Now that we've had the chance to experience the somewhat controversial map scales at the JK what do folk think?
I used the 1:7500 wallpaper map and thought it excellent although I reckon 1:10,000 would have been OK as I used my magnifying specs anyway. If it had been wet then I could perhaps have coped with 1:7,500 without the glasses which would have been good, although the darker woods might have been a problem. The large map size wasn't a problem although again if it had been wet I might have used a map case and had to fold the map to get it down to A3.
Also from what I here the elite were happy with the 1:15,000
Where I think the larger scales may have caused an inadvertent problem was with the number of controls used by the planners. On both days M50L had at least 50% too many controls, creating lengthy middle distance style courses rather than classic long style. The courses were enjoyable but lacked the route choice and navigational challenges that the elite were given.
Were the planners just following trends in UK course planning. Was this a conscious decision by the planner? Were the elite planners different people or working to different guidelines? Did the planners use software tools set to 1:7500 scale?
With regards to the latter question for the longer vets courses I would recommend planning with scales set to 1:15000 to get a feel for what constitutes long a short legs and when printing simply scale the map up to make them more readable. For younger juniors and other shorter courses I would plan for 1:7500 maps and keep the legs shorter.
Fantastic event though - thanks very much to all involved.
Map Scales and Course Planning
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Map Scales and Course Planning
To oblivion and beyond....
-
buzz - addict
- Posts: 1197
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 10:45 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Map Scales and Course Planning
Don't get me started! I cannot be the only person in GB who is heartily sick of running middle distance races at all distances from 3K to 8k. It isn't necessary to have a control every 200m - in fact it just makes things easier as you find out exactly where you are at regular intervals when some kind planner has put a nice red and white marker in place. I seem to recall that in the far distant past (more than ten years ago) there was a rule of thumb that somewhere between one quarter and one third of any classic course should be devoted to one long leg. There are areas where this is simply not possible with constraints imposed by walls, fences and crossing points but if it can be done then it should be done.
- mykind
- orange
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 10:11 pm
- Location: Keswick
Re: Map Scales and Course Planning
For me (M60) the map scale was fine at 1:7500, I'm so used to that these days that I didn't know it was controversial. A smaller size would have been good for Ulpha, I had quite a lot of unused area top and bottom of the sheet.
At Ulpha the longest leg on M60L was about 500m, and looking at the map it would certainly be posible to plan for a 1k plus leg.
I ran short at Bigland, and there out of 4.2k I had one leg which was a full 1k. Less of a challenge than it sounds- a ruined wall ran close to the straight line route, to within about 200m of the control. Haven't seen many legs that long recently.
At Ulpha the longest leg on M60L was about 500m, and looking at the map it would certainly be posible to plan for a 1k plus leg.
I ran short at Bigland, and there out of 4.2k I had one leg which was a full 1k. Less of a challenge than it sounds- a ruined wall ran close to the straight line route, to within about 200m of the control. Haven't seen many legs that long recently.
- RichardE
- off string
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:28 pm
Re: Map Scales and Course Planning
The best planned courses I experienced last year all had some very long legs. The sol at Craig a Barnes was about 8k with 10 controls and two decisive route choices. Day 4 of the oo cup had at least two decisive route choices, and woc long also had at least two. In all cases the length of the legs meant that the ability to assess and execute the correct options for these individual legs made a substantial difference to the results. This is what long courses ought to be about. It's a shame if planners are reluctant to test these abilities.
- housewife
- green
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:28 pm
- Location: probably at work
Re: Map Scales and Course Planning
I ran M21 "middle" on day 1 and M50 "long" on two days. Both were very good, much the same length and control density. Longest leg: Middle 9:19 Long 8:09 If anyone can spot any difference in planning style, please let me know.
The M21E on Bigland had what would pass for M50 long legs (7min for Thierry)
and would have been nice.
1:10000 on the middle meant being on the magnifier about a quarter of the time, 1:7500 on the long I could read. I didn't see anything I thought should be on the map but wasn't, not sure why they bothered with all those black circles.
Everything I've seen convinces me that, in practice, the 1:7500 scale has changed planning styles.
The M21E on Bigland had what would pass for M50 long legs (7min for Thierry)
and would have been nice.
1:10000 on the middle meant being on the magnifier about a quarter of the time, 1:7500 on the long I could read. I didn't see anything I thought should be on the map but wasn't, not sure why they bothered with all those black circles.
Everything I've seen convinces me that, in practice, the 1:7500 scale has changed planning styles.
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: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Map Scales and Course Planning
I was on M50S (the "S" means "Steep" apparently as it was 300m climb in 5.1 km).
I found it very clear, at least until my glasses steamed up then as usual I had to keep stoppign and wiping them.
TBH as I haven't run 1:7,500 with 5m contours in steep terrain often so:
* I found the circles huge
* the slopes all seemed far steeper on the ground than on the map
OK the latter is inexperience, but I'm used to a 1:10,000 / 5m and 1:5,000 / 2.5m being comparable - so if it looks steep on one it'll look steep on the other [I hope I have my maths right here], but I never worked out what a 1:7,500 / 5m steep slope looked like [at least not till I was 2/3 way round M50 Steep]
Had it been raining maybe I wouldn't have found the 1:7,500 very very clear, but then I'd have trouble reading it anyway.
JK
I found it very clear, at least until my glasses steamed up then as usual I had to keep stoppign and wiping them.
TBH as I haven't run 1:7,500 with 5m contours in steep terrain often so:
* I found the circles huge
* the slopes all seemed far steeper on the ground than on the map
OK the latter is inexperience, but I'm used to a 1:10,000 / 5m and 1:5,000 / 2.5m being comparable - so if it looks steep on one it'll look steep on the other [I hope I have my maths right here], but I never worked out what a 1:7,500 / 5m steep slope looked like [at least not till I was 2/3 way round M50 Steep]
Had it been raining maybe I wouldn't have found the 1:7,500 very very clear, but then I'd have trouble reading it anyway.
JK
JK
- JK
- diehard
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:22 pm
- Location: Warrington :-(
Re: Map Scales and Course Planning
graeme wrote:Everything I've seen convinces me that, in practice, the 1:7500 scale has changed planning styles.
I think it is probably the other way round - the predominance of middle distance planning style has driven the calls for larger scale maps.
On my course there was one longish route choice leg (M55L 10-11), but the constant folding and re-folding of the huge map made it difficult to plan ahead - perhaps why there were a surpring number of sub-optimal route choices on that leg.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 191 guests