Apologies if I've missed this debate elsewhere but LOC has published an article in our news letter about their struggle to get permission for enlarged map scales for certain events from the Map Advisory Group. It seems that although everyone above a certain age would like to run on the very intricate areas at 1:7500 MAG refuse to grant permission and say the solution is simply to keep older competitors out of the areas.
Two things occur to me
1 with an increasingly ageing profile this will soon/may already apply to the majority of competitors.
2 if the map group is only advisory do they actually have a power of veto.
Organising clubs in the Lakes have opted to downgrade events in the past rather than give in to these rulings which shows the strength of feeling on the issue.
Personally considering that the sport is meant to be for pleasure and as long as everyone is given the same opportunity I'm not quite sure what objection MAG can possibly have to the request.
But what does anyone else think?
Map Scale (again)
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
60 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: Map Scale (again)
To me event gradings are irrelevant. I've been to (so called) D Grade events that have been better quality (mapping/planning) than some A Grade, and often using the most suitable (legible) scale for the courses offered. I'm known for having produced a map at scale 1:2500 of a very detailed quarried area because it was the most suitable scale; a map that could be easily read by all participating.
Last edited by Gnitworp on Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: Map Scale (again)
Mrs H wrote:Apologies if I've missed this debate elsewhere
It rumbling on in "course planning guidelines".
The disagreement centres on whether the larger scale is used purely for legibility (the IOF approach) or to put extra details on the map than are not useful for finding your way through the terrain (essentially, things which are small enough to see round and not especially unique). Often these details are added "to provide a variety of control sites", which is not a good reason to make the map unreadable to older eyes. There are areas (e.g. 4/6 six-day areas) where many large features require a bigger scale, and MAG are a bit overzealous, but most of the 1:7500 ISOM maps I've run on don't need it.
One way around it, as done by EUOC this weekend, is to make a sprint standard map. 70 mins in the rain at Holyrood Park on Sunday didn't feel like a sprint, but the 1:5000 ISSOM map was perfect for the job. I suspect there will never be a decent ISOM map of Arthur's Seat again.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4723
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Map Scale (again)
Mrs H wrote: It seems that although everyone above a certain age would like to run on the very intricate areas at 1:7500 MAG refuse to grant permission and say the solution is simply to keep older competitors out of the areas.
If this is true, then it's complete *!$£%!!&!
I just hope it's not a wholly accurate reflection of Map Group thinking.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: Map Scale (again)
The article which was written by Dick Towler said
I may be wrong but I thought Dick used to be involved with the map group.
For the Middle Distance Championships on Haverthwaite Heights in 2010, the planners, Roger Smith and I, requested permission to give the older runners 1:7,500 scale enlargements and were again refused permission, instead being advised not to place controls for older competitors in more intricate terrain. After a lot of fuss, Map Group relented, the older runners got their enlarged maps and the event was a great success.
I may be wrong but I thought Dick used to be involved with the map group.
-
Mrs H - god
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:30 pm
Re: Map Scale (again)
Map group are just peddling the same fundamentalist bullshit as IOF - ie that maps must be 15,000 and 5m contours, or else not used for high level orienteering events. Most areas can be mapped adequately at 1:15,000 but some (notably intricate sand-dunes and man-made terrain - quarries etc) cannot. However to use these areas the maps have to be compromised severely. The other alternative is not to use them, yet both sand-dunes and man-made terrain is excellent for orienteering. Shame map group can't see the sense in compromise.
- Big Jon
- guru
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Dess
Re: Map Scale (again)
What's the point of map group - to preserve academic concepts around mapping, or to support the development of a sport that people actually want to take part in?
My crystal ball doesn't see a great future for orienteering if it's the former.
My crystal ball doesn't see a great future for orienteering if it's the former.
- obody
- string
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:09 pm
Re: Map Scale (again)
To lift a comment from another thread and to relate it to this thread.....
Do the volunteer mappers, planners and organisers not understand what their 'punters' are looking for in a race/event? Are they not capable of creating the most suitable and appropriate conditions for the competition? I think they do!
Do the clubs who offer the areas for these competitions not know in detail what they are like, and under what conditions that area will provide the best competition?
There is complete freedom to design your competition at level D and level C. Map scales are often very different from the standard ISOM and ISSOM scales. The competition is often brilliant.
And since it is only a single increment to 1:7500 or 1:10000 (depending on the competition map) that is being asked for, why can't the organising 'volunteers' decide what is appropriate. It is still possible to have map reading at speed, and navigation at speed with these maps.
So why do we need the agreement of Map Group?
