Every year, I'd get a new Rand McNally road atlas and compare the differences which was more common in the '80s with new interstates. We also had a world atlas I fully studied. It's a shame so many people now only know Google maps, or worse, Apple maps. Google maps are so very annoying how borders for states and counties are barely visible at all. But a mattress store stands right out.
My undergraduate geography class used a Goode's...I've bought hardcover editions every 15yrs or so. Wall map of the world in my kitchen for the last 30yrs, too (currently a Winkel-Tripel projection). My (now adult) kids have been map fans since they were little; dinner conversation always included something happening somewhere, and the kids would look up from the kitchen table and find that location.
Awesome Kyle, thanks for the atlas tour!! I've been hoping for a video like this for awhile now. And yes, I agree the city inlays on that first atlas are a little strange. I suppose they're just trying to maximize space and give you your money's worth, but it's not like you're going to be lugging that thing around in your car and using it for directions in one of those cities. lol I will say that although I agree with you that it probably isn't the best usage of space, I do like the city maps in the Oxford Atlas just because I enjoy seeing the cities side by side at the same scale for comparison purposes.
I love that you closed with the DK Reference Atlas! I also read it front to back growing up and it's primarily where I learned to love geography! I probably wouldn't be watching your channel if it weren't for that book!
Love your channel Kyle. I've been a geography geek since kindergarten. Can't really explain why, but I always remembered looking through my parents US and WORLD Atlases my whole life. I guess that I've always wanted to know where EVERYTHING IS????
I drank that precious Canadian water for over 30 years, and I advise them to keep it there. For a long time Nat Geo maps didn't show highways, only railroad lines. I remember having a hard time finding any world atlas that showed roads. Ended up with a Readers Digest Great World Atlas, which was the same as Bartholomew's, probably 40 years ago. But the best atlas I have, by far, is the Atlas of Oregon, which is a beautiful book. I also have a later DK World Reference Atlas (2004) that I got on remainder cheap, and it's surprisingly good. And a Michelin Road Atlas of France that is almost as complicated as France itself.
Hi Kyle next time you are in London go visit the Royal Geographic Society and ask to visit the Map Room. A few years ago I was there for a conference (not a RGS one) and out of curiosity l visited the Map Room and it was an amazing experience.
Hi Kyle, great vlog! and great channel too. I too collect atlas from all around the world. Unfortunately the digital world is really taking over the mapping business, thus there is less printed (road) atlas leftor published. I do agree that in the perfect world, RandMcNally would publish (road) atlas to other countries. What about an atlas about the United Mexican States, or Brazil? Wouldn't that be unreal! I have discovered the Benchmark Atlas recently and traveled through Baja Cafornia with it. It was awesome! I own a few rarities, such as a road atlas of Russia (in cyrillic!) and the Guia Roji road atlas of Mexico, the Firestone road Atlas of Argentina (a beauty!). There is plenty of (road) atlas covering Europe, here in Australia with have Hema. Happy to DM and exchange further.
I always loved the Hammond Citation world atlas because it does a great job with color in showing country boundaries and ESPECIALLY the US state counties boundaries. With most atlas and maps its hard to tell the county borders but this atlas does great at seeing the US counties ❤
I grew up in one of those towns that mapmakers use to fill in a blank space - San Luis Obispo. One of the Atlases I grew up with had a map of the South China Seas and listed the Spratly and Parcel Isles not by name but as “Dangerous Grounds.” Many ship groundings in WWII including a couple US submarines. Most recently, a US submarine struck a reef in this area. With China, Viet Nam, The Philippines and Malaysia claiming these islets in all or in part as sovereign territory it has returned to be Dangerous Grounds.
There used to be a joke about the Times Atlas: People in a town discovered that the Times placed their town three kilometres away from its actual location. The Town Council called an emergency meeting to discuss how much it would cost to move the entire town three kilometres.
Even before you mentioned the Gambia mistake in the Times atlas, I was already thinking the same thing as you, because on every map that covered that area, they got the border between the Italian regions of Venetia and Friaul wrong: the town of Sappada is shown as belonging to Venetia, when it actually was transferred to Friaul after a referendum almost 10 years ago. Just like you, I thought to myself: “If they committed this blunder, there’s definitely a ton of other ones that I just don’t know about”. Unfortunately, you proved me right just a few minutes later…
Espléndido, comparto totalmente tu opinión. Pero también son excelentes los alemanes de Kosmos y Knaurs, el italiano De Agostini y el español de Planeta. Gracias desde La Coruña , España.
As I watched I kept thinking "It'd be great to have a spiral bound atlas" similar to the last recipe book I bought (which lays nice and flat on the countertop) so at 1:28:20 I thought that Nat Geo atlas was wonderful, and I like how well it shows physical geography as you mentioned.
