Doug Stone, John Tully et al Maps - The Good, the Bad & the Alternatives

[Smoky bandit]

Well it shouldnt be Ctx but you are right, there isnt the respect that there was in my day and that in my opinion is due to the soft approach parents are teaching their kids which are now young adults. These people only think of themselves and stuff the rest.
Oops, sorry for the old man rant.
Mackka

It's not just the young, I know a lot of old folk who think that they can do whatever they want because they all have a bee in their bonnet about something. :N: :N: :N:

Cheers

Doug

Yes that is true..The most arrogant people I've ever met are men in there 70s

 

[Jaros]

Back on topic before it goes downhill too far.

 

[Mackka]

What was the topic again, I forgot :lol: :lol: :lol:
Mackka

 

[mbasko]

Dont ever think the "disclaimer" on every map will get you out of a tresspassing conviction in court.
Most of the maps at time of print where well known to be on private property.
Purely ignored for self financial gain for Doug Stone to print such knowingly . :N:
Recently hunted some Tresspassing people who tried the Doug stone gold map excuse, knowing they where not meant to be there,
Tell it to the judge, see if he believes it.
Arguing when asked to leave just made it worse for them. Probably going to loose his gun license over it.
This idiot should never of had one in the first place.

Doug's maps clearly delineate between private property & crown land (although crown land under lease isn't identified). Anyone confusing private property with Crown Land on them is just plain stupid!
The disclaimer on Doug's maps will also not get you out of any trespassing conviction. It clearly outlines the prospector/fossicker responsibility for ensuring access permission has been given by the relevant authority/s or land owner/s. Again if people think they are a ticket to go where they please then they are just plain stupid!
People being plain stupid isn't Doug Stone's fault

 

[user 4386]

All of the info on these various sources seems to me to be copied directly from Geological Survey of Victoria maps (sometimes with very minor additions). And the GSV maps are free digital downloads (and anyone with minimal knowledge of GIS can then register them geographically so that you can use them to navigate). And they cover all of the Victorian goldfields.

http://earthresources.efirst.com.au/categories.asp?cID=4

 

[Redfin]

I can recall in the 80's Tully going out every day from the CP on his trail bike with GPS taped to the handle bars and heaps of notepads.

 

[NumButs]

Yeah I also heard Tully did a lot of time on his bike cutting laps in the bush - perhaps that thing should be on display in his museum!
I was talking to the owner of Signal (Greg maybe?) at Wedderburn who showed me a comparison between his maps and Geovic, which made it look like a kid drew the Geovic maps with crayons. He was telling me they're based off 40+ year old data at a scale of 1:50,000 but his are brand new based off the latest satellite and aerial radar/digital/whiz bang tech at double the scale. I reckon GeoVic is a decent starting point (and they're free!), but they only contain major diggings and miss TONS of the smaller gullies and reefs and they don't show puddlers. I just took a quick look through mine and they all seem to be last published between 1994-2002, so seems as though Signal Greg was telling the truth. Andrew Bayles was there at the time and backed him up afterwards saying he's a legit cartographer/prospector who has spent years surveying in the field and his maps are a massive improvement. So yeah i'm a believer i guess but each to their own.

 

[user 4386]

1. No doubt if your interest is historical relics, puddlers etc some of the above comments are correct.

2. I am at a disadvantage as I do not know Signal maps. I bought all of Stone's maps but never used them as there was so little info on them compared to GSV maps. I don't know if this is meant to be a Signal map (it appears on a page advertising them). The same is true of every map I ever looked at in any sort of prospectors shop up to 15 years ago (when I stopped looking because I found it a waste of time).


Source: https://www.signalprospecting.com.au/

Here is the same area on a free digital GSV map.



3. It is incorrect that Geovic is compiled from maps 40 years old as stated above. The sources go back up to 170 years and up to at least 10 years ago at the earliest in terms of map sources, but they also collect their own field data and digital data from exploration companies and add that to Geovic (the last time they did that with me was 7 years ago - my shafts increased the number shown on any commercial prospectors maps by at least twentyfold). In some cases the data they are adding took millions of dollars for companies to obtain (mine hundreds of thousands). However the purpose of Geovic is not to show every little alluvial shaft. It is not primarily designed for recreational prospectors. And it shows shafts often now filled in or even bulldozed over (which does not necessarily make the site poor for detecting - it can even make it better by spreading dumps.

