Doing the Sag-LAK-Ogish- Seagull loop so doing my due diligence ordered some maps.

First I got the Voyageur map 6 from this site which is comprehensive and covers the area totally. Pros are all the lakes have depth contours, the campsites are numbered so you can locate good sites mentioned here, and it is detailed. Only con, and not a big one, is the lakes and land kind of merge together, should be more delineation there. Hard to make out the islands etc.

Then I got a Fisher map 32 recommended by Mocha, Thx! and this covers the entire route and is a bit more condensed. Perfect. I like the contrast between land and lakes. Blue for lakes yellow for land, makes it easier to follow certain features like bays islands you need to note when traveling etc. Cons are it doesn’t have the campsites numbered and not as complete with the lake maps depths.

I was a McKenzie guy and tried them first but couldn’t figure out the website and I think I read it will take three maps to cover my route. I googled it that could be wrong but I wasn’t interested in pursuing it much deeper. Not buying another $50 in maps.

I’ll use the Fisher for traveling, keep the voyager as a back up and for more detailed study haha. Good to go!

I'm a McKenzie guy, I like the scale better than the Fischers. I also have a full set of Voyaguer maps and will bring whatever one covers the current trip. It has nice list of species in each lake. These all go into a NRS map case with a long loop that I toss over my head like a lanyard on portages. If folded right, can extend the map to both sides by flipping it.

I don't use a GPS. new trip partner had a garmin watch and it was actually more clear than I imagined and thought maybe thats on my future gear list. My digital Timex doesn't fail me very often though.

I'm with you @scat on the Fisher maps. The Voyageur maps are solid and they have details that are missing on the Fisher ones. But to me the Fisher yellow/blue really helps me with navigation on the water, especially in bright sunlight. I have the Fisher folded to a 12x12 square in my map pouch and keep the Voyageur as a back up.

Well, scat, I think there is National Geographic maps, too

Mocha - When I am planning my trans-Atlantic voyage I will consult National Geographic. Until then I’ll stick with the usual suspects for BW travel haha. I took your suggestion and got the F32, perfecto thx, I’m mapped out.

The good news is, each option is pretty reliable. That being said, Voyageurs are the best!

All joking aside, I enjoy the classic look of the Fishers, but my go to is Voyageur. I have found the portage and campsite location to be more accurate (although not perfect), and the lake depth contours + fishing info is nice. Mackenzies come in last for me.

I've always been a Fisher guy, but with the introduction of Voyageur Maps, I've taken both. (I helped beta test the Voyageurs.) I have my map folded for my route (that day) with a bit of extra real estate, then put them in my double-sided map case. That way, I have one of each. It's surprising how much detail is not common between them...not a lot, but I usually catch two or three inconsistencies between maps.

Used a GPS for about two days of a trip once. Had map backup. After a day or two, I went back to the maps. Just easier for me.

Mike

I like the detail of Voyageur maps but I HATE having to unfold and refold paper maps, so I don't take them on trips anymore. Instead I use the cloth True North maps. They aren't as detailed and I've noticed more inaccuracies, but they work for a backup to my GPS, which is my go-to navigation method.

Voyaguer for planning and camping planning that next day.

TrueNorth for navigating in the canoe.

We have some of each, mostly Voyager. As it’s usually just my husband and I, we take 2 different maps. This has been helpful a few times when a portage or campsite isn’t quite in the right spot on one map but is on the other one.

Funny this thread popped up. I just had the conversation…wishing there was a map with the scale of a McKenzie, the contrast of the Fisher and the easy park layout of the Voyageur.

It’s a crowded market but I would buy it.

MikeinMpls: "I've always been a Fisher guy, but with the introduction of Voyageur Maps, I've taken both. (I helped beta test the Voyageurs.) I have my map folded for my route (that day) with a bit of extra real estate, then put them in my double-sided map case. That way, I have one of each. It's surprising how much detail is not common between them...not a lot, but I usually catch two or three inconsistencies between maps.


Used a GPS for about two days of a trip once. Had map backup. After a day or two, I went back to the maps. Just easier for me.


Mike"

Ditto to all of this.

I like the coloring of Fisher as my favorite but the larger scale of other maps is nice as well. I also find value in having more than one brand of map with me for the different features they sometimes show of the same water and landscape!

While Mckenzie is probably my least favorite and least used map, I do like them better with their current color scheme rather than the more plain "white" ones from years ago.

For my next trip I'll be on the Kawashiwi Triangle and Voyageur map 7 and McKenzie map 18 show our entire route while it would take multiple Fisher maps to cover the area we want to go, so it will be Voyaguer and McKenzie this time.

I've never used a GPS. To me the map method of navigating fits better with my "rustic" desires of a BWCA trip.

scat: "Mocha - When I am planning my trans-Atlantic voyage I will consult National Geographic. Until then I’ll stick with the usual suspects for BW travel haha. I took your suggestion and got the F32, perfecto thx, I’m mapped out."

I have the two National Geographic maps of the east and the west portions of the BWCA and they are fine for planning at home but they stay there as I find them much harder to read (too much detail?) than Fisher, Voyageur or Mckenzie.

Fisher maps and a GPS to help with navigation, not the other way around.

I'm a fan of the Voyager maps for a couple reason you mentioned, the campsite #'s and the land and lake elevation numbers. I do agree though that the color contrast could be better between lake and land. I do about 1 big trip a year (because I'm 9-10 hours away) so being able to scout out camp sites and reference the number on the maps is a huge plus. Being the self proclaimed biggest BWCA nerd in Minnehaha county, I actually put together a campsite rating spreadsheet based off the information I find online and then give them my personal ranking. Then that spreadsheet makes it's way into my map holder on the opposite side of my route.