Great review! As a young map nut I used the Rand McNally atlas often, but I found its maps slightly hard to read because of the dark background. Also, I was a nut for topography and so preferred the Times for elevation coding and Nat Geo for its crisp treatment of mountains. Still, Rand McNally was perhaps the most serious atlas.
Excellent review. I have the Oxford, and I agree with you on the lack of maps of Canada. I really like the Times, but the high price is what’s preventing me from ordering it.
Loved this video. But i want to know a couple things: which one is actually your favorite? Maybe a rating out of 5 or tier list category how do you know things like: "many people like this one" -- is there an atlas community somewhere out there? when will you be making your own custom atlas, with proper cartography, fonts, and zoom ins on west africa, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, mexico, etc? I will buy one :)
I read the World Book encyclopedia. I thought I was the only one . I want to buy my 10 year old grandson an atlas of the world, Kyle, and was wondering if you had a recommendation?
Most of the ones I discussed in this video have a "simpler" version, but I think the Collins Complete Edition 54:41 is a good one for kids. It's a big book, so it has an "adult" feel to it, but because it's not as many pages, it's lighter (some of these are pretty heavy). It has good maps and is not overly complicated, but it's also advanced enough to where it's not a "kid's atlas" and can still be a good reference as he gets older. It's also much less expensive than the other advanced atlases.
I enjoy The Times Comprehensive Atlas. I would say that they don’t focus on physical geography as well as NatGeo (not to say I’m surprised). It servers its purpose well for following news stories (as The Times is). I know the most recent NatGeo Atlas of the World was the 11th edition (I believe in 2019 *I don’t own it*). I didn’t know they were planning another edition soon. I do prefer the way NatGeo distinguishes their borders with a color definition, as opposed to The Times which just has the same color for every border. I have 16th Edition of The Times Comprehensive, and five editions of NatGeo’s Atlas of the World. Keeping all of them as a nice complement to each other.
I don't know that there is necessarily a new Nat Geo atlas coming soon. But they have updated them roughly every 5 years, and it's been 5 years. Obviously a lot has happened since 2019 but I do expect a 12th edition at some point. But we'll see.
@@GeographyKing Fair point. I hope to see a 12th Edition with some improvements over the 11th Edition. I have seen the 11th Edition and from my personal opinion (as well as from other Atlas collectors) it’s one of the weakest of National Geographic editions with the junk they add in the front as you mention in your video, as well as lesser quality of their plates. I can’t remember the UA-camr. There is one who compared The Times Comprehensive Atlas to the National Geographic Family Reference. Side by side you can see the detail to physical geography as well as reference to physical points of interest that The Times excludes. However, The Times is superior with reference to cities and towns being shown. Hence why it’s great to use with following news stories. For my job I use both as a cross reference…but at 170 USD for The Times, and 215 USD for National Geographic I can absolutely see why you wouldn’t want to purchase both. Personally I would recommend (for at home use) if you want the full Atlas. Look on eBay for an older edition of the National Geographic Atlas of the World (8th and 10th Editions are my personal favorite).
I noticed that a lot of Indonesia zoom in maps have the area of Java around Jakarta seemingly split between pages. Props to Rand McNally for avoiding that in their's.
I grew up with something I can't recall. In college, I had the Goode 1982, which I loved. Haven't found one I've loved since because of the layouts, so have a small collection of globes through time instead (I need updates). Because of the camera view and the speed of page turning, I couldn't always see the scale, but my guess as to why things are drawn at the level of detail is because for regions of the same latitude, they wanted the same scale. Most atlases show each continent in series at the same scale, so you could theoretically cut them out and line up the borders (don't get silly with me on the same page back to front, people - it's the concept I'm discussing). Then within a region (country or continent), blown up to a smaller scale (larger area, for those that don't know), again all adjacent maps to the same scale. But yes, they are showing some at smaller scales and leaving others to the larger scales, which is indeed an editorial choice. One thing I notice about all of these is that they are trying to show the physical geography and the political information all on the same map, which is difficult, especially at large scales. But knowing that, I cut them some slack. Not for the color choices - some of those were atrocious! Kyle, I was a little bothered by your personal judgments on what you needed on an atlas. To me, atlases are purely overview, and for more detailed maps, go get another or use online resources. I personally love the thematic information, but agree it's better to get that online since it changes so quickly. Love the video! Hope my critique wasn't too upsetting! Would love more like this.
Ulaanbataar (Ulan Bator), Krung Thep (Bangkok), Al-Qahira (Cairo): How do you feel about anglicising foreign city names? Should historically more common English names be given in parentheses? They're a Pandora's box, eh?
