP's old family atlas is also a NatGeo atlas. It seems like National Geographic is simply a lot more invested in the kind of geography we like on this channel than The Times is.
I have a tenth edition Times Atlas and interestingly it had more pages dedicated to the solar system and universe. But the rest of it was mostly the same as Caelans new Atlas.
No offence but haven't you simply found that a later edition of an atlas by exactly the same organisation has the same features as an older edition plus a few ?
Is that really that surprising ?
this is a fun way to do a channel retrospective! Been here since your first video and looking back at everything was a blast. Love the content!
It was a lot of fun to look back! And also forward!
Since Day One
@@AtlasPro1 Is there an updated version of the National Geographic Family Refrence Atlas?
If so, it could be interesting to see what changed and if they improved upon their already amazing underwater maps
Thank you for showing additional appreciation for printed books in the age of the Web.
I feel you should have mentioned the fact that your atlas requirements are very different then those of most other people. If you're looking for small towns and villages, the Comprehensive Atlas is probably much more Comprehensive, and that's what most people would want a colossal atlas.
@@pocketdynamo5787 Google maps doesn't have it all. No single map is capable of that. Google Maps suffers from clearly having very irrelevant information displayed on a larger scale than other stuff that's much more relevant. Most of the time this happens because it was paid to show up there by the people that would benefit from it but sometimes it's just incompetence from the google maps team. I mean, they're great, but you try mapping the whole Earth!
@@Faerandur I mean, doesn't the Times Atlas suffer from the same risk? If all you want to know is the place of a small town or street, Google Maps is indeed just as useful.
@@Faerandur I would bet that several nations have, at the least, a series of maps that show the whole planet and relevant info in great detail. Not as one single map but with global sat coverage they'd have total coverage probably to the inch. It would be really interesting to see the total collection of government maps from WWII before everything was digital.
@@nerobernardino88 Of course, Google is more generally useful, but recently I've been using more local maps and really amazed at the difference. Google maps sourcing is very general and not well locally verified so you find a lot of mistakes and nonsense everywhere.
A librarian taught me in first grade to turn the page from the top, especially for larger books. Turning from the bottom is more likely to tear the page where it creases in the middle. Keep that book in heirloom shape.
Thanks!!!
This gave me the same excited feeling as when our geography teacher started lessons with these big, colorful atlases already on her table. We had to look at one atlas in groups of 3 or 4 people because our school only had so many atlases. Someone always had to make do looking at the world upside down, but man!, did I love these kind of lessons. Atlases are just something special.
There is no absolute right way up anyway - North is only at the top by convention.
I was substitute for a 7th grade social studies class and the teacher left me an assignment that required the students tour Google Earth for specific locations to take notes on. None of the students could access Google Earth on their computers. Turns out it's access restricted on the DOE Network. 💀
@@RuthBinghamnooooo wayyyyy
I'm the proud owner of a 1954 Soviet "Atlas Mira" and I was curious to see how it compares to these two atlases. Here are the results:
Doggerland: not mentioned, but clearly visible thanks to 20m and 50m contour lines, as well as sandbank lines. Dogger Bank is labelled, as is its shallowest point: 14m, on Southwest Patch.
Zealandia: not mentioned, but fully visible thanks to contour lines. The rises and plateaus are labelled.
Georges Bank: labelled and surrounded by 50m contour as well as sandbank lines. Two points 5m and 7m deep are indicated.
Sala Y Gómez Ridge: not mentioned, neither is the Nazca Ridge.
Saya De Malha Bank: not mentioned, neither is the Mascarene Ridge or Basin.
Hudson Canyon: labelled and clearly visible thanks to countour lines. The neighbouring Wilmington and Black Canyons are also labelled.
Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon: not mentioned, but the Yarlung Tsangpo River is, including its alternate name (Brahmaputra).
Cherskiy: labelled under its old name Nizhniye Kresty. Pleistocene Park didn't exist in 1954.
Necker Island: not mentioned.
Quinnga Valley: not mentioned.
Lake Natron: labelled as a saltwater lake at 610m above sea level, but not as a lake with changing coastlines.
Rwenzori Mountains: labelled, with the Katonga River labelled and clearly flowing into Lake Victoria.
Tamanrasset River: not mentioned, but several existing seasonal rivers shown and labelled.
Palos Verdes: not mentioned.
Doblicica Stream: not mentioned, but the Kupa River is labelled.
Badwater Basin: not labelled, but shown as a saltwater lake with changing coastlines, at 85m below sea level.
I'd say that if you don't take the name changes and political developments since 1954 into consideration, this 70-year-old(!) gem is on par with modern atlases. I wonder whether the online availability of hyper-detailed maps has (paradoxically) negatively influenced the level of detail of atlases published today.
