Edinburgh weekend and Sprint maps

[lindseyk]

"Sprint orienteering is a fast, visible, easy-to-understand format, allowing orienteering to be staged within areas of significant population. The sprint profile is high speed. Sprint is built on very high speed running in very runnable parks, streets or forests. The winning time, for both women and men, shall be 12-15 minutes, preferably the lower part of the interval."

The Prologue on Sunday in Edinburgh used a map re-done to Sprint specifications. On a large hill covered in paths and gorse the main differences were some grassy paths marked with the brown footpath symbol and the boundary wall marked with a solid black line. I'm not sure if this event would fall under the IOF's official definition (above) but I'm more sure about it confusing people who've never seen a sprint map before. The pre-event information didn't mention that the map was at ISSOM standards, nor does the info for this weekend's ESOC event. We can't be the only club trying to encourage newcomers to spread their wings a bit, but being faced with unusual mapping won't help their confidence.

Some thoughts from me:
1. We need to be careful of calling all shorter-than-normal races "sprint"
2. We now have two specifications for maps so pre-event info should be clear about which is used.

Routegadget for this year isn't available but here's the link to the 2012 results on the same area. Do you think it's a sprint area ??
http://www.euoc.routegadget.co.uk/euoc/ ... d=9&kieli=

[Angry Haggis]

The pre-2013 map for the area that was used for last weekend's sprint prologue:
http://www.euoc.routegadget.co.uk/kartat/7.jpg

The actual (2013) map that was used for last weekend's sprint prologue:
http://www.euoc.routegadget.co.uk/kartat/8.jpg

[seabird]

Our experience of our Wed night events is that we move easily between 3 different specifications of maps (the third of which just shows streets and paths as lines), a range of scales and a mix or urban and cross country terrain.

These seem to attract newcomers (particularly 21s) in droves. And they keep coming back.

i wouldn't worry too much about it.

[andypat]

"Sprint orienteering is a fast, visible, easy-to-understand format, allowing orienteering to be staged within areas of significant population. The sprint profile is high speed. Sprint is built on very high speed running in very runnable parks, streets or forests. The winning time, for both women and men, shall be 12-15 minutes, preferably the lower part of the interval."

Some thoughts from me:
1. We need to be careful of calling all shorter-than-normal races "sprint"
2. We now have two specifications for maps so pre-event info should be clear about which is used.

Routegadget for this year isn't available but here's the link to the 2012 results on the same area. Do you think it's a sprint area ??
http://www.euoc.routegadget.co.uk/euoc/ ... d=9&kieli=

I wasnt there (me and arthur's seat dont get on too well) but it seems fine to call it a sprint area to me. Totally agree the map specs (ISOM or ISSOM) should be mentioned in the final details. Makes a huge difference to some aspects of routechoice. The sosol at riccarton last year didnt mention it was ISSOM (apart from on the map itself) and there were a number of issues raised on here about that. I'm looking forwad to going back there prewarned on Sunday for a proper sprint!

[Jethro]

Until I read this thread I hadn't appreciated that a different mapping standard had been used. I also didn't realise that so many extra paths had been added until I looked at the two map segments in Angry Haggis' post. When I looked at my competition map I realise that I had subconsciously filtered out most of the paths and just navigated using the contours - particularly on the top of Whinny Hill. Perhaps we don't need to get too concerned about people changing from one standard to another as long as what is on the map is a clear representation of what is on the ground.

[awk]

I have to say that I didn't notice what standard was being used until afterwards. The one thing I did notice was what an excellent upgrade the maps was, both clear and accurate. As for the race, it felt like a sprint to me.

[lindseyk]

Has no-one so far got any sympathy for newcomers who have learned that brown means tarmac, a thick black line is a small road and dark green means "fight". But on some maps a grassy path is brown, a thick black line is a high wall, and dark green means you get disqualified if you go through it ?

How many people look at the legend after they pick up their map ? All I was asking is for a bit of information beforehand.

[King Penguin]

Sometimes such information can be critical. At one of my early events in this game, my choice on one leg was straight through the woods until I hit the big track (black line) crossing me. This was at Nesscliffe, and fortunately I realised in time that the black line was actually the main cliff, with no tags on that edition of the map. As I was approaching the top not the bottom, not realising in time and running fast could have been terminal.

[andypat]

Has no-one so far got any sympathy for newcomers who have learned that brown means tarmac, a thick black line is a small road and dark green means "fight". But on some maps a grassy path is brown, a thick black line is a high wall, and dark green means you get disqualified if you go through it ?

How many people look at the legend after they pick up their map ? All I was asking is for a bit of information beforehand.

I dont think anyone would disagree with you.

Totally agree the map specs (ISOM or ISSOM) should be mentioned in the final details.

But it was advertised as a sprint and as such I'd expect an ISSOM map.

[smf]

The pre-event information didn't mention that the map was at ISSOM standards, nor does the info for this weekend's ESOC event.

Maps: ISSOM premarked maps on waterproof paper.

I agree the final details don't say that though.

[spur]

"hedges marked as uncrossable are not to be crossed, even if you see a gap"

[andypat]

One presumes this refers to a gap in the hedge on the ground of course! If there's a gap in the hedge on the map...

[awk]

Has no-one so far got any sympathy for newcomers ....

Sorry Lindsey: my comments didn't fully address your questions, so to be specific:

1. We need to be careful of calling all shorter-than-normal races "sprint"
Yes, but this WAS a sprint (a chasing sprint prologue), and needed to be consistent with the final, which was a sprint, both using ISSOM specs. In what way would you regard this as not a sprint, or why should ISSOM not be appropriate (if that is the implication of your question)?

2. We now have two specifications for maps so pre-event info should be clear about which is used.
If it wasn't specified in the pre-event details, then, yes, it should have been. As it was a chasing sprint, and the scale was what it was, I assumed it would be sprint specs. I probably should have double-checked, but (very) personally, it's not an issue, as I'm comfortable with either. I agree that it's harder for newcomers.

How many people look at the legend after they pick up their map ?

I can't recall the last time I looked at a legend on an O-map.

[mharky]

I just had a little look at the RR website. The details for the Lanton event on 9th Feb don't make any mention of the map specification that will be used. There are newcomers who have only ever run races on ISSOM. To them, a thick black lines is a wall that must not be crossed. Have you no sympathy for them?

If a race advertised as sprint has to declare itself ISSOM, then a race that is non-sprint should have to declare itself as ISOM.

[andypat]

welcome back mharky!