I have always loved maps. Ever since I was young I have spent many pleasant hours perusing atlases. I never managed to buy one of those top-tier world atlases. One of the things that would bug me a lot would be almost every "world atlas" I would see in any bookstore would dedicate maybe 75% of the content to the United States and only give cursory coverage of the rest of the world.
we have the Oxford Atlas at our school and yeah i think the words mush and blend too much lain over the highly detailed map. Looking for a specific city took some effort. Wayyy too much visual noise. Had a friend that was trying to fing his home city in mexico and he couldn't find it in all the noise.
I think you should get an Atlas made by Russia 🇷🇺 in 1999. Atlas Mira (Атлас мира) is also a great Atlas. Unfortunately, it has not been updated since 2002. You can find English versions of this Atlas on the second-hand market.
10 minutes in and I am thinking that I would love to have that a book that is twice as big so that each map is still the same size but on its own page without a crease down the middle of each map. That would also allow you to cut out pages and frame maps that you love. You could buy two copies of the larger book so you could have the the front map and back map of each page and wallpaper a wall or even an entire room with all the maps.
I wish were was a way the publisher could not have the map disappear into the crease/center binding... Maybe they need a white border where the page disappears into the middle of the book.
As a map connoisseur I think that everyone should take at least an hour a week to read atlases. Modern Earth, historic, prehistoric, climate, submarine, economic, sci-fi and fantasy realms, even the Moon and planets.
I think most people do agree with you, but I use atlases for political geography more than physical. But I also only have the 7th and 8th edition Nat Geo, and I have to assume they've improved since. I think there may be a 12th edition reasonably soon, if not I'll get an 11th.
UA-cam algorithm trick...consider adding a second channel like "Geography King Extras". Many creators do this to stash their more obscure and longer videos. This is because YT can punish your main channel if your most recent videos don't have a high view rate.
I have the National Geographic Atlas of the World, Eleventh Edition. It's a beautiful atlas, but I have been shocked by the number of mistakes I've found in it. It says the highest mountain in South America, Aconcagua, is in Chile (it's in Argentina); the index says Lumbini is in India (It's actually in Nepal); one of the Antarctica plates has the lines of latitude off by 10 degrees (shows 30 through 80 but it should be 20 through 70); it misspells the Greenlandic name of Greenland (Kalaallit Numaat instead of K. Nunaat); it says Colorado is the Centennial Staet and Wisconsin is the Badgere State; Segovia is missing from the map of Spain (the dot is there, but not the name); LOTS of typos or misspelled words. I've got about 30 more mistakes I've noticed, but you get the point. By the way, Serekunda is not shown on the map of The Gambia, nor is it listed in the index.
One thing just about all of these atlases had in common was that their cartography made that of Google Maps and Google Earth look - to use a Kyle~ism - 'Gross'! Like, "cigarette~end extinguished in the fried egg" - gross. Or, "Mam! The cat done a sick!" - gross. I think we're all familiar with Google's colour 'scheme' for its maps; "What is this green blotch meant to represent? A forest? A golf course? A park? Agricultural land? _Whaat?!"_ "Where _does_ the Goddam built - up area end?!" etc... (to be fair, the latter question is always a somewhat ambiguous one, whether one is talking city boundary, built~up area, metropolitan area, or whatever - but one almost gets the feeling with Google that they are _deliberately_ trying to obfuscate all possible clarity on the subject!) The biggest surprise for me here, being used to their cheap, nasty and not - very - authoritive feeling reference books, maps and road atlases, was Collins, if one is prepared to overlook the rather 'Western'/'Developed World'~centric nature of their atlas. Their cartography for me was among the most attractive, particularly in terms of land use; especially the cities, which just _popped,_ without ever appearing gaudy! As a European, it was very interesting to see the Rand MacNally American offerings, and the sadly out~of~print World Atlas of their sister publisher, Goode's. While the thematic maps in which Goode's specialize might be better found on the web if one is looking for something specific, for browzing, or for a more holistic view, I would much sooner use the paper atlas rather than faffing about online! As with Collins, the cartography is (mostly) pretty easy on the eye, even if - as noted - the urban areas can 'blare' a bit... Though I do think to describe them as 'gross' is putting it a bit strongly. As for the Rand McNally road atlases, while they are obviously limited in some respects (the fact that they only cover the United States [North America?] being only the most obvious of these!) I would, even so, if undertaking a motoring tour of the US, or I was what I would normally call a lorry driver but probably should refer to here as an 'over~the road trucker', I would go with RM in a flash! Strangely, given that it is really rather similar to Google's (Co~incidental? Hmm, one wonders...) their cartography might be the most attractive of the lot, although the fact that they don't appear to be hugely concerned with physical features can hardly hurt in this respect!