That's wild! I've got an '89 version of the times atlas. It's kind of amazing to see how much has changed
I love these super nerdy, obsessive deep dives into geography. It’s more geography than I ever learned in school.
The TImes atlas does have some benefits! I remember browsing through it and seeing the massive range of dual place names here in New Zealand getting proper recognition was a nice change of pace from older atlases
Yeah I could be wrong but here is my impression. The Times Atlas obviously contains more information. The national geographic one contains more diverse information.
This isn’t surprising, to cover the same breadth as the national geographic atlas with the detail of the Times atlas would mean an enormous undertaking and also a hefty tome.
Instead I’d wager the Times atlas focused its scope on politics, demographics, transportation, etc. and this is why it contains the Maori place names. It says it also includes healthcare and migration information.
Ultimately I think it comes down to use cases. As a family reference atlas the first one contained more “trivia” type maps of the planets and oceans and fewer population centres.
As a “comprehensive” atlas intended for use by “governments, media and international organisations” it has to concentrate its focus on more pertinent information. The detail is there but only a certain kind. It is also more accurate and up to date, which will add expense.
Now I want to see a video comparing the NatGeo Atlas with its latest edition. Primarily to illustrate if editions are really worth it.
National Geographic Atlas of the World, Eleventh Edition
Yes I want to see this
Fun Fact: Zealandia is part of the Pacific Plate. I grew up on the Pacific Plate in California, over eleven thousand kilometers away in the Northern Hemisphere. Damn thing stretches from Alaska to Antarctica (almost). Frickin huge.
It's on both the Pacific Plate and the Australian Plate, mostly on the latter, the plates overlap each other around New Zealand, most of the South Island is on the Pacific Plate and the rest (as well as New Caledonia, Zealandia's most northern extent above water) is on the Australian Plate
Well, it is-but it’s also part of the Australian plate, just as New Zealand itself also famously straddles both plates, the boundary between them being one of the most studied transcurrent plate boundaries in the world, the Alpine Fault.
21:12 That is such a odd complaint. The atlas literally markets itself as having the most place names, and most geography nerds would prefer that
I like how you first dinged it because it didn’t have the specific place names you wanted, then you complained that it had too many names. The video kind of comes across as way to defend using a book for children as a main source of yours.
Family atlas: this is so good. it even names the littlest dots
Times atlas: the amount of information is detrimental to the atlas 😂
Maybe there’s a specifically-oceanographic atlas that would be useful (and still save you time)
Although I will admit, your amazing maps are a large part of what I like about your content
Funnily enough, back in the 1980s, The Times did produce an Atlas of the Oceans, which they updated in 1989 as "The Times Atlas and Encyclopaedia of the Sea". Demand was evidently not high.
Nat Geo still makes an ocean atlas. But it is shit.
@@PastPresentedsadly that atlas has only 5 plates of actual Bathymetry, and costs a ****ton.
@@adorp Costly back in 1989; dirt cheap today. I've just seen one on Ebay for £5 including freight (though worryingly, the weight is given as 2 grams in the description).
@@PastPresented it will cost me a bit more due to shipping, but it seems to be the only option. The Internet archive scan isn't good.
There aren't that many ocean atlases. Even the gigantic three volume Ocean Atlas by Gorshkov doesn't have good Bathymetry. It is meant for sailors.
Great video, but I taste a bit of a selection bias on the chosen criteria. There are many categories that the Times atlas would probably be better at, that weren’t shown.
And not relevant to him
I'm so glad that you're doing another video like this after the "guess how old this globe is?" video. This is a really cool idea for a whole series of videos! (Your other stuff is great--keeping making that too, ha!) 😁😁😁
It's a bit like the video where he shows the evolutionary tree poster and plays the cards game that came included with the poster too.
Atlas Pro: criticizes Times atlas for not labeling every obscure feature
Also Atlas Pro: criticizes Times atlas for being too cluttered with labels to see features
The solution is separate physical maps from political and logistic maps.
More labels and names doesn't have to equal more clutter. The Rand McNally New International Atlas (also sold as Britannica Atlas) does a great job of being detailed while also being very easy to read.
The map of Lake Victoria region in the Rand McNally atlas goes into more depth than Times. Times doesn't show state borders, Rand McNally does. It used to be the true competitor of Times. Unfortunately, I don't think they print it anymore.
You should make more Atlas videos. I come from a poor country yet blessed to have been privileged to purchase an atlas. In childhood, I stared every page for countless hours. It may have been just a normal 200 page atlas but boy did it inspire me.
A few years ago, my parents gave me the 14th edition of this atlas for Christmas, and it always amazes me just how detailed (and heavy) it is. I love it so much, and so I understand how special this is for you. I hope you get a great use out of it!