4. It also follows from that, that Geovic was not compiled from 1:50,000 maps as stated above (even when a map is published at 1:50,000 scale, it is data commonly mapped at a scale like 1:10,000 but drawn up at 1:50,000 scale as well as other scales). The above map is published 1:10,000 scale GSV mapping in the 1990s (when they mapped the entire Bendigo goldfield - this is a tiny part of one of three maps covering Bendigo at 1:10,000 published scale). Most of the central Victorian goldfields region was mapped in the 1990s and 2000's by the GSV, using the latest geophysical techniques available at that time (much of which was flown by them, much of it for the first time ever - they also provide that free and every man and his dog has used them since, commonly without acknowledgement of the source.). Things like Lidar are more recent.

5. I find Geovic a good start, then add to it from the GSV maps (that contain far more detailed info) over my areas of interest. I have done this digitally for all of Victoria (but I am not handling them out)! When I get down to detail I look at aerial photography and Lidar.

It really depends on what you want to get off the maps (eg puddlers), but I suspect that many people are paying for maps that give them much less info than they could obtain free by searching the GSV site.

 

[user 4386]

One thing it is important to realise is that Geovic only shows deep alluvial gold mining shafts (mostly "deep lead" shafts). There are two reasons for this. The first is that most shallow alluvial leads were worked out within 3 years and many of the remainder 6 years of the discovery of gold in 1851 (so there was a small population, mostly busy digging or supplying diggers, not making maps). The second reason was that shallow alluvial claims were tiny (8x8 feet or 12x12 feet) so shafts were commonly close enough to do a long jump between them. So early maps simply indicate the areas of continuously worked leads by dots. MOST of these have since been bulldozed in etc, so there is not a lot to put on modern maps (although I find Lidar can often distinguish mounds where deeper of the shallow shafts existed). But to me that does not mean that knowing where we can still identify shafts now is any great advantage - the flattened areas are commonly just as good for detecting.

So it all depends on what you want to do (or think you want to do).

 

[NumButs]

Geez you've got a lot of fight for someone who does "not know Signal maps"! I would have though you'd at least know what you're debating first but as i said, each to their own. Anyway I believe what i was told - that the diggings have been completely remapped by the Signal guys and what is publicly available through GeoVic/GSV is way behind the game. I've used both. There is simply no debate as to which is more accurate. Shafts and deep lead mining are essentially useless to the amateur prospector which is no doubt why they've been omitted. It certainly makes for a clearer map to read and navigate by which is why i use them and why i'm finding areas that (yet again) are NOT available through GeoVic, so perhaps they're pumping the millions of dollars into something else? I like the fact that public/private land is easily distinguishable on the Signal maps. Also puddlers are a huge bonus to an amateur prospector because they indicate regions where the gold was trapped in clay and was difficult to wash, so the chances of finding a piece or two around those particular gullies is probably pretty high. All that said you raise some interesting points and clearly know a lot about this topic, but for that reason I think it's pretty unfair to compare a Signal sample at 1:25,000 to a one off GeoVic map at 1:10,000, especially considering the rest of the state is at 1:50,000 as are all of the other published GeoVic samples you provided. Now if you'd excuse me i'm looking for a lighter chat so might excuse myself from this topic - i'm only new here! Cheers

 

[grubstake]

Also puddlers are a huge bonus to an amateur prospector because they indicate regions where the gold was trapped in clay and was difficult to wash, so the chances of finding a piece or two around those particular gullies is probably pretty high.

This!

