My own map project

[infomanpa]

I finally decided that in order for me to best visualize the battlefield was to superimpose various battlefield maps on to satellite images from Google maps . I am using the transparency feature of Photoshop layers to accomplish this. This has been very helpful to me when I visit the field.
Does anyone else have difficulty transferring battle maps to the modern day battlefield?

from a map by Stephen Stanley

from a map by Bradley Gottfried

 

[AndyHall]

This can be a wonderful tool for understanding the battlefield. You might also want to experiment with the image overlay feature in Google Earth (free download). It takes some practice to get the map overlay scaled and aligned correctly, but you end up with a 3D representation of the scene that can be rotated and viewed from any angle. For example, here's Stanley's map of Vicksburg from the CW Trust, overlaid on the actual terrain:

 

[AndyHall]

Does anyone else have difficulty transferring battle maps to the modern day battlefield?

There are some things to look for that help. In towns, roads generally remain lore-or-less stable, and many roads in the countryside do, too -- they just get upgraded and expanded over the generations. Railroad beds don't move often, either, and even when the line is abandoned and torn up, it will often leave scars on the terrain that remain visible in aerial views.

Also keep in mind that many CW maps -- both from the 1860s and modern -- are maybe not as absolutely precise as one might want. With the Stanley map of Vicksburg above, for example, I discovered that his ground scale is off just a bit, and had to enlarge the map slightly to get the features to line up. It's not perfect, but it's good enough to put the brigades and divisions in their proper places.

 

[infomanpa]

This can be a wonderful tool for understanding the battlefield. You might also want to experiment with the image overlay feature in Google Earth (free download). It takes some practice to get the map overlay scaled and aligned correctly, but you end up with a 3D representation of the scene that can be rotated and viewed from any angle. For example, here's Stanley's map of Vicksburg from the CW Trust, overlaid on the actual terrain:

View attachment 125012

Thanks for the reminder. I actually have tried overlays using Google Earth, but not with battlefield maps. It's great advantage is that you don't have to pay for Photoshop!

 

[AndyHall]

I couldn't get by without Photoshop, but it's cloud-based now and only $10/month, with a one-year commitment.

 

[infomanpa]

Also keep in mind that many CW maps -- both from the 1860s and modern -- are maybe not as absolutely precise as one might want. With the Stanley map of Vicksburg above, for example, I discovered that his ground scale is off just a bit, and had to enlarge the map slightly to get the features to line up. It's not perfect, but it's good enough to put the brigades and divisions in their proper places.

Stanley's maps are pretty precise, but I often need to stretch and distort Gottfried's maps to make them fit. Phil Laino has a great atlas. I haven't yet tried to overlay his maps

 

[mt155]

This can be a wonderful tool for understanding the battlefield. You might also want to experiment with the image overlay feature in Google Earth (free download). It takes some practice to get the map overlay scaled and aligned correctly, but you end up with a 3D representation of the scene that can be rotated and viewed from any angle. For example, here's Stanley's map of Vicksburg from the CW Trust, overlaid on the actual terrain:

View attachment 125012

I need to try this.

 

[John Winn]

That's very cool. I used to do stuff like that when I was working but then one had to have access to software not available on home computers. It's amazing what one can do now at home.

BTW, the bending of one image to fit another is called "rubber sheeting" and will almost always be necessary to some degree when using aerial imagery because it's a rare day when scale is consistent across almost any aerial image. That's especially true with composites which is what satellite images really are.

Scale would be consistent only if it was a perfectly flat surface and the camera was precisely perpendicular to the plane being photographed and that just doesn't happen in practice.

 

[infomanpa]

Scale would be consistent only if it was a perfectly flat surface and the camera was precisely perpendicular to the plane being photographed and that just doesn't happen in practice.

Great point, JW. Fortunately, if the map covers a small area, it works out pretty well.

 

[Wallyfish]

Nice job. I like seeing modern features on maps. I can relate better to modern day roads, monuments, buildings, etc.

I use book maps all the time and I always wonder how that relates to the monuments in the area. Great work.

 

[AndyHall]

Stanley's maps are pretty precise, but I often need to stretch and distort Gottfried's maps to make them fit. Phil Laino has a great atlas. I haven't yet tried to overlay his maps

Here is Phil Laino's map of the 1863 action at Middleburg, Virginia. Only a small amount of rubber-sheeting required.

 

[JohnW.]

Thank you for sharing...this is VERY COOL!!!

 

[AndyHall]

Laino, "The Peach Orchard as an Artillery Platform."

 

[infomanpa]

Laino, "The Peach Orchard as an Artillery Platform."
[/ATTACH]

Does this map appear in the Gettysburg magazine? It doesn't appear in Laino's Gettysburg Campaign Atlas book. I also notice that this artillery map has a scale of feet, which mostly do not appear in any of Laino's book maps. That's the one major weakness of his maps, IMHO.

 

[AndyHall]

Does this map appear in the Gettysburg magazine? It doesn't appear in Laino's Gettysburg Campaign Atlas book. I also notice that this artillery map has a scale of feet, which do not appear in any of Laino's book maps. That's the one major weakness of his maps, IMHO.

I don't have his book. I just googled around for one of his maps, and found that one along with the Middleburg map. They may not be the best examples of his work, But they do lineup pretty well with the modern-day real world geography.

In the handful of maps I've done, I always start with the most accurate chart or map of the area I can find, and use overlays from period maps to work backwards.

 

[samuel orris]

These are so cool.

 

[infomanpa]

I couldn't get by without Photoshop, but it's cloud-based now and only $10/month, with a one-year commitment.

Also, Photoshop allows more customizing. For example, I can draw arrows for troop movements, add text labels and even draw in more unit positions.