What atlas, can you give me name of the book
Your older Atlas is so much more rewarding for curiosity 😁 the newer one try’s to be fancy but fails with the Atlas Pro precision that you would expect for the Price Tag😢
You know, the new atlas is more precise but TOO precise to the point where a 100 details distract you to the flip while searching for ANYTHING.
@@hemarajamanickam1704 yeah totally on point my friend
To be fair, what you are getting from the increased price tag is mostly just better printing quality.
@@dementionalpotato for sure , but I’d buy a 200€Atlas with this kind of advertisement 😩 I would expect every region of the earth to be fully explorable …and to encounter lots of ? Haha if you know what I mean 😏❤️
Based on his (Atlas Pro) comparison/review, the older cheeper one is clearly better. I'm starting to think that he's just got scammed for buying that $260.00 atlas. That book is *way overpriced* is what I'm saying, for a book that advertised it self as the best in the market.
My only real criticism is that you need to compare that Times Atlas with a National Geographic atlas of equal vintage. I found your "Gomez Ridge" in my 1992 Times Atlas, and it showed some features of the Dogger Bank area. I had to look at a more detailed map that included the Eastern UK, rather than the general Atlantic Ocean/Europe map. I also found Necker Island.
So…the Times Atlas got less comprehensive?
@@dukeonYes.
My Times Atlas has an entire plate for Greenland and another for Hawaii. It also clearly draws the shape of Doggerland and labels it.
Mine has only one plate of South Africa, but I have seen on David Ramsay collection that even older versions had two giant plates for East and West SA each.
If I understand the methodology of comparison correctly, he is comparing and keeping score on which specific places will be featured on either atlas. These places have all been selected on the basis of existing videos he created using the first atlas.
I love Atlases!!!
I have spent countless hours skimming through them across my life.
Although I am sad to hear that your Space channel will no longer stand alone, I am very pleased to know it will be welcomed back into this channel. As you said, interest in the stars and other astronomical features began with the world atlas you received from your father. What a fabulous tribute to his support of your interests that it is still a vital reference for what you do here.
I would be delighted to see you explore in depth some of the locations listed in Atlas Obscura from a more geographical viewpoint on them.
Keep doing what you are doing! This is the kind of detail that can really pique a person's interest and something that many educators miss. Your explorations open new windows to the everyday yet amazing oddities that make our planet so fascinating!
To provide insight into the T'sangpo/Zangbo, the translation of Chinese characters into English letters has two forms. The original form, Wade-Giles, is what would have T'sangpo. In the modern Beijing Pinyin system, which is what is much more widely used today, this is written as Zangbo. The name in Chinese is written the same (藏布, which is actually Zangbu in Pinyin but this might be a case of a dialect pronouncing it differently), it's just that the English way to translate the word is different.
For an example you might know better, a famous Chinese food dish is Peking Duck. Peking is the Wade-Giles form of Beijing, same Chinese (北京) but just different English translation. Almost no one uses Peking anymore for Beijing, but the name's stuck due to how associated it is with the food.
Interestingly, Peking is still the standard spelling used in many other languages using the latin alphabet. I am finnish, and I am think (not certain, don't quote me) pinyin is used for transliteration (or more likely the transliterations are copied from english and other sources) but Peking has stuck.
This is incorrect, as tsangpo or zangbo are romanizations of the Tibetan word for river, གཙང་པོ [ʦáŋ.po], which is gtsang po in Wylie transliteration. Zangbo is based on the official transcription used in China for Tibetan, the so-called Tibetan Pinyin romanization. Tsangpo is a more conventional rendering of the Tibetan pronunciation.
Tibetan Pinyin uses z and b to render unaspirated [ʦ] and [p] respectively, just like Hanyu Pinyin for Chinese, but it's important to remember that it transcribes Tibetan, not Chinese pronunciation. In Chinese, tsangpo/zangbo is rendered as 藏布 zàngbù. It's written zangbo not because it's a dialect pronouncing it differently, but an entirely different, non-Sinitic language - Tibetan.
Peking is not the Wade-Giles form of Beijing, either, though it's a common misconception. In Wade-Giles, it is actually Pei-ching, not Peking. It is not from Cantonese or other non-Mandarin varieties either. Peking is actually a romanization from an earlier stage of Mandarin before the g [k] sound was palatalized to j [ʨ] before i. Specifically, it was from the earlier standard of Mandarin, the imperial lingua franca of the Qing Dynasty, which was largely based on the speech of Nanjing (known previously as Nanking), representing a pronunciation more like [pεʔ.kiŋ]. The Nanjing variety of Mandarin resisted palatalization for a bit longer than the Beijing variety that eventually took over as the standard, although today virtually all dialects of Mandarin including that of Nanjing have the palatalization.
