Logos Atlas vs. Accordance

I am not a big fan of Accordance. I bought a basic package so that I could purchase their atlas/map system and the Sacred Bridge atlas. Other than that, at least for my use, Logos is way above and beyond Accordance. With that said, the atlas situation really bothers me. Maybe I just haven't used the Logos atlas feature enough, but it doesn't seem to do much.

For instance, I can't figure out a way to show sites in Sumer, such as Uruk, Eridu, and Ur, without searching one at a time, and then I just get a red dot. Am I missing something?

Also, in Accordance, I can right click on a place and select look up in map, and it will take me right to it. Does Logos offer something like this? I don't see it in the Look up menu.

I really want Logos' atlas feature to be great, as I am a visual learner, and I need to see places mentioned in relation to other places. This is my biggest issue with L6. Is it just another example of a feature that is not yet finished?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Graham Criddle

Also, in Accordance, I can right click on a place and select look up in map, and it will take me right to it. Does Logos offer something like this? I don't see it in the Look up menu.

In Logos, right-click on the place, ensure that the "place object" is selected in the right-hand menu and then click Atlas in the left

gives

Joseph Turner

Ah, that is helpful. the problem was I was looking for Uruk (biblical Erech), but only one of the two mentions is set as a place. It also only provides a red dot. I wish their were more layers to add other place names, like in Accordance's "all ancient" layer. This does help though. I will play with it more.

Kevin Olson

I am not a big fan of Accordance. I bought a basic package so that I could purchase their atlas/map system and the Sacred Bridge atlas. Other than that, at least for my use, Logos is way above and beyond Accordance. With that said, the atlas situation really bothers me. Maybe I just haven't used the Logos atlas feature enough, but it doesn't seem to do much.

For instance, I can't figure out a way to show sites in Sumer, such as Uruk, Eridu, and Ur, without searching one at a time, and then I just get a red dot. Am I missing something?

Also, in Accordance, I can right click on a place and select look up in map, and it will take me right to it. Does Logos offer something like this? I don't see it in the Look up menu.

I really want Logos' atlas feature to be great, as I am a visual learner, and I need to see places mentioned in relation to other places. This is my biggest issue with L6. Is it just another example of a feature that is not yet finished?

I am getting this message. I keep retrying and the map never comes up.

Joseph Turner

On Windows, when I put in Ur and hit enter it does show me the place with a red dot.

Joseph Turner

This is what I get in Accordance:

Rick

For instance, I can't figure out a way to show sites in Sumer, such as Uruk, Eridu, and Ur, without searching one at a time, and then I just get a red dot. Am I missing something?

Did you know that you can also use CTRL + F to find cities on a map? In this particular instance, Haran was not shown as one of the default locations on the map but by using CTRL + F, I was able to find it.

GaoLu

Wish I had known about that Ctrl+F thing a long time ago. Prolly did, and forgot. I rarely used Logos atlases, but that will all change now!

Thanks!

mab

Wish I had known about that Ctrl+F thing a long time ago.

Yep, me too. I hadn't bothered much with atlas, but now that I know it's just a click or two away, I will.

Schumitinu

In this particular instance, Haran was not shown as one of the default locations on the map but by using CTRL + F, I was able to find it.

I have an issue with this too. There is only a selective set of information showing in the atlas. If Haran is there, why doesn't it show? Or why is there not a way to show more information, maybe by layers? My reaction is similar to others. I find the feature useless because I don't see what I'm looking for. I therefore hardly use it.

Joseph Turner

This is my biggest issue as well.

Joseph Turner

Did you know that you can also use CTRL + F to find cities on a map? In this particular instance, Haran was not shown as one of the default locations on the map but by using CTRL + F, I was able to find it.

Even though I would still like to have the place names on the map without having to search, I did not know about CTRL + F. That is a very useful shortcut!

Randy W. Sims

With that said, the atlas situation really bothers me.

