Scales for White and Yellow

[mharky]

was it fun?

the reason i don't think it should be tought to school kids is nothing to do with how 'technical' a skill it is (it's only counting your paces). It's more to do with the fact that it is boring and gives a very bad image to the sport.

[candyman]

depends on how old the school kids are - at Ulverston we used to do compass and pacing on the fields (admittedly without the map - purely following bearing practice)

hmm, but that isn't orienteering, its compass and pacing. A bit off the topic but I don't think kids should even be given a compass until they have learnt how to navigate by reading a map, otherwise its just not orienteering.

[RJ]

Before we start a far ranging debate over scales and the skills of orienteering, what I am drawing attention to is the very early stages of development in the introduction of orienteering. A lot of the comments are from relatively experienced folk.

White and Yellow standard, by and large, will be the first dozen courses that a novice will attempt. IMO these should be 1:5000; certainly if they are done at school where the scale is likely to be 1:2500 or 1:2000. British Schools Champs are attempting to attract thousands of these early learners, from years 5 and 6. They have to have had some experience at the standard thet will compete at.... White and Yellow.

At this stage the younsters are reading the map, following line features. They won't be pace counting and they won't be using a compass other than to orientate the map (clip compass attached to the map unit).

All those seniors who think it should be 1:10 should try running a Yellow course at both scales and then form an opinion. Which makes it easier for the competitor and will encourage running!?

[PorkyFatBoy]

I don't actually think it makes any difference to the children. They don't necessarily have an appreciation of scale and its implecations at that age. On a white course, you run until you find the control, and yellow is pretty similar except it maybe a path junction without a control. PFB Jnr (year 4) has had no problems running both white an yellow on both 1:10k and 1:5k maps. If you're producing 1:5k map you may need to include more detail?

As for schools maps - the scale is whatever scale fits nicely on A4.

[FatBoy]

I've got a great idea for a new form of orienteering. Take a random bit of forest and map it at 1:250. We can then mark every tree and have a really "technical" challenge.

Seriously guys, a major part of orienteering is that the map is a slightly schematic view of the terrain and as long as there's enough detail to find your way and find the features used then that's enough. Kids need to get used to that and not get protected into thinking that big scales and every last paving slab being mapped is what happens.

I'm really getting worried by the frequency of maps that are blown up until they fill a page of A4. We don't reduce large areas to 1:25,000 so they fit on A4 so why blow them up to fill!

We need a sense of distance in orienteering and you won't develop that if scales are different every week.

[rob f]

you've been mapping schools at 1:10000??? Are these schools huge? Can you show us a sample? School maps should be at 1:5000, 1:4000 or even bigger. The scale isn't really that important either. It's not like they are going to be learning compass and pacing, and if anyone does try and teach that to school kids stop it.

Also kids know the school, its just trying to get them to match them up

[mikey]

I've got a great idea for a new form of orienteering. Take a random bit of forest and map it at 1:250. We can then mark every tree and have a really "technical" challenge.

It's called Micro-O.

[RJ]

We need a sense of distance in orienteering and you won't develop that if scales are different every week.

An interesting assertion... you have an intuitive feel for it, or is there some scientific fact to back it up?

I would say that using different scales (a few!) and a scale bar has a far greater chance of teaching scale to youngsters. Particularly when they run on school grounds where they can see the boundaries and can then relate to the 100m scale bar.

As far as mapping a small bit of forest in great detail.... good idea. But you must have a variety of feature and a sensible number of line features.

We are talking about the first dozen courses that kids run. There is plenty of time to teach them the finer skills of the sport. To begin with.... teach them to RUN with a map, reading it as they RUN.

[Rookie]

hmm, but that isn't orienteering, its compass and pacing

but it is training for older kids (OK - very boring training which I hated) - eg for those progressing from orange/light green to green (those who already know what o is. Mharky - I was just pointing out that "school kids" includes M/W16)

Should just stick to a consistant scale but for really young kids what the scale actually is probably irrelevent. Planners just need to agree on something and keep it the same everywhere- definitely not blow up to A4 since you'll just get something totally random

[FatBoy]

We need a sense of distance in orienteering and you won't develop that if scales are different every week.

