I’m currently in the market for a world atlas. Price is no object; this is something that I plan to buy and keep for years as a reference in the house. I’m not even sure what criteria I should be considering when looking at different atlases, so any of you with particular knowledge or expertise on this topic, please feel free to help me out.
I’m sort of leaning towards the Times of London Atlas (the complete one, not the concise one) or the National Geographic Atlas. I read the reviews for both on Amazon, and the consensus seems to be that while the Times’ atlas is more comprehensive and detailed, the National Geographic’s is more fun to read.
Times atlas, definitely! It’s the best. I love to look at it in bed. Unfortunately it makes a deep dent in my stomach. NG Atlas is ok, but I didn’t find it more fun than the times. Less so, really as it wasn’t as precise.
No doubt about it, it’s the Times Atlas of the World. It is the standard by which all other atlases are judged.
And don’t accept any explanation about why you should use the web. Unless you have a monitor the size of an HDTV, you will not be able to appreciate the beauty and detail that the Times Atlas provides.
Whut BobT sed. Nothin finer than sittin on the commode, whiling away the time with a nice big atlas on your lap. Try that with a computer! Even if you have a laptop, internet access is usually kinda tricky in the bathroom.
Seriously, I’ve checked out map CD-roms, and maps on the web, and always been somewhat disappointed. My ideal world would have maps like the US geographic topographic maps available for the whole world online, or on one DVD.
Browsability, texture, and general aesthetic quality, I guess. Also I like being able to look stuff up without having to turn the computer on. Yes, I am an old-fashioned stick in the mud. But there’s just something about a nice, solid book…