Map Scale (again)

[Arnold]

Actually the Swedes are pretty good about resisting that temptation, when it comes to vegetation. Basically everything is white unless literally you can't get through it.

But they do have the benefit of lots of contour / rock features, which SE England isn't so well endowed with, hence the temptation to micromap all the green.

[Red Adder]

Micro mapping the green is not a good idea. It takes ages to map and is very difficult to get right - generally ends up as valueless clutter apart from the last 25 m around a control site. It also is the bit that changes most rapidly so making the map out-of-date equally rapidly - and more cost to re-map.

Its probably best to map general runnability across an area (the FC helpfully makes blocks in its forests which becomes natural area to map). Exceptions would be large clearings (never less than 20m diameter) and large holllies / rhodos which make useful point features - certainly far better than pits as they are not hidden from view.

Of course its easy to state the theory - in practice its not nearly so easy not to fall into temptation and start over-mapping.

[ianandmonika]

For some areas 7500 is virtually essential for older competitors, and for their enjoyment.
Couple of points.
I believe 7500 should be blow up of 10000 map but need to be clear if symbols are same size as 10000 or symbols are enlarged also. I think symbols need enlarging ( so they would be 2 x 15000 size).
Re ISOM and ISSOM (which in UK tend to be urban/park) common symbols are generally ( there are some inconsistencies) the same size for 10000 ISOM and 5000/4000 ISSOM. ISSOM maps are generally more detailed, with much small detail. So if we blow up ISOM maps and symbols to 7500, what do we do about ISSOM? Or, because of the amount of detail on ISSOM maps, do we accept this inconsistency?

[pete.owens]

I went to a LOC event on Sunday - and was presented with an intricately contoured map .... at 1:10000 scale. Presumably the club was free to choose the scale of map to use at a level C event free from the interference of MAG.

[graeme]

Maybe LOC think Bilbo is a good enough mapper to produce something legible (to elites) at 1:15000 and the rest of us at 1:10000?
You're saying he can't?

[Homer]

Maybe LOC think Bilbo is a good enough mapper to produce something legible (to elites) at 1:15000 and the rest of us at 1:10000?
You're saying he can't?

Bilbo knows what he's doing. Your statement may be true for many Lakes areas but I suspect this debate relates to Graythwaite.

There is a history with the Graythwaite map and I'm sure I don't know the full story. I believe Bilbo insisted on producing the original map (for the 1998 World Cup) at 1:10,000. Therefore it's never been surveyed for a finished scale of 1:15,000. Hence all subsequent maps have been at 1:10,000 with 1:7,500 blow up for us oldies.

MAG have tried to insist on 1:15,000/ 1:10,000 for major events since 1998 (eg JK 2004) but this has (understandably) never happened as it would involve a full re-survey. It would also be a real shame as Bilbo's original is a masterpiece.

[frostbite]

Therefore it's never been surveyed for a finished scale of 1:15,000. Hence all subsequent maps have been at 1:10,000 with 1:7,500 blow up for us oldies.

MAG have tried to insist on 1:15,000/ 1:10,000 for major events since 1998 (eg JK 2004) but this has (understandably) never happened as it would involve a full re-survey. It would also be a real shame as Bilbo's original is a masterpiece.

JK04 day 2 had a 1:15000 map for the elite, which I think was simply a reduced version of the original map. I don't recall having any problem with it, but it was offset litho printed and my eyes were only 35 years old at the time.

[keever]

...I suspect this debate relates to Graythwaite.

It doesn't.

[Homer]

...I suspect this debate relates to Graythwaite.

It doesn't.

OK, but I suspect it's the same principal.

JK04 day 2 had a 1:15000 map for the elite, which I think was simply a reduced version of the original map. I don't recall having any problem with it, but it was offset litho printed and my eyes were only 35 years old at the time.

I stand corrected again. I suspect there was a similar debate back then and Map Group prevailed against the wishes of the organisers (and probably Bilbo).

[charles2]

Competed at Graythwaite last April and there were two scales, 1:10K for oldies and 1:15K for youngsters. My son and I were actually doing the same course, except he had the small scale map and I had the larger one - with all those contours (don't get many in EA) I still probably could have done with an even larger scale!

