>>2452478>use USFS layersNot always an option though. They don't cover state or private lands, but otherwise yes they're the easiest solution by far, and if I'm lazy I'll just use them.
But then I do miss having sat imagery, and have found it fairly invaluable for selecting offtrail campsites or figuring out where I am in otherwise hard-to-navigate terrain where clearcuts or oddly shaped meadows are the easiest form of landmark to spot.
USFS maps' green/white distinctions aren't always very accurate or detailed. A <24mo old sat image is usually far superior, plus they can show different stands by coloration (deciduous/evergreen) whereas USFS never does.
You can mess with the sat layer's colors/saturation/etc in the image editor and make the vegetation distinctions very apparent picrel
But it's a lot more work and it's hard to dial in the path layer and contour layer like the USFS has, I gets it.
>>2452520>smaller and harder to use as a map.I don't know where to being with this level of cluelessness. Make a map with a different scale, but 1:24k (not 25k lol) suffices for detail in most cases. 1:16k might be necessary in deep woods without many clear terrain features. You do not need to go lower than that.