@@brianonscript i wish i could have 50 likes to give a comment once in my lifetime. wonderrfully informative, and di also lived with the misconseption that Peking wade-giles, even though the signs were all there
I started watching your videos because I found the topics interesting and intellectually stimulating, but what's keeping me sticking around is how you masterfully manage to infuse these academic subjects with emotional through-lines and you take us on a journey, not just of learning, but also feeling. Amazing job. Thank you so much!
Great comparison and contrast video. I feel a particular sense of satisfaction that you evaluated a source claiming to be "comprehensive". If I were asked to describe your content in one word, that's the one I'd use.
I watch a fair amount of geography and geology content; you are by far the most interesting and comprehensive creator around...and the only one I support on Patreon.
I love learning. When I see a new video release from you, my eyes light up and I settle in for the viewing. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I'm about to learn something new and interesting, thoroughly researched, with evidence sourced across an entire spectrum of earth (and space) sciences. There are few creators in any subject that I can truly say that about.
To that end, I wholeheartedly support your decision to merge your two channels back together. Keep up the great work!
I have about seventy five atlases in my collection, but I have a considerable head start on you. I am a retired cartographer, and started buying atlases long before you were born.
One of my favorites is the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World. My edition is about twenty years out of date now, and I go to newer sources for the latest data, but I still love it for its beauty. Cartography is art as well as data.
which edition is it? and which Time Comprehensive Atlas edition is the best in your opinion? do you own the N.G. Family atlas 3rd edition he is showing in the video? if yes how do you compare it to the 5th edition of 2020 currently on the market? and how do you compare the Family Reference Atlas editions with the national geographic atlas of the world serie? I (I noticed it has roughtly 10%-15% more maps on same edition time frame). Do you rely on any online or paper source to evaluate Atlast? Sorry for the overhelming questions I feel like this is an unique opportunity to pick the mind of someone with an amazing ammount Atlas knowledge avalaible ;)
@@ialkarn6931 My Times Comprehensive is the Tenth Edition, 1999.
I’ve never been that crazy about National Geographic atlases, due to both aesthetics and politics. I never quite got over the way they they did things like depict South Africa’s “bantustans” as independent countries, and silently merge Western Sahara into Morocco.
@@janach1305 someone said somewhere in this very chat it's the last edition with very large maps even if less
@@ialkarn6931 I like my atlases to be full of MAPS, not photos, text, diagrams, and other pieces of non-cartography. What can I say? I’m old.
I bought the Times Comprehensive as a present to myself when I got my mastectomy. I had already bought the smaller, less expensive Times Concise (1995), which is also a beautiful atlas, but I figured if I was going to have my tit whacked off, I needed to reward myself with something truly special.
@@janach1305 You kidding? this is how Atlas are supposed to be I totally agree with you. I'm sorry about your tits by the way ..ok that sounds alot weirder than it did in my head.
The Atlas Mountains in Morocco are also a location in Africa where glaciers existed year-round, providing the country with water resources throughout the year, including winter and summer. However, due to climate change in recent decades, the glaciers have ceased to be present during the peak of summer. There are currently at least four locations where snow patches seem to persist through some summer seasons. Additionally, numerous other sites exhibit non-perennial late-lying snow below steep, shaded cliffs facing north and northeast at altitudes exceeding 3100 meters.
My father also got me a reference book when I was young. It was the Readers Digest Facts at your Fingertips book. I studied it scrupulously and repeatedly to better understand everything from geography, to geology, to political science, and ecology. So to me, your more comprehensive approach to these topics (and your family atlas) speaks to an old and deep passion for interdisciplinary learning that was sparked early and nurtured by my dad.
I mean… I feel like checking how detailed they are about hyper obscure oceanographic features is not the best way to judge how good of an atlas it is
He bought the atlas for a specific purpose and because it is supposedly world-renowned.
World Renowned for being accurate and used by Agencies like the UN and the EU. Something tells me they don't really care about a map of Mars or the various obscure oceanographic features he was looking for.
What he is looking for and what the book is meant for are different @@very-mean-spirited-lizard
sorry that was an old comment but i meant as in the book its "world-renowned" because it has plenty of hyper detailed maps and it keeps on updating like some others. What he is looking for is a book that has random obscure facts tiny little uncovered by media tiny places and also oceanography which the book is not meant for what the book is meant for is mainly political and apart from that its a "General" Atlas it has so much more than most atlases have but its lacking in the obscure features that he wants.@@very-mean-spirited-lizard
I actually would love to see a atlas review series. I am looking for the best atlas to buy and this made me know for sure that the Times is not the one.
Man complains underwater features aren’t on a land atlas
in defence of the times atlas it shows the ocean depth rather than slope and, at least in the video, zealandia as a feature looks much more like one contiguous thing with that view, whereas it looks like a chaotic mess of mountains and valleys in the other atlas.
