Column C is Which of any similar feature
Column F is Dimensions/Combinations
With the control circle centred on a boulder I note that there is another boulder just touching the circle on the SE side. Is it necessary to put in the control description NW Boulder or is it acceptable that separation by distance make it obvious?
Is there any right or wrong in adding a dimension - some of the time or all of the time or sometimes a dimension and sometimes not? Crags and boulders come to mind.
Can dimension include length, width and height? A big flat square boulder comes to mind.
Can where a wall crosses a vegetation boundary be described? The symbol for crossing (or junction) is for linear features.
I note that descriptions and codes should be kept as short and simple as possible.
Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
41 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
Fac et Spera. Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Scottish 6 Days Assistant Coordinator
-
Freefall - addict
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:08 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
Make a decision about what would be useful for the competitor and use that.
Noting that:
i) Too much information can be confusing
ii) Even with offset printing circles are generally in the right place nowadays.
Always though use the description to describe the feature that is on the map, not what the ground looks like.
Noting that:
i) Too much information can be confusing
ii) Even with offset printing circles are generally in the right place nowadays.
Always though use the description to describe the feature that is on the map, not what the ground looks like.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
NeilC wrote:Make a decision about what would be useful for the competitor and use that.
So with a boulder, its useful to know if its something you can see from miles off (5m), something just big enough to hide the flag (1m) of if you're actually looking for the flag (0.3m). Yes, I do know that 0.3m shouldn't be mapped in ISOM. Middle boulder is always a good one if there are more than 3...
Always though use the description to describe the feature that is on the map, not what the ground looks like.
Not sure about that: I agree with respect to the 0.3m boulder, since a empty line in control descriptions can offend. But "Coniferous" isn't mapped at all. "Shallow" I would always decide on based on the ground not the map. "Overgrown" I might use if the mapped feature was obscured by unmappable vegetation.
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: 4724
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
The IOF CD booklet is under revision at the moment and one thing I know is being considered is the status of the "which feature" column. In the days when you copied your course down, or when dodgy overprinting meant that circles weren't always centred properly, it was important to know if you were looking for the NW boulder or the SE one.Is it necessary to put in the control description NW Boulder or is it acceptable that separation by distance make it obvious?
Now that circles are centred and printed with great precision, it is nearly always obvious which feature is at the centre, so including "NW" in column C is now redundant. I guess we'll need to retain the option however for the very few cases where there might be confusion.
Regarding dimension - yes, as a controller I always ask that the sizes of boulders and crags are given as this information is impossible to glean from the map. I think it is only fair to let the competitor know that they are looking for something 3m high as opposed to 1m high.Is there any right or wrong in adding a dimension - some of the time or all of the time or sometimes a dimension and sometimes not? Crags and boulders come to mind.
Can dimension include length, width and height? A big flat square boulder comes to mind.
Any dimension given by a single figure refers to height or depth whereas figures separated by a cross refer to length by width, e.g. 8x4. I've never seen length by width by height and it's not an option given on p12 of the IOF CD booklet either.
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
"Shallow" I would always decide on based on the ground not the map. "Overgrown" I might use if the mapped feature was obscured by unmappable vegetation.
Which is precisely what these symbols are for ... to be used where the map doesn't show what's on the ground!
For example, you use the overgrown symbol 8.4 in column E (appearance) "where the feature is partially covered in undergrowth or bushes that are not indicated on the map"
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
At Balkello we have used the "which" column in a somewhat unofficial way.
In a number of places there is a group of for example 4 pits close together but only the deepest one is mapped. Mapping all 4 would crowd the map too much, but each individual pit would be deep enough elsewhere to be mapped. So we used "Eastern" to indicate which of multiple adjacent pits while there was only one pit symbol in the circle. We did make sure the controls were fairly visible, but we wanted to avoid someone coming to the first pit, not seeing the kite in the pit and then wasting time relocating because they didn't realise there could be an even bigger pit nearby. I think we did mention this in the final details.
I guess what we need there is the pit equivalent of the "boulder group" symbol. The other option of course is to not use any of these pit clusters.
In a number of places there is a group of for example 4 pits close together but only the deepest one is mapped. Mapping all 4 would crowd the map too much, but each individual pit would be deep enough elsewhere to be mapped. So we used "Eastern" to indicate which of multiple adjacent pits while there was only one pit symbol in the circle. We did make sure the controls were fairly visible, but we wanted to avoid someone coming to the first pit, not seeing the kite in the pit and then wasting time relocating because they didn't realise there could be an even bigger pit nearby. I think we did mention this in the final details.
I guess what we need there is the pit equivalent of the "boulder group" symbol. The other option of course is to not use any of these pit clusters.
