Lakes 5 Days

[mykind]

If your argument is that mapping standards have fallen so far that we need 1:7500 maps rather than 1:10000 then you may well have a good point. if you look at some of my previous posts you might see that by and large agree with you BUT I would imagine that you would find few bodies to agree that Martin Bagness is likely to overmap an area. Equally you can argue that laser printing is less precise than Offset Litho BUT the previous (2006) edition of the map (which apparently was easier to interpret) was also laser printed. Finally I would suggest that you go back and read the motion put to the AGM which was unquestionably about who controls map scales rather than about anything related to the quality of mapping.

[greywolf]

Most times, 1:7500 is only needed/wanted when one or more other standards (quality of mapping/printing etc) are being compromised. There are exceptions (Swiss Day 5, far more complex than most Lakeland terrain for instance, was at 1:7500 as this was one of them), but they would be much rarer. This has been more than adequately demonstrated by the Swedes and the Swiss.

What exactly is it you think the Swedes have "more than adequately demonstrated"? This year at the (excellent) O-ringen 1:7,500 maps were used on all five days for DH60+, and on Day 3 DH50 & 55 got 1:7,500 as well (DH15-21 got 1:15,000 for 4 days, everything else was 1:10,000) IMHO what that demonstrates is an acceptance that bigger scales are of benefit to older competitors and willingness to be flexible.
And they managed to provide water (not bottled) for c. 20,000 each day...

[awk]

If your argument is that mapping standards have fallen so far that we need 1:7500 maps rather than 1:10000 then you may well have a good point. if you look at some of my previous posts you might see that by and large agree with you BUT I would imagine that you would find few bodies to agree that Martin Bagness is likely to overmap an area. Equally you can argue that laser printing is less precise than Offset Litho BUT the previous (2006) edition of the map (which apparently was easier to interpret) was also laser printed. Finally I would suggest that you go back and read the motion put to the AGM which was unquestionably about who controls map scales rather than about anything related to the quality of mapping.

Rather than arguing that standards have fallen so far, I think much of the problem has been the widespread, almost uniform, use of laser printing, with mixed results - more a change of technology than a 'fall' in standards, and the knock on effects this has created. I can understand why it's so widely used, but we have to be aware of the dangers, and not lose offset-litho printing so readily, at least for higher level events.

I can't comment in great detail on the Day 5 map as i wasn't there, but given that the previous edition was apparently fine, it suggests that printing was the problem here. I agree about Martin's mapping! The fact that it was laser printed in 2006 doesn't detract one jot from the arguments about printing standards, in fact it highlights the point: that in 2006 it appears to have been a better print that made it more readable, and obviated the need expressed this year for a larger scale.

I'm more than familiar with the motion to the AGM, which of course focused on who controls map scales at an event. The reason why it went to the AGM was however all about the standards being used.

What exactly is it you think the Swedes have "more than adequately demonstrated"?

Interesting to hear that they did that this year. My comments were based on previous O-ringens I've been to, where maps were printed at 1:10k which would have had calls for larger scales over here (although they were using larger scales for classes older than me - 1:5k for the H/D90s for instance). I'm not against larger scales (you've only got to look back over my posts on that subject!), but experience at the O-ringen, Swiss and elsewhere has convinced me that we are all too ready to go to larger scales to compensate for other deficiencies, rather than simply because the larger scales are beneficial for older runners (bearing in mind that larger scales have their downside too!). The Swiss used 1:7.5k too, for a very complex area, but that was after they had done everything else to produce the map to the best standards. I'm certainly not advocating a blind adherence to 1:10k maps come hell or high water!

[ianandmonika]

I think the Lakes Days 4 and 5 could have used 7500 for older competitors. Eggerslack Woods was really difficult to read but I do not think it was over mapped, just a lot of detail. If M/W21 have 10000 maps, difficult to understand why older competitors have same scale on all days. At this year's ORingen it was a joy to run on 7500 maps (just enlarged, inc all symbols, from 10000). People may be fitter older but bits still start failing, eyesight being one of them.

[graeme]

BUT I would imagine that you would find few bodies to agree that Martin Bagness is likely to overmap an area.

One such body would be the IOF, another the authors of the International Standards for Orienteering Mapping. Both specify a minimum dimension of 1m to map a boulder which, as you can see e.g. here is not the case at Eggerslack.
I'm not saying the IOF know what they're talking about, but I wouldn't go so far as to deny their existence.

[Sheila S.]

Just catching up now!

Great week! Very varied, challenging, fun. Thanks to everyone involved in putting it on. The clubs organising each day were given a mention on the programme leaflet but I didn't see any acknowledgement to the entry/results team who seemed to be (mainly?) from MDOC. Thank you to them as well as the five named clubs, and extra borrowed volunteers.

Thank you to everyone who helped move tents on the campsite when the streams flooded through. We were fortunate that it happened on the morning of the rest day and there were enough people helping that everything was rescued before getting damaged.

And re bottled water - I can't quote the source now so don't know how true it is, but there was a poster where I used to work saying that it took 7 litres of water to provide each litre of bottled water.

[mykind]

BUT I would imagine that you would find few bodies to agree that Martin Bagness is likely to overmap an area.

One such body would be the IOF, another the authors of the International Standards for Orienteering Mapping. Both specify a minimum dimension of 1m to map a boulder which, as you can see e.g. here is not the case at Eggerslack.
I'm not saying the IOF know what they're talking about, but I wouldn't go so far as to deny their existence.