You seemed to be more interested in the informational aspect of these atlases, and kind of glossed over the physical maps. One thing I don’t like about a lot of atlases is how they cram in so many place names you can’t see the physical features at all. Try following the path of a river through all that text, it’s maddening. The other thing I don’t like is how almost all of them show the physical features using elevation information, with very un-natural colors, causing dry desert areas to have the same color to them as green grassy or forested areas, simply because they are the same elevation. Which often results in the Sahara being completely green! Sometimes they will have a naturally colored physical map, with nice shading of mountains, but only as an introductory illustration on a lead in page, often in perspective on a globe, and not as actual flat maps with grid lines. From my experience, that National Geographic Atlas is extremely unique in having beautifully illustrated physical maps with nicely shaded mountains and accurate natural coloring, and… grid lines. Their maps actually look nicer than satellite images, because you can easily discern the actual geography even better. One problem though, the coloring is not completely accurate. I noticed that places like southern Europe - Spain and Italy etc. - did not look as dry as they should. They were made to look as green as the rest of Europe. And the deserts of Australia did not look as red as they should. And… they completely forgot to include one of these beautiful physical maps for New Zealand! Otherwise, it’s a great atlas if you are interested in good physical maps. I got a seventh edition used for $13! If you know of any other atlases that have beautifully illustrated physical maps with accurate natural coloring, let me know!
Nat Geo's physical maps are incredible. Glad someone else appreciates them. I always recommend someone buy a used Nat Geo edition or the Family Reference JUST for those maps alone, because I think they are invaluable for learning world geography. You need to know not just elevation but actual climate/landcover. Totally agree with your assessment.
For me, having multiple atlases is preferred because the Nat Geo one is as you mentioned better for physical features, but for cultural/political place names I prefer Times. I agree about how the loads of text in Times makes seeing physical features more difficult.
I’ll stick with my 1975 Funk & Wagnalls Hammond World Atlas LOL. I also have an Oxford from 1993. With the rise of the Internet I have not been motivated to buy a newer one.
Other than a handful of borders changing and some names being updated, older atlases can still be great if they looked good originally. People who read atlases know the new borders and names, but most is still relevant from older ones.
I always like looking at the various islands out in the middle of nowhere in both the Pacific the Atlantic and the Indian oceans. How people arrived there without any means of propulsion or guidance other than human muscle and pure, blind, luck
Why do you think it’s inappropriate for Scandinavian countries to receive so much attention but critique Canada’s lack of detail simultaneously? Is canada not around the same political and geographical relevance as Scandinavia?
Babe wake up Geography King just dropped a 90 minute video on world atlases
Legend
Yes I’m so glad I’m not the only person totally nerding out on atlas!! Thank you ❤❤❤
Every year, I'd get a new Rand McNally road atlas and compare the differences which was more common in the '80s with new interstates. We also had a world atlas I fully studied.
It's a shame so many people now only know Google maps, or worse, Apple maps. Google maps are so very annoying how borders for states and counties are barely visible at all. But a mattress store stands right out.
Didn't think I'd be getting drunk to a feature length video about atlases tonight but here we are. No regrets
I still have my Rand McNally Trucker's Atlases from back in the day. All spiralbound. Miss the days when they were the norm.
I'm getting a feeling that you're a king at geography.
I already got that from his name though 👑
My undergraduate geography class used a Goode's...I've bought hardcover editions every 15yrs or so. Wall map of the world in my kitchen for the last 30yrs, too (currently a Winkel-Tripel projection). My (now adult) kids have been map fans since they were little; dinner conversation always included something happening somewhere, and the kids would look up from the kitchen table and find that location.
Awesome Kyle, thanks for the atlas tour!! I've been hoping for a video like this for awhile now. And yes, I agree the city inlays on that first atlas are a little strange. I suppose they're just trying to maximize space and give you your money's worth, but it's not like you're going to be lugging that thing around in your car and using it for directions in one of those cities. lol I will say that although I agree with you that it probably isn't the best usage of space, I do like the city maps in the Oxford Atlas just because I enjoy seeing the cities side by side at the same scale for comparison purposes.
My Dad and I worked for Rand McNally many years ago. They had an excellent world atlas, and the famous Commercial Atlas.
May they never stop making the Rand McNally Road Atlas!
that crease in the middle of a bunch of the maps would drive me crazy
drives me wild too. imagine you live in one of the cities that gets lost in the crease? i'd be pissed
Hi Kyle from the North Cumberland Plateau. I was a cartographer for TDOT and FDOT
Love those maps !
Physical maps are the best. I loved this roundup.
I was looking for a good wall map. Glad you plugged Muir Way. What a relief.😉
I splurged on my National Geographic Atlas over 30 years ago. Glad I did. Love it. Need to get it out again and peruse.
I love that you closed with the DK Reference Atlas! I also read it front to back growing up and it's primarily where I learned to love geography! I probably wouldn't be watching your channel if it weren't for that book!
Thanks for showing which atlases give more ocean detail, along with pacific examples
Love your channel Kyle. I've been a geography geek since kindergarten. Can't really explain why, but I always remembered looking through my parents US and WORLD Atlases my whole life. I guess that I've always wanted to know where EVERYTHING IS????
