Control Descriptions for Vets

[Oldman]

Has anyone researched the best font to use? I often find the font used awkward to read eg 6s or 8s can look similar but when in a different font of the same size, it's clear.

[guest960504]

Has anyone researched the best font to use? I often find the font used awkward to read eg 6s or 8s can look similar but when in a different font of the same size, it's clear.

I heard that the Swedish Orienteering Federation had given funding to some sports scientist to do a phd in the optimum size of fonts, scales and features while running/in oxygen debt. I'm no idea if they have any results yet but i'm a big fan of 7.5 Tahoma.

[RJ]

Has anyone researched the best font to use? I often find the font used awkward to read eg 6s or 8s can look similar but when in a different font of the same size, it's clear.

I think the description list uses Arial, which is probably the best, as it is very open. However, none of the typefaces really distinguishes between some of the numbers well at all. 5, 6 and 8 can be confused. It is best to avoid a typeface with serifs as they just get in the way of clear reading. The Swiss typeface is also very good, but stay away from any of the thick/heavy headline fonts, like Cooper.

The best solution is a decent point size and very crisp reproduction. The description lists produced in OCAD are generally very good.

[lostlad]

I don't think you need totally ignore serif fonts. for example, Rockwell can still be perfectly readable. no harder than reading the symbols in the descriptions themselves anyway.
As highlighted in my initial post I think the key is more to do with the size of print to make reading on the run easier, however I couldn't hazard a guess at what the optimum print size actually is

[RJ]

I don't think you need totally ignore serif fonts. for example, Rockwell can still be perfectly readable.

Not bad, and quite like a monospaced typewriter font. However, 5 and 6 become very easily confused.

[Adventure Racer]

Do remember drawing up your course from a master-map ? I never drew the connecting lines and would be quite happy if they were omited from pre-marked maps - rather than covering up useful detail.

I never drew them in from master maps, however I'd still much rather they were on my pre-printed map. The difference being that with a master map you not only got a chance to look at a map with the lines on, you also drew the controls on your own map in order, therefore you already had a pretty good idea of the order of the controls in terms of their relative locations. With a pre-printed map you have neither of these, so would have to scan your map for the next control - particularly a problem on some courses given multiply-overlapping routes with e-punching.

Not unreasonable to either dash the lines, break them significantly anywhere with important detail or have them as a transluscent (fainter) overprint, given they're only for indication and you don't need much of a line to help.

[Steve]

The problem with reducing the number of description columns to allow a larger font size to be used is you will end up with very long description sheets that will not fit in your holder.

The redundant information in control descriptions is the event title, course length etc, start description, road crossings, mandatory crossing points, even run-in length and type. All this is available on the map. It's often necessary to do some origami in the start lanes to get the useful parts of the CDs showing in my holder.

[JK]

A few thoughts on this:

* If control descriptions are available in advance then people can enlarge them to the perfect size for their eyes and their control description holding technology

* I thought there was a font size minimum for these things, if not then there should be. I have trouble reading the numbers on some sheets I receive without using my magnifier. Then again I can't read much in the centre of the circle without a magnifier and glasses these days.

* Getting rid of column H might be OK for many smaller events (radio control, refreshments, first aid, manned controls)

* Getting rid of column E would worse than getting rid of column D. Column E has 3 uses:
1. As a 2nd column D for crossing, junction and between,
2. As a "combi-symbol" for Rocky pit or ruined wall which don't have a single column D symbol, or
3. To provide information that is not otherwise shown on the map (open, overgrown, marshy, shallow, broad-leaved.
i.e. if it is obvious that the boulder is overgrown from the map - you don't put anything in column E. I believe it is usually omitted if for example in that terrain ALL knolls are rocky.
i.e. 2 Column D usually repeats the thing at the centre of the circle whereas column E gives you extra "stuff"

Of course being a Trail-Orienteer, I
a) Need to read every last precise detail of each control description in case it is relevant to solve the control
b) Get annoyed when people circle a pit on the map and then put a U on the descriptions
c) Need to learn every last detail of control descriptions for when I plan Trail-O events

JK

[70plus]

As printed circles can now be assumed accurately centred, and adjacent controls must be 30 metres apart, we don't really need descriptions any more, do we?

And EddieH may perhaps recall saying (many years ago at Kinver ) that we don't need to check codes either if we know where we are. So description lists are pretty much a waste of paper?

[Spookster]

As printed circles can now be assumed accurately centred, and adjacent controls must be 30 metres apart, we don't really need descriptions any more, do we?

Yes, we do. Maps are 2 dimensional, and good control descriptions are 3 dimensional, so you would miss some key information (top/foot, above/below, etc).

[Gnitworp]

....and, in 2 dimensions, which side of a 'point' feature, e.g., knoll, boulder.

[EddieH]

I certainly look at the dimensions. 2m or above is very significant, 0.5 is trivial.

Occasionally it goes wrong as planners and controllers put in totally wrong figures, and one 2m boulder in Hungary in super fast visible beech woods cost me quite a bit as the 2m turned out to be horizontal - it was just about exactly flag high

[Gnitworp]

I once had an 8m height qualifier for a boulder in the Foret de Fountainbleau, which definitely helped me know what I was looking for. It was no pebble!

[70plus]

Yes, I'm only playing devil's advocate. I always remind planners not to forget sizes for knolls, boulders and other point features such as pits. But we should avoid over-ritualising it by including superfluous qualifiers just to show we know and can use all the available symbols. I believe the description 'crag' stands on its own: we can assume 'foot' unless the kite is at some other position. Nor should we use them in a devious manner - I'm thinking of a Scottish event (quite a few years back) where two quite close re-entrants were used as controls, one being described as 'between spurs'.

And I think there is a boulder in Miterdale (Cumbria) about the size of that French one.

[Becks]

Pah, that's nothing. There's a couple of 20m ones up in Pawtuckaway over here (although the 20m isn't always vertical). One of the boulders is so big that the "World's Toughest Night-O" they had there a few years ago had 4 controls on it. None of them were visible from the other.