An interesting assertion... you have an intuitive feel for it, or is there some scientific fact to back it up?

Yes I have a feel for scale, but only on 1:15,000 properly (grew up back in the day when the majority, albeit a slender one, of maps were 1:15,000). I manage to adjust to 1:10,000 ok but normally takes a couple of overshoots before I settle. I virtually never pace - I just know when it's about right, or perhaps more importantly when I've gone too far. Put me onto a 1:5,000 and I'm all over the shop. Saturday night in the dark for example. 4 distance related mistakes totalling about 10 mins! I think if there were more 1:5,000 maps (sprint?) around in the early 80's then I'd be ok on them. You don't conciously say "the scale is 1:5,000" therefore that patch of white is about 3 trees worth" - you subconciously look at the blob of white and start looking at the appropriate time.

I agree we need to get kids to run while learning orienteering but I don't see how giving them a 1:5,000 map instead of a 1:10,000 helps? If we make an assertion that we are teaching kids sprint orienteering first and then classic second it may make sense. However it's not what they're going to find week in week out in the fixture list.

I'd say try and stick to the map rules. 1:15,000 for most areas blown up to 1:10,000 for kids and vets - which means district events are 1:10,000 blown up for all. Middle races 1:10,000 (I believe) and sprint races 1:5,000 (don't see what extra 1:4,000 gives us apart from inconsistency). That way we all learn what we're getting at what races.

[mharky]

I think RJ is completely right.

String course maps just tend to be a hand drawn semi-artful extremely vagy representation of the course, or at least they were when I was doing them. Then to put juniors straight onto a 1:10000, where as RJ points out there course covers an area smaller than their hand. Where is the step up??

Using 1:5000 would makes things easier for the learner.

FatBoy>>>

Your great new idea for orienteering has already been done in Russia a few times.

You seem to be very against RJ's suggestion, and they only reason I can see why is that you are not very good at distance judgement and for some reason think are attributing this to everyone else.

Using a smaller scale map would make it easy for them to see the detail. That is the reason, and it is a very good one.

You say we[/] need a sense of distance in orienteering, very true. However this doesn't mean we should stick to the same scale all the time for the rest of our lives. Eventually your going to go to an event which at a different scale (sprints and middle distances are getting a lot more common), and your going to make 10 mins of distance related mistakes, all because you were not willing to try different scales before.

You don't see what 1:4000 from 1:5000 gives us? I guess you havn't done lots of sprint races or sprint mapping. Have you actually done a lot of orienteering, because quite a lot of what your a saying is wrong. Are you a junior coach? Do you have any knowledge in the field of skill development?

RJ, do a survey at you next WCOC event, show kids a 1:5000 and a 1:10000 and ask [i]them which map they would want to use.

[FatBoy]

Happy to admit my distance judgement is very poor at 1:5,000 mediocre at 1:10,000 but is good at 1:15,000. Maybe I'm an old man stuck in the past but as far as I know 1:15,000 is what all elite classic racing should still be.

No I haven't done much sprint racing - not really my cup of tea. But I'm not knocking it. I have done races at 1:4,000 and at 1:5,000 and can't say you get so much more on a 1:4,000. I've done a fair amount of mapping but not for sprint. However, mapping is mapping - you need to put enough info on it for one to be able to navigate accurately, which is more in urban areas, parks etc than it is in an open forest. I don't see that extra 25% gives you much more room for symbols or clarity. Enlighten me please. Anyway this isn't my point. My point is be consistent - if it needs to be 1:4000 for some areas let's stick with that and not have some at 1:5,000.

You say it's because I'm not willing to try scales - not true. I don't avoid events because they're at 1:5,000. There just weren't any before you were born when some of us were orienteering. I see my ability to not judge distance at lower scales as a fault, possibly my biggest fault, but not one I'm going to spend time fixing on the basis all the important races for me are at 1:15,000.