That sounds like me when I was a kid for sure
I drank that precious Canadian water for over 30 years, and I advise them to keep it there.
For a long time Nat Geo maps didn't show highways, only railroad lines. I remember having a hard time finding any world atlas that showed roads. Ended up with a Readers Digest Great World Atlas, which was the same as Bartholomew's, probably 40 years ago. But the best atlas I have, by far, is the Atlas of Oregon, which is a beautiful book. I also have a later DK World Reference Atlas (2004) that I got on remainder cheap, and it's surprisingly good. And a Michelin Road Atlas of France that is almost as complicated as France itself.
"Almost as complicated as France itself", lol! 😆
You take being a nerd to a whole new level ⭐
Legend
You inspired me to get an atlas!
At 29:34 Kyle thanks for alerting us to the Scandinavian map lobby that has persuaded atlas publishers to devote more space to their countries.
Love Love Love DK - especially for Travel Guides!!!
I REALLY appreciate your constructive criticism on the atlas not paying as much attention to Africa and Asia than it does to Europe. Good on you!
Hi Kyle next time you are in London go visit the Royal Geographic Society and ask to visit the Map Room. A few years ago I was there for a conference (not a RGS one) and out of curiosity l visited the Map Room and it was an amazing experience.
I will have to keep that in mind.
Heck ya! What a super cool video
Great Video, thanks for making it
This is a dream come true. Have had a savant-like addiction to atlases my entire life!
Hi Kyle, great vlog! and great channel too. I too collect atlas from all around the world. Unfortunately the digital world is really taking over the mapping business, thus there is less printed (road) atlas leftor published.
I do agree that in the perfect world, RandMcNally would publish (road) atlas to other countries. What about an atlas about the United Mexican States, or Brazil? Wouldn't that be unreal! I have discovered the Benchmark Atlas recently and traveled through Baja Cafornia with it. It was awesome! I own a few rarities, such as a road atlas of Russia (in cyrillic!) and the Guia Roji road atlas of Mexico, the Firestone road Atlas of Argentina (a beauty!). There is plenty of (road) atlas covering Europe, here in Australia with have Hema. Happy to DM and exchange further.
I always loved the Hammond Citation world atlas because it does a great job with color in showing country boundaries and ESPECIALLY the US state counties boundaries. With most atlas and maps its hard to tell the county borders but this atlas does great at seeing the US counties ❤
That is one atlas I am not familiar with. I'll have to look into that one.
I grew up in one of those towns that mapmakers use to fill in a blank space - San Luis Obispo.
One of the Atlases I grew up with had a map of the South China Seas and listed the Spratly and Parcel Isles not by name but as “Dangerous Grounds.” Many ship groundings in WWII including a couple US submarines. Most recently, a US submarine struck a reef in this area. With China, Viet Nam, The Philippines and Malaysia claiming these islets in all or in part as sovereign territory it has returned to be Dangerous Grounds.
I had my grandmother's Atlas of The World from like 1957 it was so cool to see
Hell yeah I’ll watch an hour and a half long video examining atlases
There used to be a joke about the Times Atlas: People in a town discovered that the Times placed their town three kilometres away from its actual location. The Town Council called an emergency meeting to discuss how much it would cost to move the entire town three kilometres.
Even before you mentioned the Gambia mistake in the Times atlas, I was already thinking the same thing as you, because on every map that covered that area, they got the border between the Italian regions of Venetia and Friaul wrong: the town of Sappada is shown as belonging to Venetia, when it actually was transferred to Friaul after a referendum almost 10 years ago.
Just like you, I thought to myself: “If they committed this blunder, there’s definitely a ton of other ones that I just don’t know about”. Unfortunately, you proved me right just a few minutes later…
Espléndido, comparto totalmente tu opinión. Pero también son excelentes los alemanes de Kosmos y Knaurs, el italiano De Agostini y el español de Planeta. Gracias desde La Coruña , España.
World Reference Atlas FTW! I also have some old DeLorme and AAA road atlas.
As I watched I kept thinking "It'd be great to have a spiral bound atlas" similar to the last recipe book I bought (which lays nice and flat on the countertop) so at 1:28:20 I thought that Nat Geo atlas was wonderful, and I like how well it shows physical geography as you mentioned.
Great review! As a young map nut I used the Rand McNally atlas often, but I found its maps slightly hard to read because of the dark background. Also, I was a nut for topography and so preferred the Times for elevation coding and Nat Geo for its crisp treatment of mountains. Still, Rand McNally was perhaps the most serious atlas.
I picked up a copy of Rand McNally's New International Atlas. What would be the best resource for identifying mountain peaks and other landscapes?
Excellent review. I have the Oxford, and I agree with you on the lack of maps of Canada.