Thank you for videos. As a map geek in my younger days may I suggest an Encyclopedia Britainica atlas. It had regional plates for everywhere except Antarctica.
Encyclopedia Britannica is outdated by at least half a century...
No that atlas doesn't have great Bathymetry.
There is an Antarctic plate, and it is okay. But it has no dedicated arctic or Greenland plate.
If you would have waited a few months the 16th edition of the Times Comprehensive Atlas is currently on pre-order for release on December 12th. Older editions are still useful though if you are going to use for comparative purposes. You could also consider getting the most updated edition of the National Geographic Family Atlas. Sometimes before I decide if I am going to buy an expensive reference book I will take a look though it at either a book store or library in my area.
I came to comments to see if anyone noticed that in his own screenshot in the video it says a newer 16th edition was coming out in December for $260. When then next scene was him holding the 15th edition because he wanted the most up to date I was like whaaaaat
I am personally very glad that you had the nat geo atlas as a resource because the diversity of your videos has always been the most interesting part for me, i cant imagine a new times atlas based version of this chanel.
As a child I hated reading even though I learned to. At age 7 we moved to upstate NY from NC and I got my hands on the atlas and refused to give it back to my parents. I ended up memorizing it by the time we got to NY. Every interstate every state capital etc. I still hate reading (fiction) as well as movies and TV but I love maps, and documentaries making this my favorite channel for this type of content.
Great Video. Gave me some nostalgia. I grew up in the 90's and I remember that opening pretty much anything published by National Geographic felt sublime, even magical. Fields of study that felt totally disparate in school could instantly be bound together with a map. Those books sparked curiosity and opened up new ways of thinking. Come to think of it, your channel still does the same thing for me. Great Work.
Wow, that is very in-depth; you should do more Atlas reviews. I also had the same experience where I found an old atlas to be better than my new atlas.
Videos like these make the audiences feel that they are a part of the choices he makes for the channels and that feels good! The thing i do not like about bigger channels is that they dont have this personal connection!
I sincerely hope you keep doing this! loved the video!
Linguist here! The reason for the different spellings of Yarlung Tsangpo/Zangbo (ཡར་ཀླུངས་གཙང་པོ་) is because the former (Tsangpo) was transliterated using the Wylie transliteration method, which is an older, American-developed method, while the latter (Zangbo) was transliterated using ZWPY (Zàngwén Pīnyīn, or literally 'Tibetan Spelling'), which is the newer (and the official system used in Tibet) transcription system for Lhasa Tibetan.
The Wylie transliteration method was designed to transcribe the Tibetan script as it is written, while ZWPY is a phonetic transcription method, meaning its spelling is tied to the pronunciation of the language, rather than the original script (although ZWPY doesn't mark tone, like Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, the romanization system for standard Mandarin). ZWPY is preferred in Tibet due to the fact that Tibetan orthography became fixed in the 11th century, while pronunciation kept changing, so ZWPY is more accurate to how Lhasa Tibetan sounds than Wylie transliteration.
The use of one system over the other can be due to western familiarity with one (since ZWPY has only been adopted in China as an alternative to Wylie in 1982), due to the notoriety a name might have gotten (for example, the Běijīng Dàxué is still romanized as 'Peking University', and Máo Zédōng's name was still widely romanized as 'Mao Tse-tung' after the Wades-Giles system was dropped in favor of Hànyǔ Pīnyīn in 1958), or, as with everything involving China, for political reasons (during the Cold War and after the adoption of Hànyǔ Pīnyīn in 1958, using Pīnyīn instead of the Wades-Giles or, more commonly, Yale romanization (which was developed on behest of the US military in 1943 for its pilots flying over China) was regarded as a political statement or as support for communist China, leading to various Chinese names to get popularized in the West in their Wades-Giles or Yale forms, like 'Teng Hsiao-ping' in place of 'Dèng Xiǎopíng' or, again, 'Mao Tse-tung' in place of 'Máo Zédōng', with Pīnyīn only being officially adopted by the UN in 1982 and by the Republic of China in 2009, although the ROC still uses several romanization systems due to political resistance to Pīnyīn, leading to Taiwanese people often using the Wades-Giles system in place of Pīnyīn (for example, 'Tsai Ing-wen' instead of 'Cài Yīngwén').).
The Wylie transliteration is actually yar klungs gtsang po, not Yarlung Tsangpo. The k (ཀ) and s (ས) in klungs and the first g (ག) in gtsang are not pronounced in Modern Lhasa Tibetan. Tsangpo is a rendering of basically the same pronunciation as zangbo, [ʦáŋ.po], except that the voiceless unaspirated sounds [ʦ] and [p] have been transcribed as ts and p respectively instead of as z and b as in Pinyin. It's only a matter of convention, and we can't say that zangbo transcribes Lhasa Tibetan more accurately than tsangbo. As I pointed out in my more detailed comment elsewhere, tsangpo is actually the romanization you get for གཙང་པོ in the THL Simplified Phonemic Transcription of Tibetan or in Nicolas Tournadre's earlier system that it was based on.