What I'm saying is we should have fixed scales for types of races. If we keep inventing new scales then nobody will be able to judge distance, no matter how good you think you are.

In answer to your rather personal questions. Yes I have done a lot of orienteering over the last 26 years. I'm not currently a junior coach but I have been in the past. I'm very open minded on many techniques when I coach (i.e. I don't dictate the way people orienteer merely offer all the tecniques I know).

My point is I feel any sport has to have a definition. Do you think an ariel photo is an orienteering map? No of course not. The reason such a fuss is made about MicrO is because it pushes or steps over the bounds of that definition. If we orienteer on any which scale it IMO is also changing the bounds of what we doing.

I was joking about the trees mapping thing to highlight what mapping at low scales achieves. If there's more information than you need at running pace then why map it? I wouldn't call this orienteering.

[mharky]

Yes 1:15000 is what elite classic racing is done at, 1:10000 is what elite relay and middle racing is done at and 1:4000/5000 is what elite sprint racing is done at. The 4 disciplines of orienteering there, each with their own scale.

If you can't see how 25% increase will help then I pressume the sprint areas you have been on have been very detailed. On The Royal Mile in Edinburgh there is a section (from St Giles' cathedral to Hunter Sq.) with 9 closes in 80m. But 80m is only 1.6cm on 1:5000, 25% can make a lot of difference.

We are not inventing lots of new scales. 1:4,5,10,15 have been around for a few years, and no more are being invented. RJ is simply suggesting that we drop down a scale to make things easy for learners. The move from 1:10k to 1:5k is not radical. Everything is just twice as far. However I doubt beginners on the white and yellow use any form of distance judgement. The just run to the next junction, work out which exit to take, and run down that. Which is why is they miss a junction for some reason they go on and on and on...

No I do not feel that an aerial photo is an orienteering map, however an orienteering map at a different scale is, well, and orienteering map.

I totally agree that nobody likes micr-o because it is changing the fundementals of the sport. Changing the map scales is not though, is it? No one is suggesting we orienteer on any which scale, where have you got this idea from?

[FatBoy]

Where did I get the idea from? Try:

certainly if they are done at school where the scale is likely to be 1:2500 or 1:2000.

As for schools maps - the scale is whatever scale fits nicely on A4.

The reason I'm arguing is if you go back to the start of this thread the question was should British Schools Champs be 1:10,000 or 1:5,000. Clearly by the guidelines the answer is 1:10,000 - not let's make up a scale for that discipline because we feel like it. If the general consensus is that ages below 13 and colour standards white/yellow need 1:5,000 let's have a guideline change and get everybody doing it so there's some consistency.

I may have muddied my argument by highlighting my poor 1:5,000 judgement. It wasn't supposed to come across as "I can't do it therefore ban it!". It was intended as an example based on the fact I had no exposure to it as a junior. If we don't give at least our elder juniors more experience at 1:15,000 then maybe we'll have problems at international level. I won't name names but I could name a top W16 who specifically went out training at 1:15,000 early this year pre-JK because she'd never run on 1:15,000 before!

I'll take it from the more experienced at sprint that 1:4,000 is necessary sometimes - can we not then have all sprints at 1:4,000?

[distracted]

I don't see that extra 25% gives you much more room for symbols or clarity. Enlighten me please. Anyway this isn't my point. My point is be consistent - if it needs to be 1:4000 for some areas let's stick with that and not have some at 1:5,000.

I'm sure those people on here who ran the Surrey University Sprint Race will have something to say on this - the fact that the World Cup organisers explicitly asked IOF to be able to use a 1:4000 rather than the standard 1:5000 for elite sprint racing says something about the area in question! A bit like many of the top elites arguing that the Long race at next year's World Cup final in France should be on 1:10000 rather than 1:15000 for the sake of clarity.

In these cases you have to consider area scale rather than length scale - the same detail will take up 1.5 times the area on a 1:4000 than it does on a 1:5000.