Ditto. I appreciate Faithlife's effort to put together a nice map feature. Their work on the UI and look of the map is great. But it's usefulness is hampered by a bad design. OakTree's UI and rendering isn't as impressive, but it wins hands-down in usefulness and power. Vector based. Context menu. Layers. Layers. Layers. Let me see ancient cities next to modern ones, the area controlled by Assyria at it's height next to the area controlled by Babylon at it's height, Paul's journeys next to modern national borders. Let me turn on/off minor cities/place. Let me do all the things Accordance can do. Logos 6.x has been revolutionary, but maps has been the most disappointing feature. Mostly, because I expected so much more. There are a few things I want more, like reference links that automagically become active as resources are acquired without requiring manual retagging, but of the existing features, Atlas is the one that feels the most incomplete and lacking.

Dan Francis

For instance, I can't figure out a way to show sites in Sumer, such as Uruk, Eridu, and Ur, without searching one at a time, and then I just get a red dot. Am I missing something?

Also, in Accordance, I can right click on a place and select look up in map, and it will take me right to it. Does Logos offer something like this? I don't see it in the Look up menu.

Selecting all ancient or iron age sites brings up all of those at once.

-Dan

Reuben Helmuth

Vector based. Context menu. Layers. Layers. Layers. Let me see ancient cities next to modern ones, the area controlled by Assyria at it's height next to the area controlled by Babylon at it's height, Paul's journeys next to modern national borders. Let me turn on/off minor cities/place. Let me do all the things Accordance can do

👍🏽👌🏼 Bring it on!!😁

Atlas is the one that feels the most incomplete and lacking.

All three volumes are still marked with an asterisk on the products page, indicating that they are incomplete. There's been discussion elsewhere, where Faithlife indicated what would be included in each volume. IIRC volumes 2 and 3 contain only story maps, while volume 1 holds the atlas itself and maybe some maps(?). Bob has stated that the goal is to have a map for every story in the Bible that would require a (unique) map. I too, find the Atlas minimally useful in its current form.

Veli Voipio

With that said, the atlas situation really bothers me.

Ditto. I appreciate Faithlife's effort to put together a nice map feature. Their work on the UI and look of the map is great. But it's usefulness is hampered by a bad design. OakTree's UI and rendering isn't as impressive, but it wins hands-down in usefulness and power. Vector based. Context menu. Layers. Layers. Layers. Let me see ancient cities next to modern ones, the area controlled by Assyria at it's height next to the area controlled by Babylon at it's height, Paul's journeys next to modern national borders. Let me turn on/off minor cities/place. Let me do all the things Accordance can do. Logos 6.x has been revolutionary, but maps has been the most disappointing feature. Mostly, because I expected so much more. There are a few things I want more, like reference links that automagically become active as resources are acquired without requiring manual retagging, but of the existing features, Atlas is the one that feels the most incomplete and lacking.

I agree and just wonder whether Logos has any map expert, because the current approach is not the way it should be done, vector systems and layers have been around for many decades.

It does not show the distances, probably fortunately [:)], because then it would be in miles, feet and inches. Metric system should be at least optional so that the user can turn it on once and then it stays there until the user changes it.

Mark Barnes

Remember you can also use the Biblical Places interactive in Logos. Sometimes it's Biblical World map is a superior option.

The Atlas maps are great for showing places in different period of history, but (as you've discovered) it can be difficult to find the places you want, and I find that there's not enough detail at most zoom levels.

Remember you have the Factbook, too. There's an entry for Erech, which takes you to all relevant maps.

You also have Search Everything, which includes Atlas results.

Fr Devin Roza

With that said, the atlas situation really bothers me.

Ditto. I appreciate Faithlife's effort to put together a nice map feature. Their work on the UI and look of the map is great. But it's usefulness is hampered by a bad design. OakTree's UI and rendering isn't as impressive, but it wins hands-down in usefulness and power. Vector based. Context menu. Layers. Layers. Layers. Let me see ancient cities next to modern ones, the area controlled by Assyria at it's height next to the area controlled by Babylon at it's height, Paul's journeys next to modern national borders. Let me turn on/off minor cities/place. Let me do all the things Accordance can do. Logos 6.x has been revolutionary, but maps has been the most disappointing feature. Mostly, because I expected so much more. There are a few things I want more, like reference links that automagically become active as resources are acquired without requiring manual retagging, but of the existing features, Atlas is the one that feels the most incomplete and lacking.

I agree and just wonder whether Logos has any map expert, because the current approach is not the way it should be done, vector systems and layers have been around for many decades.

I agree with these suggestions, and hope maps can be greatly improved in future versions. I would also like to be able to export custom maps (chosing layers / cities visible, etc.), see elevation, etc.