As I pointed out in another reply, Peking is not Wade-Giles (that would be Pei-ching), but an older rendering of an earlier pronunciation in Mandarin before the palatalization of the velar series took place. Not saying that you implied that Peking was Wade-Giles, but just clarifying for anyone who might be reading these.
Do you know of any examples of the Yale romanization for Mandarin being used for Chinese names? The Wikipedia article claims that it was widely used in Western textbooks until the late 1970s, but I can't think of any Chinese names that are widely known under the Yale romanization for Mandarin (whereas there are plenty that are known in the Wade-Giles forms or in romanizations based on non-Mandarin varieties).
“Peking University” is the official English name of the institution as determined by the university itself.
To be fair, even Google Maps/Earth don't have ocean floor geography names. That was actually quite surprising to me.
True! That’s why it was so hard for me to find the name of the Salas y Gomez ridge!
You can actually find the name of that ridge if you search for ridge in Google maps while focused on that area, it shows me the Sala y Gomez, Nazca, Sarmiento, Grijalva and Alvarado ridges as well as the Merriam Spur
All the videos you referenced... Man I forgot how much I loved your early content on this channel! Like the first few years or just straight-up amazing! I actually like space stuff... That what you had the first couple years was really unique and amazing!!!
Love your channel for the special topics no one else talks about. Keep up the great work!
Greetings from Germany
While growing up, I used to ponder over this one Atlas which I had at home. It had maps of the world but it was more India centric and had details about all the states of India. Only last month I discovered that most people around me can't name all the states of India and their capitals or localise them on the map. I've always been fascinated with maps and I was giddy with excitement when I found this channel in 2020 and thanks to you, I know so much more about the world and space.
China's great canyon is unmapped because getting reliable data is impossible. China strictly controls what outsiders are able to know about their country. While such maps may exist in the Chinese government archives, the Chinese government considers such information strategically sensitive.
It's a cranky position, but China has border disputes with India and Nepal through the area. Bhutan is basically, "That place that nobody else can get to".
Love your content! Would be really interesting to see a video of you explaining the definitions and etymology of classic biomes.
About Lake Natron not being pink in either atlas it's most certainly due to cartographic standards for symbols and colors.
I've learned through so many examples in so many fields that a lot of times, if a field of study is not changing fast (e.g. genetics, artificial intelligence), older books from cold war era, first half of twentieth century and even late 19th century on the same subjects are just so much more well-written.
Hey Atlas, I think I would be a really cool video idea if you made a video talking about the most significant geographical feature in each country.
200+ countries! If done well (like his videos always are) it would be a top 10 video on his channel
some countries are so big it spans on many geographical features, but my favorite would be the wallace line of indonesia.
Badwater Basin isn’t a town, it’s a place within Death Valley. From Wikipedia: “Badwater Basin is an endorheic basin in Death Valley National Park, Death Valley, Inyo County, California, noted as the lowest point in North America and the United States, with a depth of 282 ft below sea level. Mount Whitney, the highest point in the contiguous United States, is only 84.6 miles to the northwest.” That’s why it’s a special area and undoubtedly why the lowest point on Mars was given the same appellation. You should come check out Death Valley some time!
Ohhhhhh my word that Nat Geo atlas makes me DEEPLY happy to look at- I'm going to have to look at getting one! I will say though, what's stopping you from getting an updated version of the one you have!! It is gorgeous.
While i do think, this new atlas is underwhelming at the very least, i still don't think this comparison is fair.
All of your criterias came from previous videos, and all of your videos (at least in part) was inspired by your older atlas. It would've been nice to see a criteria inspired by the new atlas instead of the old one, although i don't really know, how that would work.
Still, great video, great channel, thank you, for doing, what you're doing!
I've started collecting atlases, and I've found that each atlas has its own unique charm and passions in what they show and how they depict it. Id love to see more atlas reviews!
Dude just roasted an atlas that most politicians use daily for a solid half an hour.
I share your fascination with the ocean floor, and the various geological processes therein and beneath. Google Earth is starting to have pretty good seabed mapping, but it could always be better! I was a little kid when Surtsey erupted, and it just fascinated me, how the Earth created new land right out of the ocean. Amazing!
And you're so fortunate to have been able to learn about plate tectonics in school; I graduated in '79, before either tectonics or the Chicxulub crater was truly known about, though I do recall learning about Continental Drift; they just hadn't yet quite figured out what caused that. I'm so grateful for UA-cam and the ability to learn about all these things, since I never went to college. Geology and natural history are positively enthralling!