[Derek A]

I was the controller for the World Cup Race in Graythwaite in 1998. The reason I wanted a 1:10,000 map was the difficulty in seeing the ‘narrow ride’ symbol in the slow walk area in the middle of the map when it was overcast and cloudy; it was very dark under the trees. Not spotting them would have been very unfair as they were more than 2.30 quicker than any other route over about 1km of the course. I also knew that if we went for 1:10,000; it would be sunny; that is what happened.

Enlarging maps surveyed for 1:15 is necessary for the enjoyment of orienteering for us old people. Filling maps with detail you can’t read on the run is simply wrong and any mappers doing so do not understand the sport.

[pete.owens]

Ironically, it was the 2009 Northern Champs at Graythwaite - the one with the choice of scales - that persuaded me that top level competitions should stick with the standard scales.

When it was first proposed it seemed like a good idea - what could be wrong with being able to see the map in more detail - and the organisers were obviously pushing the need for a larger scale (who was I, as a mere competitor who had never visited the area before, to disagree).

Then came the touring display board with a small section of map shown at different scales (I assume the fact that the small section just happened to be the most intricate part of the entire map was entirely coincidental). But, when I looked at the samples I noticed something odd, the 1:15000 map was actually clearer than the 1:10000 map. The 1:7500 map was basically being offered to compensate for the poorer print quality of laser printing (and it was good as laser printing goes). What I wanted to choose was a 1:10000 offset-litho printed map, but that was not on offer. So I went with the organisers recommendation of 1:7500 (which presumably means that I am now counted in the statistics of "all orienteers prefer large scale maps").

At the event itself and I came to regret the decision. The first couple of legs were fine; the course started through the intricate wrinkly bit displayed in the samples so I was micro navigating and picking off every crag, boulder and re-entrant - very enjoyable, but probably rather time consuming. Then the first long leg (~15cm on the map) and I struggled to visualise the leg as a whole or to fold the map to show it all - though that was probably more to do with the very stiff paper. The shapes of individual contours were easy to see at the smallest scale, but not the overall shape of the hillside. I could pick out the individual short blue dashes of indistinct marshes, but lost the shape of the marsh as a whole. Since it was an extremely well planned long distance course there were a a lot of legs like this.

[graeme]

‘narrow ride’ symbol in the slow walk area

It would certainly be better with a white or yellow strip beneath, and its hard to image that doing so would be a misrepresentation that would trouble a runner.

[awk]

But, when I looked at the samples I noticed something odd, the 1:15000 map was actually clearer than the 1:10000 map. The 1:7500 map was basically being offered to compensate for the poorer print quality of laser printing (and it was good as laser printing goes). What I wanted to choose was a 1:10000 offset-litho printed map, but that was not on offer. So I went with the organisers recommendation of 1:7500 (which presumably means that I am now counted in the statistics of "all orienteers prefer large scale maps").

You are so right about the quality of printing. The onset of laser printing has made a huge impact on the ease of reading maps. Those events (usually the bigger ones, for obvious reasons) which use offset litho are an absolute joy compared to those using laser printed maps, especially where there is a large amount of green or contour detail. The qualities of line and of colour are absolutely critical, and there is all too often not enough control of those, especially when organisers are trying to do their best by competitors by allowing pre-entries close to events. It's a delicate balancing act!

However, one has to be careful about 1:15k being 'clearer' than the 1:10k. Yes, it might be when the maps are static and in good light conditions. However, when running, older eye muscles take much longer to adjust to changes of focus and much less light transfers to the retina as one gets older. It is thus much harder for an older competitor to resolve the thinner lines, however clear the map might superficially be. I particularly find that in night-orienteering now, having to stop to resolve a map properly nowadays, whilst I can allow my eyes more time to adjust in daylight events. Equally, you have to take into account the lower light conditions under a canopy as opposed to being on display in a finish field. Thus (twofold) the problem with the British Relays at Tankersley: according to my (sport specialist) optician, Map Committee were asking me to do the physically impossible - to read that map under the light and competition conditions on the day.

Yes, Graythwaite could have done with an offset litho map. However, the degree of green on the map, the light conditions and difficulty in keeping a map sufficiently still to read in heavy terrain all tell me that, however hard the 'conceptual' side is at 1:7500, even then it was preferable to what the administrators continue to push.

[keever]

Problem solved