Are British Orienteering Rules too complex?

[graeme]

Graeme - what about rules on dodgy maps?

The BO rules refer across to ISOM and ISSprOM - lots more rules there, but luckily you'll have a controller who knows (where to check) this stuff . There's even software to check your OCAD file. More often than not demands for larger scale really come from poor cartography, overmapping and printing.

If you mean "what if the map is just wrong?" its on the controller/planner to correct it. And we have an appeals/jury system in case your idea of "dodgy" is different from mine, and anyone cares.

And if you mean "what to do about people moaning about the clarity of maps they haven't seen yet" I can share a ton of correspondence from the last British Champs I controlled.

[rf_fozzy]

Graeme - I think the point I'm trying to make is that ISOM, nor (especially) ISSprOM are not properly applied (I've seen at least two fairly recent examples of this).

And I'm not sure all controllers know how it should be applied (and I include myself in this too), nor have the time to act as a map advisor and event controller.

Nor is there an active forum for discussion on *how it should be applied*

I think ISSprOM is particularly bad (and you are right in that is the actual source of unreadability of many maps) because how you interpret ISSprOM in different situations is actually quite open. And there's currently no active forum for discussion of how to map certain situations.

That's one of the reaons I did the extensive mapping notes for BSOC. (Plus the fact that I've updated to ISSprOM2019-2 and that's not commonly been used - and where it has, it has been used incorrectly/incompletely). I've also been lucky enough to have a very good and experienced map advisor and a good previous map upon which I could base my new one.

[Atomic]

I think the way the rules are written is excellent - especially the "must" and "should" distinction. We might not like the rules, but thats a different issue.

Those are useful if all readers of the rules understand the subtle significance. In other contexts when such distinction is helpful it can be useful to write must in bold and should in italics - to emphasise that the author intended their literal interpretation. That not only helps the reader, but also the author and reviewers to pick the correct word.

[graeme]

Nor is there an active forum for discussion on *how it should be applied*

I think ISSprOM is particularly bad (and you are right in that is the actual source of unreadability of many maps) because how you interpret ISSprOM in different situations is actually quite open. And there's currently no active forum for discussion of how to map certain situations.

There are 4500 members on a rather excellent facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/orienteeringmappersint/
You'll find lots of discussion and examples posted there, and the IOF mapping commissioner are also active. There's the ongoing argument between the "I found a thing, I want to map it, and there's a way to do it in ISSprOM" people and the "I don't care about your thing, I just want to know if I can get through there" people Perhaps the most common piece of advice to do is exactly what you did "If its not obvious how to map it, put a note in the final details".


Graeme - I think the point I'm trying to make is that ISOM, nor (especially) ISSprOM are not properly applied (I've seen at least two fairly recent examples of this).
This is a really important point. We can all agree that it's really important that the big events apply ISSprOM correctly. But for smaller events the option often isn't "accurate up-to-date ISSproM" vs "sloppy old standard ISSOM", Its "sloppy old standard ISSOM" vs no map or event at all.

Maybe you're accusing me of not mapping to ISSprOM ... Fine, I don't and I wont, because I know most of the little local maps I make will be used with crappy laser printers so I prioritise clarity i.e. miss off any contours or thin black lines crossing narrow passageways, use larger-than-required gaps etc..

Flip side - from everything you write I'm reassured that the 1:4000 maps this weekend will be fine for us M60s. But I'm nervous that people will go away thinking "There's no need to enlarge maps for 55+" rather than "What an excellent job they did on that map"

PS. I hate the boring long wait between races at this event, so if you want some help taking down/putting up stuff in between, pm me.

[rf_fozzy]

Nor is there an active forum for discussion on *how it should be applied*

I think ISSprOM is particularly bad (and you are right in that is the actual source of unreadability of many maps) because how you interpret ISSprOM in different situations is actually quite open. And there's currently no active forum for discussion of how to map certain situations.

There are 4500 members on a rather excellent facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/orienteeringmappersint/
You'll find lots of discussion and examples posted there, and the IOF mapping commissioner are also active. There's the ongoing argument between the "I found a thing, I want to map it, and there's a way to do it in ISSprOM" people and the "I don't care about your thing, I just want to know if I can get through there" people Perhaps the most common piece of advice to do is exactly what you did "If its not obvious how to map it, put a note in the final details".

Wasn't aware of this group. Although I don't really use Facebook I've joined it and may dip in occasionally. Thanks for flagging it up.

And I agree with if it's not clear, put it in the details.

Graeme - I think the point I'm trying to make is that ISOM, nor (especially) ISSprOM are not properly applied (I've seen at least two fairly recent examples of this).
This is a really important point. We can all agree that it's really important that the big events apply ISSprOM correctly. But for smaller events the option often isn't "accurate up-to-date ISSproM" vs "sloppy old standard ISSOM", Its "sloppy old standard ISSOM" vs no map or event at all.

Maybe you're accusing me of not mapping to ISSprOM ... Fine, I don't and I wont, because I know most of the little local maps I make will be used with crappy laser printers so I prioritise clarity i.e. miss off any contours or thin black lines crossing narrow passageways, use larger-than-required gaps etc..

No - I wasn't particularly referrring to your maps. Although I have discussed one of yours with a clubmate in the past - I didn't run the event though.

I agree, when it comes to smaller, local events, then I don't expect strict adherence to ISSprOM, but at Level C or above, it should be reasonably good. I say this from a position of where at least 2 of my maps used at Level C events haven't been good enough - I know far more from having drawn the University map now. But no map is ever going to be perfect - particularly with us amateur mappers.

Flip side - from everything you write I'm reassured that the 1:4000 maps this weekend will be fine for us M60s. But I'm nervous that people will go away thinking "There's no need to enlarge maps for 55+" rather than "What an excellent job they did on that map"

PS. I hate the boring long wait between races at this event, so if you want some help taking down/putting up stuff in between, pm me.

Fingers crossed! I've already spotted one very small, totally insconsequental to the event, mistake with the map (too late now and fortunately not important in the slightest - but bonus prize for anyone who spots it).

Thanks for the offer, but think we'll be Ok between Q & F - I've fortunately got a good team to help me. And the time-pressured bit we've got to do would make you n/c for the F anyway.