 

[Hawkear]

Geez you've got a lot of fight for someone who does "not know Signal maps"! I would have though you'd at least know what you're debating first but as i said, each to their own. Anyway I believe what i was told - that the diggings have been completely remapped by the Signal guys and what is publicly available through GeoVic/GSV is way behind the game. I've used both. There is simply no debate as to which is more accurate. Shafts and deep lead mining are essentially useless to the amateur prospector which is no doubt why they've been omitted. It certainly makes for a clearer map to read and navigate by which is why i use them and why i'm finding areas that (yet again) are NOT available through GeoVic, so perhaps they're pumping the millions of dollars into something else? I like the fact that public/private land is easily distinguishable on the Signal maps. Also puddlers are a huge bonus to an amateur prospector because they indicate regions where the gold was trapped in clay and was difficult to wash, so the chances of finding a piece or two around those particular gullies is probably pretty high. All that said you raise some interesting points and clearly know a lot about this topic, but for that reason I think it's pretty unfair to compare a Signal sample at 1:25,000 to a one off GeoVic map at 1:10,000, especially considering the rest of the state is at 1:50,000 as are all of the other published GeoVic samples you provided. Now if you'd excuse me i'm looking for a lighter chat so might excuse myself from this topic - i'm only new here! Cheers

Could you put up an image of a Signal map covering the same areas as others have taken the trouble to post so people could understand what you are talking about.

Mod edit: Signal Prospecting Maps are under copyright and are not to be posted on the forum.
For enquiries, paper map stockists or to purchase digital maps please visit https://www.signalprospecting.com.au/

I am sure that new technology like the State wide aerial LiDAR project currently under way by the State Government has the potential to improve mapping information not only for prospectors but many other purposes as well.
If they do provide more and/or better information, I and others would be interested.

 

[user 4386]

Could you put up an image of a Signal map covering the same areas as others have taken the trouble to post so people could understand what you are talking about.
I am sure that new technology like the State wide aerial LiDAR project currently under way by the State Government has the potential to improve mapping information not only for prospectors but many other purposes as well.
If they do provide more and/or better information, I and others would be interested.

Yes, me too - I just assumed what I posted was meant to be part of one, because it appeared in an advertisement for one. Private versus public land is available on Geovic, but I can see that it might be useful to have all info on a single map for just a brief field trip (I spend up tp 6 weeks out at a time so can take time to prepare in advance). Each to their own. But I suspect the GSV maps would cover many areas less well known (and perhaps less done over) - and are free.
Just one point - other maps are available at far better scale than 50K (eg Castlemaine, Maldon, Ballarat - Bendigo is not a sole example, just the one that I chose for comparison with what I assumed was the same area on a Signal map.
I see numerous puddlers on almost every field, so I am not sure how helpful they would be - but I guess it is suck it and see, and those who detect regularly should know. I find the reef shafts useful as they define areas where gold is being released downslope into the soil, and all big nuggets occur fairly close to source.

 

[user 4386]

Geez you've got a lot of fight for someone who does "not know Signal maps"! I would have though you'd at least know what you're debating first but as i said, each to their own. Anyway I believe what i was told - that the diggings have been completely remapped by the Signal guys and what is publicly available through GeoVic/GSV is way behind the game. I've used both. There is simply no debate as to which is more accurate. Shafts and deep lead mining are essentially useless to the amateur prospector which is no doubt why they've been omitted. It certainly makes for a clearer map to read and navigate by which is why i use them and why i'm finding areas that (yet again) are NOT available through GeoVic, so perhaps they're pumping the millions of dollars into something else? I like the fact that public/private land is easily distinguishable on the Signal maps. Also puddlers are a huge bonus to an amateur prospector because they indicate regions where the gold was trapped in clay and was difficult to wash, so the chances of finding a piece or two around those particular gullies is probably pretty high. All that said you raise some interesting points and clearly know a lot about this topic, but for that reason I think it's pretty unfair to compare a Signal sample at 1:25,000 to a one off GeoVic map at 1:10,000, especially considering the rest of the state is at 1:50,000 as are all of the other published GeoVic samples you provided. Now if you'd excuse me i'm looking for a lighter chat so might excuse myself from this topic - i'm only new here! Cheers

I realise that you are new here, but note the topic we are talking under - it says "and the alternatives" and I was pointing out that there is a lot of free info that is under-utilised. This is not a competition - the aim is to help each other. You should not see it as stressful. It would be useful if you could post some examples of what Signal maps look like (I thought I had posted one).

Changing the topic only slightly - you say "puddlers are a huge bonus to an amateur prospector because they indicate regions where the gold was trapped in clay and was difficult to wash, so the chances of finding a piece or two around those particular gullies is probably pretty high". There seems to be a misconception here - I will address it as a separate topic, as it is relevant to everyone.

