Map scales

[Gnitworp]

Level A events are International. Level B events are really championship level. They should (are!) be planned for the WINNER, for the best person in the age class

Why should he/she be any less likely to struggle reading fine detail than anyone else of the same age? As Mrs H has said, presbyopia is a universal affliction.

[distracted]

Holme Fell is (as I understand) mapped at 1:15000 and so can be used at that scale. There are detailed bits and compromises have to be made on the mapping. They seem to manage fine in Sweden, what's the difference here? And if it hadn't been a 1:15000 map I probably wouldn't have seen the route choice I used on the long leg yesterday, let alone seriously considered it as an option.

And the time taken (wasted) on this issue could have been much better spent on the consistent mapping of windblow on the area...

[AndyC]

Mmmm put that way.... Level B events are getting less and less attractive aren't they? Both from the competitor's point of view and from the club putting them on. Given that most of us fall into the "also ran" category and do it because we want to enjoy ourselves why pay a fortune and travel a long way to run on a map we can't read? Unless you're one of these poor sods who feel you have something to prove that is.

Numbers will fall and clubs will realise they are better off putting their efforts into low key events. And as for level A - after reading the BOF contract I should think they will become the ultimate poisoned chalice.

SSSSSSSH! isn't 3/4 of SinS level B?

[Mrs H]

ah but - consider the EVO? We recognise that like MastersCup points - some extra incentive may be necessary to get people along

[awk]

Level A events are International.

No they're not - the various British and association champs are not international - they are domestic championships.

Level B events are really championship level.

No they're not - just take a look at the fixtures list. Some are as good as or better than championships (this weekend was a good example) but not all by any means.

They should (are!) be planned for the WINNER, for the best person in the age class. They should represent the best quality that the 'region' has to offer. There should be no compromises if at all possible. Maps and courses should present the very best test of skill for the competitors attending. No compromises should be made to cater for the also ran who can't read maps at a particular scale. BOF and the various Groups and Committees set the standard that the sport should be using at these levels..... A and B. Why compromise the standards?
.......
Once again we are trying to cater for all ages, all abilities and all and sundry in our level B events. No.... if you can't cope..... tough!!

Why did the IOF move from 1:20k to 1:15k for classic/long? Why is the standard scale at WMOC 1:10k? Why did the Swedish O-ringen use 1:5k for the oldest classes? Why are ISSOM maps 1:5k/4k? Because the 'very best' maps are those that the majority of skilled orienteers in the respective classes can read, and smaller scales are harder (in some cases nigh on impossible) for that majority to read. It's about providing a sufficiently wide playing field to allow the winner to prove they are the best orienteer. The 'standard' should be readability of the map, not an arbitrary, suck it and see, scale (and if it's not arbitrary, show me the evidence upon which the decisions have been taken).

We use the words 'visual impairment' where somebody has an issue with that sight that means they can't see as well as other people (we don't, for instance, state that everybody is visually impaired because they can't see infra-red, or pick out a handkerchief a mile away). I'm not talking about 'visually impaired' over-43s (of which I am one!), but about 'normal' over-43s: as Gnitworp points out, presbyopia is the norm, not the exception. (As an aside, a bar near here uses a high frequency noise generator to deter teenagers from the local school hanging around outside - even slightly older adults can't hear the noise, but my son assures me that he and his friends can. Does that mean that all these older adults are hearing impaired? Of course not, the norm is just different for different ages).

Put it another way. This weekend saw the vets receiving maps enlarged to 1:7.5k. Was the event enhanced by their provision? Yes, if the voices I heard were anything to go by. Were standards compromised? No, rather the opposite. Was the British Relays enhanced by the organisers/planners being told, against their wishes, that they couldn't provide 1:7.5k? No, according to the overwhelming opinion in our club tent. Were standards compromised? IMO, yes. Blind enforcement of 'standards' doesn't enhance the quality of events.

(Incidentally, I'm not advocating 1:7.5k for all events for vets - I'm simply saying that it should be an option for planners in complex areas like those used at the weekend. Equally, I'm no advocating mapping more detail - it's the enlargement I'm after)

[RJ]

awk, my post was an attempt to discuss. (JK and BOC are often 'international' in that they attract a foreign entry.)

My point is that the various BOF Groups and Committees have looked at the level B structure and decided how it should operate w.r.t. scales and map printing. I don't actually agree with them.... like you, I would like smaller scales and a bigger map. But until we manage to influence the powers that be then we are stuck with these regs. And to echo MrsH, numbers will fall and clubs will decide not to bother. We can have just as good a quality of event at level C on a particular area, and keep many more competitors happy with a more easily read map, and provide a cheaper product.... so where is the incentive to meet the guidelines for a level B event?

Perhaps the motivation for Map Group and Competitions Committee is to lift the standard in orienteering on a measurable scale, rather than let clubs around the country designate various and variable standards for the events they put on.

As for Holme Fell and Bigland..... can't say I enjoyed either experience..... I was out far too long because I am just not fit at all at the moment. But would have enjoyed a colour coded event of the Cumbrian Galoppen standard in their place.

[graeme]

As for Holme Fell and Bigland..... can't say I enjoyed either experience..... But would have enjoyed a colour coded event of the Cumbrian Galoppen standard in their place.

Don't want to hijack the thread, far less disagree, but I'm curious as to which aspects of the weekend gave you less enjoyment than you'd expect at CumbrianGaloppen?

[Mrs H]

Perhaps the motivation for Map Group and Competitions Committee is to lift the standard in orienteering on a measurable scale.

out of the range of the general punter if your first post is anything to go by, but you've back tracked so rapidly in your second post I'm getting motion sickness.