Good point Graeme. I too am tired of "boulder 0.5m" etc. Like you I'm not sure that the IOF are the best people to make such judgements BUT they do make the rules so we should do our best to abide by them. I think the problem at Hampsfell was the stony ground symbol (IMHO pretty redundant on this area) which confused a lot of the contour detail which people were trying to interpret.

[usuallylast]

First thing to say is how much I enjoyed the week - I'm not the world's best orienteer (understatement) but got round each day, enjoyed the friendly atmosphere, varied terrain, scenery - even the exciting weather on Day 1, etc etc.
My only gripe, and a minor gripe at that, is that the website seems to have gone dead - no comments, no reports, no snippets of news. I wasn't expecting loads, just a paragraph or two to give a sense of closure. Also, I'm assuming there's no routegadget for Hampsfell - something to do with the voided controls perhaps? It's the only day I remembered to switch my GPS on at the start so I actually know where I've been!

[yted]

Following on from AWK's comments on mapping technology, I'm pleased he said that the change from offset-litho to laser had produced "mixed results" but I'm worried about the continued use of the latter for major events as I fear that newer mappers/planners/controllers may not have learned the need for register marks and the checking of all the maps to make sure none have slipped in the printing process. I have been in the lead at two major events over the last few years until each time I had a duff map. On one occasion, the green had slipped and so a crossable hedge ended up being printed over a black line (kerb) so turning it into an uncrossable hedge. On the other occasion, the map had rotated during the overprinting so that the controls in the SW corner near the start were fine but as I moved NE the centre of the circle drifted off the controls site until eventuall at control 8, the site was not even in the circle! This latter example could/should have been spotted as it was easily seen from the registers - but the hedge example map didn't even have registers at the corners.

[DJM]

As per previous mails, I too really enjoyed the Lakes 5, although Day 1 was a bit too much of a slog for my taste. Day 4 was a huge highlight, made even better by the perfect weather.

I'm still trying to analyse a massive error on #4 on my Hampsfell course so have been looking at the Day 5 map in some detail. I've even printed a high quality enlargement to 1:7500 to see what difference this makes too. I've still not worked out where I went from #3 to #4 but I do understand the previous comments on map legibility better now and, for me, they are mostly down to printing and cartography and not really to do with scale. The issues are:-

* the widespread use of the stony ground screen (ISOM 210) is a big distraction and clutters the forested part of the map too much. It also makes it harder to spot the mapped boulders and disguises the shapes of some contours as well. Removal of this screen completely would enhance the legibility considerably and would have little effect on route choice or navigation.

* there are several places where it is hard to know whether a dashed black line is a line of crags (ISOM 203) or a footpath (ISOM 506). Enlargement to 1:7500 fails to cure this problem.

* contours in the more detailed areas need to be sharply clear for maximum readability, but the digital printing used gives slightly fuzzy lines.

* the print quality of the 2006 map seems to be superior. The forested area in the east is much less "busy" looking, bare rock is printed in a quieter shade of grey and the overall legibility is better as a result.

[RichT]

My only gripe, and a minor gripe at that, is that the website seems to have gone dead - no comments, no reports, no snippets of news.

This is probably the "fault" of the Event Director, who since Friday morning when he "woke up" half of the SI boxes on Hampsfell was kicking his heels Friday afternoon helping break down the Assembly area and loading it into his van. Saturday was spent driving up to Glenmore Lodge in Scotland (and sleeping in the back of the van), Sunday returning all of the marquees and other gear to the Scottish 6 Day Company store and driving back to South Lakes. Monday was spent reacting to 20 or so issues raised during and after the event plus returning Lakeland stuff to the Barn and visiting Lancaster to liase with SROC.

Today he's just been lazing around drinking tea with me .

I'm sure the website will get closure at some point . . .

[Gnitworp]

On Day 5, I was having a pretty clean run in the woods up to Control 5 on Course 6. I then had a what I hope is a once in a lifetime aberration. Just as I left the control, it started to rain heavily, so I foolishly released thumb contact with the map to lift a visor resting on my chest under my shirt onto my head without stopping running. When I resumed map contact (mentally and physically- with my thumb), I had reversed in my mind my conception of North and South and 'Up' and 'Down'. So I thought I was running North when actually I was running South, and to make the map fit this misconception, I had reversed (in my mind) the slope direction of the entire mountainside! I successfully convinced myself that the 'reentrant' I had run into and the 'spur' I then ran up onto were just that, and not the exact reverse of the spur and reentrant respectively that they would have been if I had been where I thought I was! I aggravated a dodgy ankle shortly before reality dawned (it took a while), and I abandoned the course without bothering to punch Number 6.

My point is that I think some downhill tagging of the contours in this particularly convoluted part of the map may have saved me from this disastrous misinterpretation. Careful inclusion of tags, especially in areas without streams, is always helpful, and should be recommended.

[Tatty]

The Event Director found time to send us several emails regarding our concern over First Aid on Day 1, for which we were very grateful. He did an amazing job.

[usuallylast]

Today he's just been lazing around drinking tea with me .

Well that's just not good enough - he deserves something stronger than tea!

Gripe was probably the wrong word, maybe query would have been better - I've seen, and been involved with, the work that goes into running smaller events but can't even begin to imagine multiplying that by several days plus a 'few' extra competitors.

[buzz]

Today he's just been lazing around drinking tea with me .

Well that's just not good enough - he deserves something stronger than tea!

That gets my vote - excellent job Derek and all the many volunteer helpers