- Rosine
- red
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:46 pm
- Location: Not mainland UK according to most couriers...
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
Useful feedback - many thanks. I have made recommendations to the planner that if the boulder was right at the edge of the control circle don't bother saying which boulder - if a "bit" (imprecise term) closer maybe say which boulder.
Where a wall crosses a vegetation boundary I have suggested removing the crossing symbol and just use one or the other - it's clear enough on the map.
Big boulders are mapped as bigger dots and are obvious on the ground and dimensions have not been given (apart from giving only fairly flat but huge boulder a 4x4 dimension). Smaller boulders which are a bit higher than usual have been given a height of 1.5 m or similar -other smaller boulders don't have a dimension but maybe they should. I can assure Graeme there are enough 1 m boulders not to worry about mapping 0.3 m boulders at Balmoral.
Where a wall crosses a vegetation boundary I have suggested removing the crossing symbol and just use one or the other - it's clear enough on the map.
Big boulders are mapped as bigger dots and are obvious on the ground and dimensions have not been given (apart from giving only fairly flat but huge boulder a 4x4 dimension). Smaller boulders which are a bit higher than usual have been given a height of 1.5 m or similar -other smaller boulders don't have a dimension but maybe they should. I can assure Graeme there are enough 1 m boulders not to worry about mapping 0.3 m boulders at Balmoral.
Fac et Spera. Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Scottish 6 Days Assistant Coordinator
-
Freefall - addict
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:08 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
Freefall wrote:Can where a wall crosses a vegetation boundary be described? The symbol for crossing (or junction) is for linear features.
A distinct vegetation boundary is considered a linear feature when planning a TD1-3 course and I have used it in crossings.
One that I didn't manage to describe was a control site where the edge of a marsh met a fence. It was a recognisable point in the terrain but marsh is not a line feature and it wasn't mapped with a vegetation boundary. And it wasn't the S side or something like that.
- Rosine
- red
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:46 pm
- Location: Not mainland UK according to most couriers...
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
Freefall wrote: I can assure Graeme there are enough 1 m boulders not to worry about mapping 0.3 m boulders at Balmoral.
I'm using a 0.3m boulder at Faskally (not my map, guv ) Hopefully nobody will waste time looking for it - it'll be under the big red and white flag thingy
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: 4724
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
graeme wrote: But "Coniferous" isn't mapped at all.
Of course not all needle leaved trees are coniferous. I've rarely (never?) noticed this description being used to describe a copse or vegetation boundary, only for distinctive trees which should be distinctive without needing to know the shape of their leaves.
There will be exceptions but I warn planners to avoid using descriptions to overcome deficiencies in the map. If the map suggests a substantial re-entrant / an open forest I wouldn't expect to find the control in a 50cm dip / in the middle of bramble patch. My original comment was aimed at the common practice with novice planners of describing where they placed the control. Eg on an ISSOM map there may be small fence around a building that the mapper left off for clarity but the planner puts a control there and calls it fence rather than building. That leaves the competitor searching for a fence symbol in the circle.
I wouldn't object if a marsh/veg boundary junction description was used if it made sense on the map. Neither am I particularly fussed if a planner puts a control on a particular side of a depression. I also know that I don't see eye to eye with the IOF rules chair on this issue.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
Neither am I particularly fussed if a planner puts a control on a particular side of a depression
Strictly speaking, it should be "edge" and not "side" as the feature "extends down from the surface of the surrounding ground ..."
Back to the real world - I've never seen the need to have the two descriptors "edge" and "side" in CDs where common sense says that only one is needed, and I trust that the new IOF revision of the CD booklet will remove this unnecessary distinction.
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
NeilC wrote:I wouldn't object if a marsh/veg boundary junction description was used if it made sense on the map.
In the end I used marsh/fence crossing. I figured that the yellow course runners were unlikely to protest
It made sense on the ground - follow the fence until just before you get very wet feet, where you'll find an obvious control with tapes guiding you around the wet bit.
- Rosine
- red
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:46 pm
- Location: Not mainland UK according to most couriers...
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
DJM,neilC wrote:Strictly speaking, it should be "edge" and not "side" as the feature "extends down from the surface of the surrounding ground ..."
...and I was told that it should be "part" since a depression doesn't have a well defined edge (elsewise it would be a pit or earthwall). I struggled to get very excited about this piece of information.
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: 4724
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
What's wrong with just "fence"?
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: Control Descriptions - Columns C and F
DJM wrote:What's wrong with just "fence"?
Because that describes a 1km long stretch rather than a point feature? My feeling is that the control description should narrow it down to a specific point/small area.
- Rosine
- red
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:46 pm
- Location: Not mainland UK according to most couriers...
41 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 108 guests