It does not show the distances, probably fortunately , because then it would be in miles, feet and inches. Metric system should be at least optional so that the user can turn it on once and then it stays there until the user changes it.

It can already do this - just Ctrl-Click and drag... in metric too!

Rick Ausdahl

Remember you can also use the Biblical Places interactive in Logos. Sometimes it's Biblical World map is a superior option.

The Atlas maps are great for showing places in different period of history, but (as you've discovered) it can be difficult to find the places you want, and I find that there's not enough detail at most zoom levels.

Remember you have the Factbook, too. There's an entry for Erech, which takes you to all relevant maps.

You also have Search Everything, which includes Atlas results.

One frustration I have in general with the maps, is keeping track of which maps/map tools require internet connections and which don't, which I suppose is just the result of a more basic frustration that an internet connection is required to access any maps at all. I'm absolutely against having a Logos specific resource that requires an internet connection to access. I expect (hope) that any map resource I can access via my library is totally independent of an internet connection, but I haven't gone through the process to verify that.

Another general frustration is how often the location I'm interested in does not show up as a place that can be viewed on a map when right-clicking on the location in a resource or using the "Find" option within a map/map resource.

But beyond the general frustrations noted above, I find the maps to be inconsistent in terms of what I can expect from them, even within a specific resource such as the Biblical Places Maps. For example, within that resource, I can zoom in and out of some of the maps, but not others. Some I can zoom using the mouse, others I can't. Some that won't zoom with the mouse, will zoom with CTRL + and CTRL - key combinations, while others will not--and especially goofy is that of those that will zoom with the CTRL keys, I've encountered at least a couple that seem to zoom in reverse--i.e. CTRL - zooms in, while CTRL + zooms out.

I've been disappointed or hit dead-ends enough in my effort to use maps that I often find myself just deciding to forgo map usage because too often, it's proved a fruitless (or relatively fruitless) endeavor. I'm willing to concede that my frustration may at least in part be due to a lack of understanding/training on my part, but to me it just seems that using maps should be rather straight-forward.

Mark Barnes

One frustration I have in general with the maps, is keeping track of which maps/map tools require internet connections and which don't, which I suppose is just the result of a more basic frustration that an internet connection is required to access any maps at all.

Just the maps accessible through the Atlas tool. Everything else is accessible offline.

I expect (hope) that any map resource I can access via my library is totally independent of an internet connection

That's correct.

Another general frustration is how often the location I'm interested in does not show up as a place that can be viewed on a map when right-clicking on the location in a resource or using the "Find" option within a map/map resource.

Most of the maps in Logos only show a subset of places. If you want to search across every map in both the Atlas Tool and your library, you should use Search Everything, or Factbook.

But beyond the general frustrations noted above, I find the maps to be inconsistent in terms of what I can expect from them, even within a specific resource such as the Biblical Places Maps. For example, within that resource, I can zoom in and out of some of the maps, but not others.

You can zoom all of them, but there's a minor bug that sometimes prevents zooming. If you find you can't zoom, just move the map slightly by grabbing it with the mouse, and you should find that zooming then works with the mousewheel.

Veli Voipio

It can already do this - just Ctrl-Click and drag... in metric too!

Ok, Thanks Devin, I had somehow missed it

Rosie Perera

It does not show the distances, probably fortunately , because then it would be in miles, feet and inches. Metric system should be at least optional so that the user can turn it on once and then it stays there until the user changes it.

You can get it to show distances; just Ctrl+click and drag from point A to point B on a map. It shows the distances in both miles and kilometers, with a circle centered at point A and point B on the circumference.

Dan Cleghorn

The old Logos Atlas, which was a separate program back in 2.0 days, was an excellent Atlas. You could layer the maps, select which cities you desired, even select which biblical time periods would show. I loved the 3-D maps that you could view from different angles, rotate, and see elevation gain/loss. I still have the atlas loaded on a Windows 7 machine running as an XP program. It will not work with Windows 8. Perhaps I can get it to work on Windows 10.

Al Het

Yeah, I've never liked the maps in Logos. Some of that is personal preference, as to me, many of them look cartoonish. I also dislike that most of the maps don't orient with north at the top. I'm not sure why they do that, but it makes the structure part of my brain go bonkers.