I really like the Times, but the high price is what’s preventing me from ordering it.
Keep an eye out as when they are preparing for a new release you can get one half price
Love the way you noticed all of the Stanley’s. Or as we say in Chicago.: Staach! Western Asia is a Polish wedding
As a trucker,Rand McNally commercial atlas never let me down.
Oof do more map/atlas videos like this. These are great
Loved this video. But i want to know a couple things:
which one is actually your favorite? Maybe a rating out of 5 or tier list category
how do you know things like: "many people like this one" -- is there an atlas community somewhere out there?
when will you be making your own custom atlas, with proper cartography, fonts, and zoom ins on west africa, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, mexico, etc? I will buy one :)
I read the World Book encyclopedia. I thought I was the only one . I want to buy my 10 year old grandson an atlas of the world, Kyle, and was wondering if you had a recommendation?
Most of the ones I discussed in this video have a "simpler" version, but I think the Collins Complete Edition 54:41 is a good one for kids. It's a big book, so it has an "adult" feel to it, but because it's not as many pages, it's lighter (some of these are pretty heavy). It has good maps and is not overly complicated, but it's also advanced enough to where it's not a "kid's atlas" and can still be a good reference as he gets older. It's also much less expensive than the other advanced atlases.
@@GeographyKing Thanks, Kyle, for taking the time to give such a complete answer. He’s either going to get it for Christmas or March 25th (birthday).
I love your geography channel. A lot more positive and non political than Nick Johnson
do a video on OLD world atlases from antiquity to the 1800's That would be cool good channel
I enjoy The Times Comprehensive Atlas. I would say that they don’t focus on physical geography as well as NatGeo (not to say I’m surprised). It servers its purpose well for following news stories (as The Times is).
I know the most recent NatGeo Atlas of the World was the 11th edition (I believe in 2019 *I don’t own it*). I didn’t know they were planning another edition soon.
I do prefer the way NatGeo distinguishes their borders with a color definition, as opposed to The Times which just has the same color for every border.
I have 16th Edition of The Times Comprehensive, and five editions of NatGeo’s Atlas of the World. Keeping all of them as a nice complement to each other.
I don't know that there is necessarily a new Nat Geo atlas coming soon. But they have updated them roughly every 5 years, and it's been 5 years. Obviously a lot has happened since 2019 but I do expect a 12th edition at some point. But we'll see.
@@GeographyKing Fair point. I hope to see a 12th Edition with some improvements over the 11th Edition. I have seen the 11th Edition and from my personal opinion (as well as from other Atlas collectors) it’s one of the weakest of National Geographic editions with the junk they add in the front as you mention in your video, as well as lesser quality of their plates.
I can’t remember the UA-camr. There is one who compared The Times Comprehensive Atlas to the National Geographic Family Reference. Side by side you can see the detail to physical geography as well as reference to physical points of interest that The Times excludes. However, The Times is superior with reference to cities and towns being shown. Hence why it’s great to use with following news stories.
For my job I use both as a cross reference…but at 170 USD for The Times, and 215 USD for National Geographic I can absolutely see why you wouldn’t want to purchase both.
Personally I would recommend (for at home use) if you want the full Atlas. Look on eBay for an older edition of the National Geographic Atlas of the World (8th and 10th Editions are my personal favorite).
I noticed that a lot of Indonesia zoom in maps have the area of Java around Jakarta seemingly split between pages. Props to Rand McNally for avoiding that in their's.
I learned that some maps are gross and disgusting. lol Thank you for the deep dive book tour!
I wish you'd do a video on using the USGS topographical map website
I grew up with something I can't recall. In college, I had the Goode 1982, which I loved. Haven't found one I've loved since because of the layouts, so have a small collection of globes through time instead (I need updates).
Because of the camera view and the speed of page turning, I couldn't always see the scale, but my guess as to why things are drawn at the level of detail is because for regions of the same latitude, they wanted the same scale. Most atlases show each continent in series at the same scale, so you could theoretically cut them out and line up the borders (don't get silly with me on the same page back to front, people - it's the concept I'm discussing). Then within a region (country or continent), blown up to a smaller scale (larger area, for those that don't know), again all adjacent maps to the same scale. But yes, they are showing some at smaller scales and leaving others to the larger scales, which is indeed an editorial choice.
One thing I notice about all of these is that they are trying to show the physical geography and the political information all on the same map, which is difficult, especially at large scales. But knowing that, I cut them some slack. Not for the color choices - some of those were atrocious!
Kyle, I was a little bothered by your personal judgments on what you needed on an atlas. To me, atlases are purely overview, and for more detailed maps, go get another or use online resources. I personally love the thematic information, but agree it's better to get that online since it changes so quickly.
Love the video! Hope my critique wasn't too upsetting! Would love more like this.