 

[Solid Luck]

I bought the Talbot map from Signal out of curiosity and so far I've noticed it is missing 3 puddlers and a dam I had lunch at today.

 

[Hawkear]

No map will put an X on the spot, at best it is a guide to narrow down where to go. How much information do we need?
I just realised I had already purchased one of Signals maps and whilst it is OK, it is a bit busy with information for my liking. I bought it because I did not already a paper map for the area that I was interested in. (I find paper maps rather than GPS based maps are more satisfying, especially after an unsuccessful mornings detecting, to chew your sangas over. Much better to work out a route to an eldorado gully some distance away from the valley of death I am in.)
If you have a basic understanding of how gold deposits form and in particular how nuggets are shed, should you really care whether every reef, shaft, or puddler etc is shown as long as the alluvial gullies are shown? Can too much information be a distraction to using your noggin? Would you be successful ignoring the places where gold HAS been found rather than to work out where it COULD be found.
Just show me the alluvial gullies, I'll go there and let my eyes help me work the rest out.
Not for one minute do I think the Signal maps are the result of a large body of new field work but rather the summation of generations of work by field geologists, surveyers, and perhaps the likes of John Tully and maybe the original and quirkier works of Steve Barnham.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the Signal maps are not good, the're OK and they should be in this modern age where information can be assembled and reprocessed so easily, but if you need a map for an area, I wouldn't be throwing away my Tully or Barnham books to buy them.

 

[user 4386]

No map will put an X on the spot, at best it is a guide to narrow down where to go. How much information do we need?
I just realised I had already purchased one of Signals maps and whilst it is OK, it is a bit busy with information for my liking. I bought it because I did not already a paper map for the area that I was interested in. (I find paper maps rather than GPS based maps are more satisfying, especially after an unsuccessful mornings detecting, to chew your sangas over. Much better to work out a route to an eldorado gully some distance away from the valley of death I am in.)
If you have a basic understanding of how gold deposits form and in particular how nuggets are shed, should you really care whether every reef, shaft, or puddler etc is shown as long as the alluvial gullies are shown? Can too much information be a distraction to using your noggin? Would you be successful ignoring the places where gold HAS been found rather than to work out where it COULD be found.
Just show me the alluvial gullies, I'll go there and let my eyes help me work the rest out.
Not for one minute do I think the Signal maps are the result of a large body of new field work but rather the summation of generations of work by field geologists, surveyers, and perhaps the likes of John Tully and maybe the original and quirkier works of Steve Barnham.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the Signal maps are not good, the're OK and they should be in this modern age where information can be assembled and reprocessed so easily, but if you need a map for an area, I wouldn't be throwing away my Tully or Barnham books to buy them.

Amen

 

[NumButs]

I didn't realise this conversation kept going, but LOL to you not getting rid of your Barnham maps to buy a Signal one - that's brave! I agree that prospecting ultimately comes down to the prospector, which is why I feel better equiped doing what i'm doing with a far more modern resource that indicates more gullies than any other map, up to date crown land boundaries, puddlers that aren't found anywhere else, an indication of how big/small mines were and all in what is essentially a pretty damn slick road atlas. Navigating with a Signal map on Avenza is straight up luxury in the bush. Anyway best of luck out there folks - i hope everyone is enjoying this spring weather and unearthing a chunk or two

 

[Solid Luck]

I've got the Talbot Signal map and it's missing at least 5 puddlers. Probably 6 as I found another one yesterday.

 

[Hawkear]

Maybe there are different reasons for maps to exist.
1. As a navigation aid.
2. To provide information about what is there in a particular location.
Modern mapping tend to focus on the navigation issue and with GPS technology nobody would argue that the older mapping is as good as the latter.
In regards to 2 however, many of the older maps contain information that the more modern maps do not.
Here is an example which is an old map of the Dunolly goldfield. I do not feel that any modern maps contain the same amount of information that older maps may contain that is omitted by more modern navigating oriented maps. This one was compiled in 1915 as a result of physical work in the field.
As navigating aids no problem with using the more modern maps if you need to, but often if you want information you need to research older original stuff compiled by field operators..