For nearly 20 years now, I have kept my old (ancient) version of Parsons Quickverse around. The singular reason is because I liked the maps better than Logos. This included Logos versions 2, 3 (Libronix), 4, and 5. Quickverse obviously couldn't handle layers, but they had an extensive map set, and the look extremely professional. I haven't yet installed Quickverse on my Windows 7 machine, but I suspect it won't work any more. Makes me a little sad, just thinking about it...

I agree with others that at this point, with the complexity of Logos, they should be able to easily handle layers.

Last thing for me is, because I haven't shelled out massive money for a crossgrade or a completely new base package recently, I don't have the "right-click, atlas choice" feature. Like Libronix, you can open the resources you want, and then choose "search open resources." This is okay, though it searches all you have opened. It seems to me that they really should have a "maps search," or "atlas search" feature as part of the base program. Then again, I like maps.

Valerie Pobog

I went ahead and bought the ESV Atlas in hardback http://www.amazon.com/Crossway-Bible-Atlas-John-Currid/dp/1433501929 . In it there is a CD that you load on your computer and it will search for the maps online that they have in the book. The maps are very good. You can search by keyword or reference and there are other options as well. It works for me.

I, too am not impressed with Logos maps. I am a very avid map fan and would love to see this improved.

Rick Ausdahl

One frustration I have in general with the maps, is keeping track of which maps/map tools require internet connections and which don't, which I suppose is just the result of a more basic frustration that an internet connection is required to access any maps at all.

Just the maps accessible through the Atlas tool. Everything else is accessible offline.

I expect (hope) that any map resource I can access via my library is totally independent of an internet connection

That's correct.

Another general frustration is how often the location I'm interested in does not show up as a place that can be viewed on a map when right-clicking on the location in a resource or using the "Find" option within a map/map resource.

Most of the maps in Logos only show a subset of places. If you want to search across every map in both the Atlas Tool and your library, you should use Search Everything, or Factbook.

But beyond the general frustrations noted above, I find the maps to be inconsistent in terms of what I can expect from them, even within a specific resource such as the Biblical Places Maps. For example, within that resource, I can zoom in and out of some of the maps, but not others.

You can zoom all of them, but there's a minor bug that sometimes prevents zooming. If you find you can't zoom, just move the map slightly by grabbing it with the mouse, and you should find that zooming then works with the mousewheel.

Mark,

Thank you for the replies--they are much appreciated.

As you noted, I have found using the Fact Book and the Search Everything option to provide the best chance of finding a location. It is frustrating to have to go that route though when the location name is right there in the resource you're reading, and right-clicking on it doesn't even have an entry in the pop-up window for it as a location so you can do a search on it.

Regarding the zooming bug you mentioned that should resolve itself by moving/dragging the non-compliant maps, I'll definitely give that additional tries, but I did try doing that on a couple of maps in the past (most recently this week) and it did not resolve the situation. I even closed and restarted Logos with no luck. I will try again though.

Sean Boisen

I appreciate all the feedback on Atlas and other maps in Logos. We’re still working hard to make Atlas a great feature, though I’ll acknowledge we’re not there yet. To summarize a few key design decisions we’ve made (some already mentioned in this thread):

The fundamental challenge is how to balance maps that are as complete in possible in their coverage, with maps that are readable and focused. So we have the 13 Biblical World maps, which provide overview information for a broad era, and the individual story maps, which serve to focus on specific stories.
- You can see the difference clearly on the Atlas map for Ephesian Elders Meet Paul at Miletus (this just came out last week). Its nearest equivalent in the Biblical Places Maps is Paul’s Third Missionary Journey. Because the traditional-style Third Missionary Journey map covers so much territory, it’s not possible to show many of the relevant details for travel, other cities, or geography for this story.
Since story maps are deliberately more narrow, if you want something broader you may prefer the Biblical Places Maps that we shipped prior to Logos 6. At this point in time, the Biblical Places Maps are also much more complete in their coverage of biblical places, while the Atlas so far only covers the life of Jesus and a substantial portion of the early church period.
The most common case for many users will be looking up a place as they’re reading in their Bible. Assuming it’s a Bible with interlinear support, the best choice is probably to right-click the name or reference, select the Place entity from the right side of the context menu, and then search the Atlas for that place. That will show all the available maps.
- We don’t have the markup to support that in other resources (though we’re working on it through Community Tags): for those resources, the best choice is to select the term and do Everything Search. That will link to Factbook pages (possibly several in the case of ambiguous names), and also show Atlas Results and other maps in the Media section.
- You can also use the Atlas search box with a place name, passage, person name (try Silas), or biblical event.
I want to second Mark Barnes’ suggestion that starting from Factbook (or Everything Search) is another good way to see the different kinds of maps that are available for a given place.