Now do globes. Want to get one for my kid.
Shoutout to Lucknow, that’s where I did medical school!
Ulaanbataar (Ulan Bator), Krung Thep (Bangkok), Al-Qahira (Cairo): How do you feel about anglicising foreign city names? Should historically more common English names be given in parentheses? They're a Pandora's box, eh?
I have always loved maps. Ever since I was young I have spent many pleasant hours perusing atlases. I never managed to buy one of those top-tier world atlases. One of the things that would bug me a lot would be almost every "world atlas" I would see in any bookstore would dedicate maybe 75% of the content to the United States and only give cursory coverage of the rest of the world.
Maps are GREAT
Zip
My bestie is from Macedonia and they basically pass over that. That MF’er is from the Bible . Nat Geo covers it like mad
You have to shop from a different country.
The Danish and Swedish atlas lobby are in the lobby.
we have the Oxford Atlas at our school and yeah i think the words mush and blend too much lain over the highly detailed map. Looking for a specific city took some effort. Wayyy too much visual noise. Had a friend that was trying to fing his home city in mexico and he couldn't find it in all the noise.
Kyle getting a little fired up about some of those gross maps!
I think you should get an Atlas made by Russia 🇷🇺 in 1999.
Atlas Mira (Атлас мира) is also a great Atlas.
Unfortunately, it has not been updated since 2002.
You can find English versions of this Atlas on the second-hand market.
I'd love an atlas that has the entire world at like 1:5M or 1:7.5M, with custom projection on each. And with zooms on more populated places, of course
10 minutes in and I am thinking that I would love to have that a book that is twice as big so that each map is still the same size but on its own page without a crease down the middle of each map. That would also allow you to cut out pages and frame maps that you love. You could buy two copies of the larger book so you could have the the front map and back map of each page and wallpaper a wall or even an entire room with all the maps.
Metsker Maps sells a lot of those!
I like my 1963 James Darley.
I wish were was a way the publisher could not have the map disappear into the crease/center binding... Maybe they need a white border where the page disappears into the middle of the book.
Rand McNally is the go to for America.
As a map connoisseur I think that everyone should take at least an hour a week to read atlases. Modern Earth, historic, prehistoric, climate, submarine, economic, sci-fi and fantasy realms, even the Moon and planets.
The Nat Geo Atlas kicks the crap out of the Times Atlas. Great video though!
I think most people do agree with you, but I use atlases for political geography more than physical. But I also only have the 7th and 8th edition Nat Geo, and I have to assume they've improved since. I think there may be a 12th edition reasonably soon, if not I'll get an 11th.
that $200+ atlas, would it be better to not have some of the info in the creases?
UA-cam algorithm trick...consider adding a second channel like "Geography King Extras". Many creators do this to stash their more obscure and longer videos. This is because YT can punish your main channel if your most recent videos don't have a high view rate.
I have the National Geographic Atlas of the World, Eleventh Edition. It's a beautiful atlas, but I have been shocked by the number of mistakes I've found in it. It says the highest mountain in South America, Aconcagua, is in Chile (it's in Argentina); the index says Lumbini is in India (It's actually in Nepal); one of the Antarctica plates has the lines of latitude off by 10 degrees (shows 30 through 80 but it should be 20 through 70); it misspells the Greenlandic name of Greenland (Kalaallit Numaat instead of K. Nunaat); it says Colorado is the Centennial Staet and Wisconsin is the Badgere State; Segovia is missing from the map of Spain (the dot is there, but not the name); LOTS of typos or misspelled words. I've got about 30 more mistakes I've noticed, but you get the point. By the way, Serekunda is not shown on the map of The Gambia, nor is it listed in the index.
Wife asked me, “what are you watching?” I said, “I’m with my people!”
I like paper maps so much better than computer or phone.
Maps are cool
I love being a geography nerd. What other kind of person gets so exited about maps?
One thing just about all of these atlases had in common was that their cartography made that of Google Maps and Google Earth look - to use a Kyle~ism - 'Gross'! Like, "cigarette~end extinguished in the fried egg" - gross. Or, "Mam! The cat done a sick!" - gross. I think we're all familiar with Google's colour 'scheme' for its maps; "What is this green blotch meant to represent? A forest? A golf course? A park? Agricultural land? _Whaat?!"_ "Where _does_ the Goddam built - up area end?!" etc... (to be fair, the latter question is always a somewhat ambiguous one, whether one is talking city boundary, built~up area, metropolitan area, or whatever - but one almost gets the feeling with Google that they are _deliberately_ trying to obfuscate all possible clarity on the subject!)
The biggest surprise for me here, being used to their cheap, nasty and not - very - authoritive feeling reference books, maps and road atlases, was Collins, if one is prepared to overlook the rather 'Western'/'Developed World'~centric nature of their atlas. Their cartography for me was among the most attractive, particularly in terms of land use; especially the cities, which just _popped,_ without ever appearing gaudy!
