British Champs map scales

[oconor]

whilst not entirely about champ map scales, I enclose for your interest my communication with the map group:

Hello Rory,

Many thanks for your email that I have forwarded on to the rest of the map group. It sums up the situation exactly and supports the view that we are trying to get out to mappers.

Colin Spears. Chairman Map Group.

At 23:02 18/02/2008, you wrote:

Sir

Firstly these are comments from a novice M45 orienteer, and I have only been
orienteering since Nov-07. I have just used 1:7500 and 1:10000 maps on Blue
and M45S courses. I have not yet used a 1:15000 map. I recognise that I have
only a limited understanding of the issues, but a "new" old pair of eyes. I
am very impressed by what mappers have achieved.

These comments did not elicit unanimous derision on Nopesport.

On the issue of map legibility, scales etc, the main issue that is not
explicitly articulated in ISOM 2000 is that of legibility. I agree that it
is discussed.

Whilst it may need further refinement, the argument seems to be:

(A) Wikipedia defines normal 20/20 vision as being able to discriminate two
points separated by one arc minute. If an orienteer holds his map 50 cm from
his eyes (reasonnable) then this is equivalent to 0.15mm. So the requirement
for features to be separated by 0.15mm is consistent with definitions of
normal visual acuity.

(B) Older users do not have the same visual acuity, and an enlargement of
33% makes the minimum seperation 0.20mm or 0.22mm if 50% considered the
minimum enlargement/seperation.

The above statements may need clarification with opticians/optometrists and
may need checking that they hold true for all colours including blue and
brown. Aviation medicals include a test of near vision, and Gatwick CAA
Medical may be able to advise on what are the requirements for a JAR Class 1
(Commercial pilot) medical.

This translates into the potential ISOM statement:
The minimum seperation for two distinct features of the same colour, for
standard age groups, on the printed map available to competitors should be
at least 0.15mm, which is the width of a fine line. For age groups above 45
years, the minimum seperation between two distinct features of the same
colour, on the printed map, should be at least 0.2mm.

Note:
The statement includes the phrase "on the printed map available to
competitors". This is quite a deliberate inclusion. If a laser printer uses
three colours for brown with some imprecision, then it may not be able to
produce a map on as small a scale as a more advanced printer.

I recognise that mappers have numerous competing priorities: consistency,
fitting course of the correct length, paper size etc. I also recognise that
magnifying glasses are available. However, if the seperation of features is
below the physiological minimum that the eye can discriminate, then that
detail is unusable and the competition starts to depend on luck rather than
skill. It is also a waste of the mapper's effort.

Regards

Rory O'Conor

[IanD]

Barry Elkington has thanked me for my e-mail and made it clear it will be included in consideration this weekend. I suggest that like minded people send him their opinions as well.

I have had no reply from the mapping group.

Exactly the same for me. I won't bore you by posting the mail I sent, but if anybody really wishes to read it, PM me.

[EddieH]

Graeme, you summarised the Map Group's opinions really well (I think).
For classic orienteering it is a point well made, although it is clear that more detailed maps ARE becoming the norm in international events.
I have only one point to make. Before I admitted that my eyes needed magnification, the sport had often become a lottery for me, and consequently much less enjoyable. When I got contact lenses for map reading I experienced a MASSIVE increase in pleasure and I was able to compete again.
Now, partly to do with failing to keep up with my lenses, but also due to difficult to read maps, the experience is often not so good again. PLEASE not in the British Champs!!!

[PG]

the relevant IOF rule reads: "The scale for an orienteering map is 1:15 000. Terrain that cannot be ... legibly presented at a scale of 1:15 000, is not suitable for international foot-orienteering. The scale 1:10 000 is recommended for older age groups (age classes 45 and above) ... or for younger age groups (age classes 16 and below)".

I believe this means that "IOF rules" are that older and younger competitors should have a larger scale map than 21s, 35s and 40s.
Once you have accepted a scale of 1:10,000 for elite, I would argue that to have the same scale for all classes is a bigger deviation from IOF rules than using a scale of 1:7,500 for older and younger competitors.

I've made this point in a mail to Barry Elkington. He has achnowledged my mail, while not necessarily accepting my view. We'll see what happens in tomorrow's meeting.

[awk]

Of course, the British Champs isn't international foot-orienteering, so I do hope that Events committee don't get hung up on what the IOF say.

[LostAgain]

Has a decision been made? and if so can it be made public?