Map Scales at 2014 BOF AGM

[RichT]

I'm sure Hollie would be happy to receive any course planning feedback .

I have vetted Hollie's courses in the past, and I have a high opinion of her planning and familiarity with her planning style. The course makes excellent use of a small part of the area, but it seems uncharacteristic of her not to use the whole area.
So I assume from your evasion that her planning options were indeed compromised by offering a 1:7500 map.

No need to compromise the course because of scale - perfectly possible to print on A3 rather than A4 at 1:7500 if the shape warranted it. My only comments about the Brown course in the planning process related to its initial length being more akin to Black and the need to shorten it.

I agree with pete.owens that it's more to do with printing method than scale. I'd equate 1:7,500 laser printing with 1:10,000 offset litho in terms of readability. Clubs can use 1:7,500 blow ups with laser printing for their low key events if they want. The bigger events should be using offset litho and 1:10,000 should be OK if blown up from a map made at 1:15,000 and not surveyed for 1:10,000 in the first place.

I think this encapsulates the two viewpoints - I do not agree that 1:10,000 offset litho equates to 1:7500 laser printing. You just get a clearer 1:10,000 map which is still difficult to read for older competitors in detailed terrain.

[pete.owens]

I'm sure Hollie would be happy to receive any course planning feedback .

The blue course was excellent. I was really relieved that there were still 1:10000 maps left when I got to the start - particularly as there were some proper long legs (1-1.5km) on the course.

[awk]

awk wrote:

Firstly, the argument quoted is incorrect: control is NOT being given solely to organisers and planners. It is being given to the planner and controller IF they are in agreement.

Yes, this is an obvious mistake in the text of the E&CC statement. The thrust of their case remains the same however.

You may think the thrust is be the same, but I think those mistakes (there are two in there) undermine the whole thrust of the ECC argument.

I see no reason why the proposal couldn't be introduced and then reviewed in the light of the ECC survey, when the findings are eventually produced.

In the meantime, whilst the Board might like the Rules to be all tied up by ECC, I'm grateful that there is still room for a small element of democracy in British Orienteering, especially given how marginalised it has increasingly become in recent years. Even the Board, the only body in the central structure of British Orienteering to retain any form of democracy, is now only by the thinnest margin a majority of democratically elected members now.

[DJM]

RichT wrote:

No need to compromise the course because of scale - perfectly possible to print on A3 rather than A4 at 1:7500 if the shape warranted it.

But we are not necessarily talking about needing A3 for the 1:7500 scale.

I have quite a few Lake District maps from the days of yore where the M45 course filled the A3 paper needed. The scales were 1:10000. Were these courses to be used today, but printed at 1:7500 instead, then the paper dimension would have to be 33% larger in both directions. None of our usual digital printers could print this size - A3+ is the largest they do, less than 8% longer than A3 by dimension.

Offset printers could print on the larger size of paper needed, but then there would be less need to do so as offset printing has the advantage of greater legibility ...

You just get a clearer 1:10,000 map which is still difficult to read for older competitors in detailed terrain.

As an "older competitor", there have been quite a few times in the past when I cursed the map scale and wished I'd had a bigger one. By an odd coincidence, these occasions always disappeared after I'd popped into the optician for an eye test and had a new prescription made up. Funny that!

[Gnitworp]

As an "older competitor", there have been quite a few times in the past when I cursed the map scale and wished I'd had a bigger one. By an odd coincidence, these occasions always disappeared after I'd popped into the optician for an eye test and had a new prescription made up. Funny that!

This may well have been so, but orienteering remains absolutely not, in principle, a test of acuity of vision.

[greywolf]

A3 @ 7,500 gives a map area of 3150m * 2275m, which ought to be plenty big enough for any M45 course.
In the olden days (i.e. before electronic punching) planners used a bigger area because they were reluctant to fold courses in the way that they can now. (and there are additional logistical and safety advantages to using a smaller area)

[Gnitworp]

Indeed, with the modern circumstances, the better parts of areas can be used to better effect.

I now think I've at last got the hang of getting controls in the right order!

[graeme]

Anyway, back to the actual motion...

Back in 2011 I stood in darkened forest at Wharnecliffe, quite unable to read the map. That brought 35 years of running elite to an end, not due to fitness, slowness or injury, but simply map scale. Prior to that, several BOC's had been run on 1:10000 maps* reduced to 1:15000. Each time I protested**. I would always opt for a large scale map.

But that's not what the motion is about. It's about transferring quality control from Map Group to controller. From an body concerned only with quality to one with vested interests across the event***. It makes the job of controlling much less clear, being judge and jury.

As it stands, it is possible to use any scale at big events. But it is difficult - you have to make the case to an independent body, not just at a whim. That's how it should be. Map group have made a series of bad decisions****, and need to reflect on that but that doesn't mean the structure is wrong.

* i.e. originally made for international M21E races at that scale with dispensation because the mapper said he could not do 1:15000 legibly

** Only once (Penhale) was action taken - a remap and offset litho print 1:15000 for elites, which was actually easier to read than the original laser-1:10000.

*** e.g. We can save money on cheap laser printing if we blow up the map to make it legible. We can save money by squeezing the courses into an A4 section of map.

**** Though not when I've been an event official - several times I made the case for larger scales, and each time it was accepted.

[Oldman]

I find it interesting that again an AGM proposal (like the largely unnecessary change to 4 levels) has come from NWOA.

You deem it unnecessary. NWOA proposed the change because they needed a system that suited their area and circumstances. In the meantime, does it not work for you?

Whether it was "unnecessary" is not connected with whether it "works for me".

[Oldman]

As an "older competitor", there have been quite a few times in the past when I cursed the map scale and wished I'd had a bigger one. By an odd coincidence, these occasions always disappeared after I'd popped into the optician for an eye test and had a new prescription made up. Funny that!

This may well have been so, but orienteering remains absolutely not, in principle, a test of acuity of vision.

Orienteering tests many aspects of physical capability, why not also vision? If I can't run up hills well, I can hardly expect courses to be level. Why then if my eyesight is not so good, must I have a larger scale map? If I slow down, I can read it (or climb the hills). So, I agree with DJM when he talks of eyesight testing.

[keever]

Orienteering tests many aspects of physical capability, why not also vision?

Excellent point. I think we should all use 1:30k maps.
All the years of perfecting my seeing technique should make me one of the favourites for the JK M21E title!

[Gnitworp]

Thanks, Keever, for replying for me

[graeme]

Excellent point. I think we should all use 1:30k maps.
All the years of perfecting my seeing technique should make me one of the favourites for the JK M21E title!

Not fair. Let's even up the field by making you copy down the course from a presoaked master map. And second master map (successful pen-carrying being an important skill). Come to think of it, all these grippy new shoes reduce testing the important skill of not getting injured when falling over. Plimsolls for all.

[Oldman]

Thanks for the laughs, guys. I did say that the map had to be legible when you slowed down, so your points are not totally appropriate.

[keever]

Thanks for the laughs, guys. I did say that the map had to be legible when you slowed down, so your points are not totally appropriate.

To whom should they be legible?
I can read a 1:30k map at full tilt. I don't think it's fair to change the map scale to suit your appalling eye sight; you might beat me then!