As a European, it was very interesting to see the Rand MacNally American offerings, and the sadly out~of~print World Atlas of their sister publisher, Goode's. While the thematic maps in which Goode's specialize might be better found on the web if one is looking for something specific, for browzing, or for a more holistic view, I would much sooner use the paper atlas rather than faffing about online! As with Collins, the cartography is (mostly) pretty easy on the eye, even if - as noted - the urban areas can 'blare' a bit... Though I do think to describe them as 'gross' is putting it a bit strongly.
As for the Rand McNally road atlases, while they are obviously limited in some respects (the fact that they only cover the United States [North America?] being only the most obvious of these!) I would, even so, if undertaking a motoring tour of the US, or I was what I would normally call a lorry driver but probably should refer to here as an 'over~the road trucker', I would go with RM in a flash! Strangely, given that it is really rather similar to Google's (Co~incidental? Hmm, one wonders...) their cartography might be the most attractive of the lot, although the fact that they don't appear to be hugely concerned with physical features can hardly hurt in this respect!
You seemed to be more interested in the informational aspect of these atlases, and kind of glossed over the physical maps. One thing I don’t like about a lot of atlases is how they cram in so many place names you can’t see the physical features at all. Try following the path of a river through all that text, it’s maddening. The other thing I don’t like is how almost all of them show the physical features using elevation information, with very un-natural colors, causing dry desert areas to have the same color to them as green grassy or forested areas, simply because they are the same elevation. Which often results in the Sahara being completely green! Sometimes they will have a naturally colored physical map, with nice shading of mountains, but only as an introductory illustration on a lead in page, often in perspective on a globe, and not as actual flat maps with grid lines. From my experience, that National Geographic Atlas is extremely unique in having beautifully illustrated physical maps with nicely shaded mountains and accurate natural coloring, and… grid lines. Their maps actually look nicer than satellite images, because you can easily discern the actual geography even better. One problem though, the coloring is not completely accurate. I noticed that places like southern Europe - Spain and Italy etc. - did not look as dry as they should. They were made to look as green as the rest of Europe. And the deserts of Australia did not look as red as they should. And… they completely forgot to include one of these beautiful physical maps for New Zealand! Otherwise, it’s a great atlas if you are interested in good physical maps. I got a seventh edition used for $13! If you know of any other atlases that have beautifully illustrated physical maps with accurate natural coloring, let me know!
Nat Geo's physical maps are incredible. Glad someone else appreciates them.
I always recommend someone buy a used Nat Geo edition or the Family Reference JUST for those maps alone, because I think they are invaluable for learning world geography. You need to know not just elevation but actual climate/landcover. Totally agree with your assessment.
For me, having multiple atlases is preferred because the Nat Geo one is as you mentioned better for physical features, but for cultural/political place names I prefer Times. I agree about how the loads of text in Times makes seeing physical features more difficult.
I’ll stick with my 1975 Funk & Wagnalls Hammond World Atlas LOL. I also have an Oxford from 1993. With the rise of the Internet I have not been motivated to buy a newer one.
Other than a handful of borders changing and some names being updated, older atlases can still be great if they looked good originally. People who read atlases know the new borders and names, but most is still relevant from older ones.
why is the North Pole on the top and the South Pole on the bottom ?
Because penguins like to hang upside down like bats.
It looks like fhe 11th edition of the National Geographic Atlas is widely available.
This one's a true barn burner
Hail to the king
Maybe the brown isn't for heavy forest but for elevation
Come on now, Kyle. You’re there in Africa, say it, say it! Lake Titicaca !
This video is brought to you in part by: kibbles and bits
It isn’t weird to read atlases like books is it? 😅
Alternative title: Atlases Shrugged 😉
...by Ayn Rand McNally. 😉
People thought I was weird for reading maps/atlases.
20:47 i'm so dissapointed to see that's all they covered for south america
I thought atlases showed EVERY country in a certain depth at least :(
Do they even make world atlases anymore? I just use Google Earth
Here's hoping you don't have to turn off comments.
I always like looking at the various islands out in the middle of nowhere in both the Pacific the Atlantic and the Indian oceans. How people arrived there without any means of propulsion or guidance other than human muscle and pure, blind, luck
101st
🎉😊😊
I had a 200 lb atlas crushing my situatation
Why do you think it’s inappropriate for Scandinavian countries to receive so much attention but critique Canada’s lack of detail simultaneously? Is canada not around the same political and geographical relevance as Scandinavia?
They're all called Atlas of the World and not World Atlas for some reason
I love my atlas but certain things like Yugoslavia are a total mess
And it dislocates a shoulder
It doesn’t exist!
SMH, so much hate for Nat Geo
The BEST? GOOGLE EARTH.