And in a similar argument over scales.... The British Schools Champs insist that the map must be 1:10000. All the Primary School children have been learning on 1:10000 maps have they? Their school grounds are mapped at 1:10000 are they? There needs to be some sense knocked into the system somewhere?
mykind wrote:
My beef is that I don't actually see the need for BOF (replace with Map Group) as it stands. Why does a sport which is run week in week out by volunteers need a significant number of paid employees (replace with BOF 'quangos') simply (replace with......!) to govern it?
Do the volunteer mappers, planners and organisers not understand what their 'punters' are looking for in a race/event? Are they not capable of creating the most suitable and appropriate conditions for the competition? I think they do!
Do the clubs who offer the areas for these competitions not know in detail what they are like, and under what conditions that area will provide the best competition?
There is complete freedom to design your competition at level D and level C. Map scales are often very different from the standard ISOM and ISSOM scales. The competition is often brilliant.
And since it is only a single increment to 1:7500 or 1:10000 (depending on the competition map) that is being asked for, why can't the organising 'volunteers' decide what is appropriate. It is still possible to have map reading at speed, and navigation at speed with these maps.
So why do we need the agreement of Map Group?
And in a similar argument over scales.... The British Schools Champs insist that the map must be 1:10000. All the Primary School children have been learning on 1:10000 maps have they? Their school grounds are mapped at 1:10000 are they? There needs to be some sense knocked into the system somewhere?
- RJ
- addict
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: enjoying the Cumbrian outdoors
Re: Map Scale (again)
As you have dragged me into this RJ. Firstly I would agree with all that you say about who is best suited to decide the scale of a map. However I also believe that all maps should be surveyed at 1: 7500 which is then reduced to 1:15000 for use at elite level (or young person level anyway!)or 1:10000 (or 1:7500 or whatever you like) for those of us who are a bit visually challenged. What we do not need is maps surveyed at 1:1000 including every trivial feature the mapper could find so that the whole thing becomes too cluttered to read at bigger scales like1:7500 (I get confused by bigger and smaller in relation to scales). Orienteering is a running sport - if a feature would not be noticed by a running man then it should not be on a map (IMHO)
Mike Hind
Mike Hind
Last edited by mykind on Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- mykind
- orange
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 10:11 pm
- Location: Keswick
Re: Map Scale (again)
What if the mappers can't read the base map at 1:7,500? Should they not be mapping or should they just fudge things?
- Big Jon
- guru
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Dess
Re: Map Scale (again)
The clarity of a map is a big issue for older folk (40+ I'd say) - this can't be judged by somebody from afar - one needs to print the map and then make a judgement - hence such issues like map scale need to be determined by the Planner/Controller. Rules are guidelines in my view.
And, I agree, I've enjoyed far more level C & D events in recent years than As - where local mappers, planners & controllers have used their nouse and not concerned themselves too much with rules & guidelines.
And, I agree, I've enjoyed far more level C & D events in recent years than As - where local mappers, planners & controllers have used their nouse and not concerned themselves too much with rules & guidelines.
From small acorns great Oak trees grow.
-
Lard - diehard
- Posts: 675
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:19 pm
- Location: Dunblane
Re: Map Scale (again)
What we do not need is maps surveyed at 1:1000 including every trivial feature the mapper could find so that the whole thing becomes too cluttered to read at bigger scales like1:7500.
But this is unfortunately what we are increasingly getting. It is turning the events from route choice and running to control picking exercises with controls on tiny features and the ease or difficulty of finding them depending entirely on whether another competitor is standing there or not.
Yes, there are some areas of intricate sand-dunes and man-made terrain which cannot be mapped for printing at 1:15,000 scale, but this isn't true of the Lake District areas in question. Just look at the old maps of these areas before the use of OCAD to add all the thousands of irrelevant information that isn't needed.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: Map Scale (again)
I think the use of OCAD has nothing to do with clarity of maps.
- Big Jon
- guru
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Dess
Re: Map Scale (again)
And in a similar argument over scales.... The British Schools Champs insist that the map must be 1:10000. All the Primary School children have been learning on 1:10000 maps have they? Their school grounds are mapped at 1:10000 are they? There needs to be some sense knocked into the system somewhere?
The British Schools Champs don't take place in school grounds, they take place in a forest.
Hence 1:10,000 is a sensible scale to use for the maps.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: Map Scale (again)
I think the use of OCAD has nothing to do with clarity of maps.
It is the ease of adding so much detail using OCAD that reduces the clarity of the final map. What looks fine on the screen magnified ten times over can be unreadable when printed at the proper scale. Unfortunately the map then gets printed at a larger scale to compensate for this.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
60 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 127 guests