As I seldom look for dried up riverbeds and oceanography when looking through my atlas I am not sure how helpful this comparison was. Have you looked at Oxford Atlas of the World: 29th Edition?
As an alternative atlas for your use, you might consider looking into DK's Reference World Atlas. I have the 10th edition and I cross-referenced it with the places you listed. Remarkably, except for 3 misses, the DK atlas showed those places.
It is a good atlas. Has great Bathymetry and thematics, but sometimes it omits important places...
Just be careful not to get sucked into buying DK's "Great Atlas". It has the same maps as the smaller and cheaper reference/concise atlas. DK sells the same atlas under many names.
I love the Atlas channel you have and everything you’ve covered so far.
You are definitely an Atlas Profession, Professor! Can't wait for more space videos!
The Times atlas would be good for physical corroborative fact checking, your family atlas can provide the maps
One of the best gifts I received was the Reader's Digest Atlas of the World (using Rand McNally Maps) 1987. I have used that thing so much and it has similar info and layout to your older atlas. I still use it and it is a massive, beautiful "coffee table" type book. I watched your video halfway and then pulled it out to compare.
They use McNally maps now? Mine uses Bartholomew maps.
How good are the McNally maps?
I have McNally's Goode's atlas and don't like it. It doesn't even label Troy or Scutari (Uskudar). The much smaller Philips atlas feels better.
Famtastic video!
I got the 1975 French edition of Reader's Digest World Atlas from my family a long time ago and kept it like a treasure since. I was surprised it passes your test with a slightly better grade than the Times' 😂
It's a good thing your space related videos are goj g to be back on this channel since I never knew the other one even existed.
I actually thoroughly love my Times Comprehensive Atlas(es) of the World. I have the 12th, 13th and 15th editions, each of which I managed to pick up at a significant discount as remaindered stock. I have the 2002 edition of the NG Family Reference Atlas. An index of about 32,000 entries is woefully smaller than the 80,000 - 100,000 I expect from an atlas of that size. What also disgusted me as an Australian is on pages 194-195 of my edition - The Islands of Oceania. The small depiction of Australia in the lower left has the city of Adelaide where Melbourne, our second largest city, should clearly be! The dedicated maps of Australia don't show that error. However, if NG has gotten that wrong, what other errors have they made in that Atlas? (I sincerely hope it was corrected in later editions!) The only NG Atlas I would consider investing in is their flagship Atlas of The World. I do however very much appreciate the considerable effort you have gone to in this video, and the things you note. Still a big thumbs up from me for Times Atlases. They are on the verge of releasing the 16th edition. But, there's no way I'm gonna buy it at full price!
This really was a great review of National Geographics atlases. Think I will go buy one now, these are super interesting to flip through
Your space videos are what brought me to your channel in the first place! I never really cared to learn about earth when i could learn about space, but you've really sparked my interest in our world. I actually work in a museum doing planetarium shows, and have used some of the concepts from your videos to explain things to people!
Every time we do our show about food webs and ecosystems on Earth I rewatch your video about how oceans are deserts because it helps me answer the questions I always get about productivity in the oceans and if we could farm out there somehow
Dude, you have the most soothing voice ever. I can listen to you all day and night and feel my anxiety fade away as I learn new things.
Not a bad effort to evaluate those two tomes for your specific uses, well done! And very even handed, despite your growing disappointment in the newer more expensive atlas.
I would point out a couple things, just to add to all that you observed.
There might be a touch of bias going on - in several ways. One being, The Times Atlas seems to be published by a British publishing house, or at least the language in the Amazon page and such implies a European/British origin (based on some spelling quirks I saw as the images went by). Such a publication wouldn't necessarily "care" about American geography in the same way, naturally enough - atlases have target markets too after all, and perhaps this is a resource aimed more at university students in Europe. The Family Atlas, of course, being produced by National Geographic, is quite American and partially shows that focus in how it treats American territories and places that draw American interest. Including Space: I'm betting LOTS of those images trace their credits back to NASA.
Add in another type of bias in that it's a FAMILY Atlas: targeting younger learners, dare I say, kids. Bright colors, fun infographics, bonus information that might edge towards "not strictly geography BUT" and clearer labeling all contribute to a book that is more interesting to look at, more fun to learn from, easier to use. The kind of book that a loving dad might buy for his son!
Additionally to all this, there's the marketing angle - of COURSE they'll tout their atlas as the best if they've stuck "Comprehensive" in the title, hah. But I submit this final point: it might BE comprehensive - for someone else's use, if not yours. I feel like intent has a lot to do with the final product, especially with such things.