What did you mean with

Go on.... have a dig!

Do you really believe

No compromises should be made to cater for the also ran who can't read maps at a particular scale.

...and do you really think

if you can't cope..... tough!!

[EddieH]

RJ's last point indicates a problem often raied by Greywolf.

Why on earth should the weekend's events have been too tough? The middle distance races should be shorter than normal for the different colours, but in the long brown means brown etc. Yet clearly my short brown was longer than the vast majority of browns that I run (and I suspect it was about right rather than the other way around).

Similarly, whilst short brown does not naturally appeal to me, a typical SOL short brown is longer than the normal level 3 brown.

None of this has anything to do with the rules - it is just that smaller events are almost invariably underplanned, thus confusing people what the colour standard should be.

[DeerTick]

OK , this is my take as an M62:

I have lenses for orienteering - reading, left eye; distance, right eye (thanks Martin Dean) - and a magnifier on my thumb compass, but I still make mistakes attributable to missing features on the map. I reckon I'd prefer a map (sail) launching me into space to the difficulty of deciphering all those little brown squiggles.

You M40s don't have to worry - in twenty years you'll get a tablet with a scale button.

AP

[mappingmum]

Any proposal to use larger scale maps will have to be approved nationally by British Orienteering

That doesn't mean you can't use larger scales. It means you have to put your case for *dispensation*. The answer may be yes or no.

[awk]

We can have just as good a quality of event at level C on a particular area, and keep many more competitors happy with a more easily read map, and provide a cheaper product.... so where is the incentive to meet the guidelines for a level B event?
Perhaps the motivation for Map Group and Competitions Committee is to lift the standard in orienteering on a measurable scale, rather than let clubs around the country designate various and variable standards for the events they put on.

This exactly illustrates why I was so against the whole 4-tier structure. What you have now got is a system whereby the standards are dictated top-down, whereas what I was advocating was one where the standards were raised bottom-up by clubs wanting their prestige events to be seen to be the best. The fact that this weekend was a Level B event had no impact on the weekend whatsoever: what made it such a big event was the fact that it was on fantastic terrain, with excellent maps and organisation, and that it was a WOC selection race, UK Masters race and NWOL. Part of that excellence was the provision of enlarged maps for vets. The real innovations in terms of standards, competition are almost always introduced by clubs and individuals, rarely by bodies like BOF (just look a what happened when e-punching was introduced).

I know that's in the past now, and we need to move on, but I think it's a lesson that needs to be learned. I'm not against NGB involvement/standards (far from it!), but a balance is needed, one that was recognised by those forming the original 3-tier proposals, and missed by the 4-tier advocates (or not given the same priority).

That doesn't mean you can't use larger scales. It means you have to put your case for *dispensation*. The answer may be yes or no.

There is a history of BOF saying no unfortunately, and organisers/planners either having to accept to the detriment of the event (British Relays) fight tooth and nail (British at Culbin) or simply ignoring and accepting downgrading, and thus producing a better event! (Graythwaite).

As for Holme Fell and Bigland..... can't say I enjoyed either experience..... I was out far too long because I am just not fit at all at the moment. But would have enjoyed a colour coded event of the Cumbrian Galoppen standard in their place.

I'm not certain what a Cumbrian Galoppen would have offered that the weekend didn't, but I enjoyed the whole weekend (not least because the maps were readable!). I do think the areas would have been slightly better the other way round, as Holme Fell to me is a better middle distance area than Bigland, but minor point and not to detract from the weekend.

[RJ]

awk, I would disagree with your argument in this way.

Level B events should be consistent throughout the sport. BOF and the various groups and committees should set the standards for everything at this level and each event/club should follow them. That way you have consistency. By all means lobby for changes, but while the rules are set they should be followed. Having litho printed 1:15000 maps may be the best option for level B, but it does increase the costs and almost makes the events less attractive because of it. I would disagree that for this level there shouldn't be a top down set of guidelines..... but it should stop there!!

You can have all of your innovations at level C where ideas are tried out, and then used as examples for BOF groups/committees to base decisions on. I would suggest that the various innovations have already passed through this route and are now accepted as different disciplines.... sprint, short, urban. Also, the widespread use of 1:7500 at our level C events over the last ten years must have had an influence.

The future for level B..... I'm not sure.... I think the cost of travel and entry will make a difference in the end. But if we want to find British Champions then we need to have courses that test THEM at the correct level. The rest of us can enjoy shorter courses, usually at level C events. Although my lack of enjoyment at the weekend was probably due to my running too long a course .... I could have run a shorter one if I had thought about it when entering!

[Mrs H]

But if we want to find British Champions then we need to have courses that test THEM at the correct level.

I thought that Level A were the championship standard events and that the Lakelands Four wanted level B events to be top quality events for everyone to enjoy with a wide range of courses described in age classes and with a few bells and lights thrown in making them worth travelling for. When did they become an elite series not meeting the needs of the majority of the membership?

[awk]

I can see where you are coming from, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. Over the past few years, I have lost a substantial amount of my faith in BOF governance, seeing it too often and more and more often acting as a barrier rather than a support. The situation is set to get worse with proposed changes to the governing structure, with ever increasing centralisation of decision making powers with the Board of Directors. The day the Federation's powers that be start to say "What can we do you for you?" rather than "What can you do for us?" is the day we'll see the NGB back on track. There's little sign of that at present.

The future for level B..... I'm not sure.... I think the cost of travel and entry will make a difference in the end. But if we want to find British Champions then we need to have courses that test THEM at the correct level. ?

That's the role of Level A races. If that's happening at Level B, it's in addition to the competition for everybody else, not instead of (as happened this weekend).