BOC 2008 maps - Stupid Decision

[DavidJ]

a bigger problem will be those who unfurl the map and just stand there gobsmacked...

Perhaps the best thing to do will be to ignore the detail, take a compass bearing and jog the right distance (30 paces to 1 cm at 1:7500) until you hit the first control!

[seabird]

As an M60 I had the experience of running on the 1:7500 in the individual and the 1:10000 in the relays (did the Mens Short).

I have to congratulate the mapper on the clarity of the map. As someone who struggled with reading the detailed areas at Leith Hill , I had no such problems at Culbin at either scale. (Didn't make my navigation any better mind!)

Personally I would have preferred to have run on the 1:10000 map for the individual, rather than have to contend with the tablecloth of a map we had at 1:7500.

Nevertheless having talked with plenty of other people on their experiences with or impressions of the two scales, I am sure on balance the right decision re scale was made.

[andy]

i wouldn't have liked to have seen that at 1:15k

the 1:10k map was pretty much perfect.

[awk]

One of the highlights of the weekend to me was the quality of the map. I was happy to accept the challenges of the ultra large mapsheet as compensation for it being possible to navigate on the run into controls: the 1:10k for me was clear as long as I was standing still, but not resolveable whilst on the run. In the relays even more so with the green screen. It all made for fantastic orienteering.

[EddieH]

As far as I can see the decisions were right all along. Yes I think that the elite would have been able to read the map at 1:15000 printed on offset litho, but not so well with laser printing in future. I could have coped with 1:10000.

However I was able to run flat out (for me) and identify exactly where I was going - I could not have done that at 1:10000. Therefore it was a truly gratifying experience. I thoroughly approve. As for map size, mine wasn't the largest, but I remember the 1:10000 at Simonside which really was a problem because of the wind - in the foreset that's not a problem.

With regard to all the comments made prior to the event, what was all this criticism about over mapping about when the commentators had not even been there? As far as I am concerned and judging by comments made to me the level of detail was absolutely perfect - EVERY contour detail on the map clearly visible on the run and never a doubt about any unmapped feature.


Back to the original scale debate - whatever the elite get it makes sense to enlarge it for the older, unless of course the elite get the enlarged symbols that we should get.

[LostAgain]

I think that common sense prevailed and was shown to be correct.

Right decision.
Map was excellent in my humble opinion. I was confused by the rides at the start, some open (quad tracks?) I misinterpreted as the mapped rides, should have focussed more on the brown squiggly lines. Once in to map, rides were OK.

[graeme]

So here's the contrary view.

No doubt the map we were given was best read at the larger scale. It was a very good 1:10,000 map.

Now compare the relay map with the map of the same area from BEOC'04. My memory of running that event was that the map was excellent. Clearly the cartography/print quality of the new one is better, but it also contains a lot more small detail. Clarity is even better on the individual thanks to lack of green.

The detail is there, but it wasn't necessary for navigation or control sites in 2004. On the individual, I don't think I ever used a dot-knoll or u-depression for navigation. By taking off the stuff you don't need to find your way, I'm sure that Jon could produce a legible 1:15 scale map on which we could have had just as good a classic race (even if us out-of-classers would still need a magnifier).

The all-round excellence of all aspects of Culbin shouldn't lead us to conclude the large scale compensating for overmapping is good - sanddunes have always been a special case, and there can be no excuse for a New Forest area to be unreadable at 1:15000.

[awk]

Now compare the relay map with the map of the same area from BEOC'04. ....The detail is there, but it wasn't necessary for navigation or control sites in 2004.

I can't do that, as don't have a copy from BEOC04, but I did take a good look at the 1:15k maps from the World Champs/Six Day/Scottish Champs (76-77). Pretty much every feature on Jon's map is on those maps: it doesn't appear that Jon mapped to any greater level of detail, and indeed I felt his efforts showed up what nonsense the appeal report included when it talked about major deficiencies. The difference is that those maps are now pretty much impossible to read except held completely still under a bright light (and even then....!). The 1:10k enlargement is more readable, but I would have still struggled to see it whilst at a run.

The all-round excellence of all aspects of Culbin shouldn't lead us to conclude the large scale compensating for overmapping is good - sanddunes have always been a special case, and there can be no excuse for a New Forest area to be unreadable at 1:15000.

I agree, but I don't think anybody has argued this. What has been argued is that if a 1:10k enlargement is needed for elite, then a 1:7.5k enlargement is needed for us older competitors. And that is all that was ever asked for.

[EddieH]

Unlike Graeme I did use dot knolls for navigation as they were all such huge clear features on the ground - maybe if he'd had 1:7500 he would have done too. You could produce a working map without them, but it would seem a pity to me.

Anyway as I could read it all going at my maximum speed at 1:7500 I would imagine that those with good eyes should be able to read what we had at 1:10000. DEFINITELY not overmapped in my opinion.

Regarding the New Forest I couldn't agree more - I suspect the lack of detail encourages mappers to overmap when they see an opportunity to "fill in that blank bit". In reality blank bits make excellent navigation/ relocation feaures, and at Culbin they were probably the easiest large features.