One last thing the newer atlas has going for it: that so-satisfying THUD when you first pulled it out!! Call me a book nerd but there's just a certain excitement for me when it comes to Massive Tomes. (I'm fine with being teased about alllll the different terrible jokes that this invites, haha)
In that Times' Atlas, at least on the two European maps you show, not even Helgoland [en:Heligoland] is shown, a place of some non trivial post WW2 German and British historic significance. In the National Geographic's Atlas, it is shown on the physical map, not labeled, but at least shown.
Wow. First video I watch of yours and you just blew my mind. Amazing content sir.
Loved this episode. I 'm a bit of a nut for maps myself! I used to collect every single map that came inside monthly editions of NG magazine, so as a result of years of subscriptions, I had a LOT of them. I still have them somewhere.
I think the biggest thing this shows - which I'm sure is something you already know just from operating in the field, but still is important to mention - is how even seemingly small inclusions and exlusions in something as seemingly neutral as a map can end up magnifying things like bias (be it political or social or any other kind). While in the modern age it can be relatively easy to search out more info on a topic when you are diving deep, a casual glance through the Times Atlas might easily lead folks to assume unimportance or even lead them to fully disregard really interesting and/or important features of the world. You've slightly touched on this in other videos but never has it been as clear cut as in this one, and it's an important lesson 0 for anyone interested in history or geography to take to heart.
I remember seeing a National Geographic atlas as a kid. It was very similar to yours. It was the first time I was exposed to the vastness of space with the repeated zoom out from the Earth the inner solar system, to the outer solar system, to the Oort cloud, to the local group, to the spiral arm, to the galaxy, to the local galactic cluster, all the way to the galactic web.
Taking time to think about it and understand it blew my mind.
You've made me want to pick up another National Geographic Atlas
I still remember discovering the atlases in the library when I was in University.
I spent hours exploring some of the most impressive bound volumes I'd ever encountered.
The only other single published work that ever impressed me as much as those atlases was the truly staggering Oxford English Dictionary (the full, unabridged version). I spent many hours lost in the pages of that unparalleled monument to language and scholarship.
I don't know most of what you said or even agree with the reasoning but your enthusiasm for the planet is contagious
You can't criticise the Times atlas for not having the obscure labels that you were looking for, while also criticising it for being too crowded. Pick one if you want your review to be credible.
He finally bought it, the Atlas Pro
In this video: geography nerd bullies atlas for not containing obscure places that no one except him cares about
This is just a joke. I still love the channel 😁
Man loooove all your videos! No one explain all these things as you do!
Interesting comparison. I have the 9th Edition of the London Times Atlas and Badwater is specifically marked and labeled in my version.
I think we vastly undervalue reference books especially in the age of the internet. $200 is nothing for a book you will constantly come back to.
I also find your criteria of "places you personally think are interesting" simply weird. One minute you're complaining that something has been left off and the next youre complaining that there is so much detail that you cant find a stream (seriously, why would a tiny stream only you care about be on there?)
0:39 Ouch! Seeing someone turn the pages in a book in that manner hurts! Especially if you *like* the book and want it to last, turn from the corner, don't try to rip the pages out at the spine! 😬
This channel REALLY speaks to the geography loving part of my heart.
Interesting video, however, there are equatorial glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Kenya as well.
I still find it funny how imeges from your videos are used in geography olimpiads, same for geography now, many times I see an imege next to a wuestion in the olimpiad and your logo is in the corner of the imege, just funny tbh
I love all the practical map shots, and I would love to see more of them. I have a suggestion for an epic shot. If your camera can do like 120fps, or as high as it goes. Tie the camera to a string, or make some sort of pendulum out of wood or pvc pipe. And swing the camera over the map. Would be awesome!!
An interview with map and atlas makers about what goes into the decision matrix re: what is included and not and how it’s depicted etc would be an interesting video! Keep up the good work!
Atlas was one of the original Titans, and specifically one that was credited with enormous strength , and after the defeating of the Titans he was punished by Zeus to hold the entire weigh of the earth on his shoulders, but maybe before that was worshiped as a God in the kingdom of Atlantis (according to Plutarch),so it's kinda ironic that today we only name books that have charts(or maps) in them after him. ps.actualy I was wrong, Atlantic ocean and Atlas mountains in north Africa are named after him.
there’s a little bit of a bias here given that the geographic entities you picked were ones you’ve personally covered previously. not so surprising that those were for the most part better covered in the book you’ve admitted was a part of your geographic upbringing
I feel like the Times atlas is optimized for looking up locations referenced in newspaper stories---essentially as a reference accessory to a newspaper such as the Times of London, which makes sense.
Yes, that's why Reader's Digest also makes an atlas. These atlases were supposed to be used with magazines and newspapers.
But that is not an excuse because older versions of these atlases used to be magnificent.
Great video. My childhood book "Life Before Man" inspired my interest in paleo-anthropology