We’ve noticed some issues with Atlas server slowness that are in the queue to be addressed.

We've looked at using vector images and did some prototyping earlier this year, but our current tool for building zoomable maps doesn't yet have all the support we need. We're also eager to move to vector images as soon as we're able.

Bruce Dunning

We’re still working hard to make Atlas a great feature, though I’ll acknowledge we’re not there yet.

Thanks for your explanation Sean. I look forward to seeing the Atlas tool continue to improve.

Jack Caviness

We’re still working hard to make Atlas a great feature, though I’ll acknowledge we’re not there yet.

When FL released L6 with Atlas, I thought, "Now, I have no reason to keep Accordance." So I gave the app to my grandson—I have learned to regret that decision. If you want to see a Bible Atlas done correctly, take a look at Accordance. I am horribly disappointed with this feature. Actually, I do not regret giving A to Neal. He very much needed a good Bible Study application. I just regret that the Logos Atlas is much less than I expected it to be.

I want a map to which I can add sites that are relevant to my current topic of study/teaching. I do not want all the clutter showing someone's interpretation of Bible events. I want to do my own study. Is it so difficult to produce this type of atlas? Accordance accomplished this more than a decade ago.

Nathan Parker

Keep in mind that the L6 Atlas is very new and only been out recently and the Accordance Atlas has been out for a LONG time. I agree that the Accordance Atlas is more powerful and feature filled, although the L6 Atlas has a more "fresh" design to it. I believe as time goes on, the L6 Atlas will improve. In the meantime, I use both depending on what I'm needing to do. If I need more customization, 3D, etc., I go with Accordance Atlas. If I want a quick, fresh, clean atlas image, I go with L6.

Fr Devin Roza

Thanks for jumping in, Sean!

What I would hope to see is that eventually what Faithlife currently offers as lots and lots of completely separate maps eventually becomes a single map (or as close to a single map as can be.. the earth itself hasn't changed much over 4000 years) with lots of different optional layers, that users can combine however they want.

Each "story map" from the current system, for example, could simply be a layer, that combines relevant cities, arrows, etc. and just adds them to the map. But you could also have many other types of layers that people have mentioned in this thread (elevation, modern day cities and boundaries, etc., etc.), permit building custom maps. Just combine layers, cities, etc. as you need!

That type of solution just seems so much simpler, probably much cheaper to develop and maintain (especially long term), and much, much more powerful for the end user.

Veli Voipio

One possibility is Do-It-Yourself.

Using a paint or drawing software or with a GIS, or in Google Earth, or with pencil on the paper copy of a printed map.

Below is an example what I did long time ago using a GIS program.

At least it gives something to do for map enthusiasts so that we don't have so much time to complain

Reuben Helmuth

What I would hope to see is that eventually what Faithlife currently offers as lots and lots of completely separate maps eventually becomes a single map (or as close to a single map as can be.. the earth itself hasn't changed much over 4000 years) with lots of different optional layers, that users can combine however they want.

Each "story map" from the current system, for example, could simply be a layer, that combines relevant cities, arrows, etc. and just adds them to the map. But you could also have many other types of layers that people have mentioned in this thread (elevation, modern day cities and boundaries, etc., etc.), permit building custom maps. Just combine layers, cities, etc. as you need!

👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽

Mark Barnes

Each "story map" from the current system, for example, could simply be a layer, that combines relevant cities, arrows, etc. and just adds them to the map. But you could also have many other types of layers that people have mentioned in this thread (elevation, modern day cities and boundaries, etc., etc.), permit building custom maps. Just combine layers, cities, etc. as you need!

That's exactly what I'd like to see.

Some L4/5 maps were a tiny bit like that (place names were effectively added as layers at least on the Biblical World Map), and I was surprised to see a move away from that in L6.