Pictorial control descriptions

[EddieH]

Now that idea Graeme I really like

[Mrs H]

Genius - I'd say

[Adventure Racer]

Will loose control descriptions printed like that be available before or after the master maps in the start lanes?

[roadrunner]

Now..... on a serious point..... there is a case to be made, that since control descriptions are printed onto the map with the course..... and the maps are almost always printed at the same time.... that we could show the proper symbol for the feature, or at least the correct colour for it. Show a boulder as a black dot rather than a black triangle. The brown dot can be used for the knoll. Squiggly fat brown line for a gully rather than a sharp extended and inverted V.

In an hour you could have the symbol set changed and ready for use. It would be so much more intuitive. The descriptions are only printed black or magenta/red for historical reasons and the shortcomings of single colour printing.

Time for a change.

Like the others posting here, I think this is an idea that merits serious consideration - it could be a way of using the better printing technology we now have to improve things. My only concern would be the use of yellow, which I think could be hard to see against a white background.

[NeilC]

Will loose control descriptions printed like that be available before or after the master maps in the start lanes?

Ah but you may have noticed that rules group have recommended that the requirement to have blank maps in the start lanes be removed.

I to like Graeme's idea of enlarging the circle contents in the control description to allow some of us to actually see clearly what we are heading for. Of course it would mean a control description sheet as long as your forearm in order to fit in 30 circles blown up to 150%.

[SYO Member]

Afraid I prefer RJ's original suggestion of having the actual symbol in colour in the descriptions. You can see how they compare side by side with the IOF's control features by looking at Simon Errington's Pictorial Descriptions page.

http://www.maprunner.co.uk/content/view/12/183/

Most are straightforward although point features would probably need enlarging and some e.g. saddle, might need a bigger Box D.

If Box D was bigger for every feature, you could accommodate within it standard descriptors for line features from Columns F and G like bend, junction, crossing etc.

[Gross]

Will loose control descriptions printed like that be available before or after the master maps in the start lanes?

Ah but you may have noticed that rules group have recommended that the requirement to have blank maps in the start lanes be removed.

Ahhhh.... but Adventure Racer doesn't want blank maps... he wants Master Maps

[geomorph]

I to like Graeme's idea of enlarging the circle contents in the control description to allow some of us to actually see clearly what we are heading for. Of course it would mean a control description sheet as long as your forearm in order to fit in 30 circles blown up to 150%.

But apart from the control id number, would you need all the other columns? If the 'description circle' is at,say, 1:5000 would that be clear enough to provide accurate location information without the rest? You then re-use the space to the right with an additional column, thus shortening the sheet

If not, do we have to have as many columns, or could we use a matrix of cells that take up half the width of the current columns. One big one, with area *4 of each of the remaining 6, containing the map circle, and the remaining 6 attached to the right in two rows of 3. If then we allow two columns of such per sheet, the total length will not increase, and the width would be 50% greater.

If the circle is at 1:5000, could we use diagonal hair-thin lines (thinner than standard map symbols) to provide intersection points to the centre rather than a dot?

[Snail]

If a blown up map section includes only contours, it won't show you in itself whether a feature is a spur / reentrant.

I woul go further and suggest that you don't need the blown up map extract either, unless perhaps your eyesight is starting to fail. I would be happy with just a list of codes.

Descriptions originated when courses were either marked up by hand, or overprinted with a (potentially significant) degreee of inaccuracy - so were essential to identify the correct location. With controls now accurately marked I tend to use only the code (and that just as a precaution - in one case in the past year it has stopped me from missing a control, having navigated cleanly to the next but one. )

At times the accurate placement of circle on map gives a better indication of the flag location than the description. I think there was a recent case (JK08?) of a control on a thicket where the "location of marker" symbol was at best ambiguous, but it was 100% clear from the map. It is less clear for point features, but does that really matter?

Dropping descriptions entirely would also remove the restriction that you can only use features for control sites that can be clearly described, eg some cases where you have multiple features.

[Gnitworp]

Accurate circle marking may obviate the need for the 'which-of-several' qualifier, but the 'marker-location-relative-to-the-feature' qualifier is essential, as the circle needs to be centred on a 'point' feature shown with a symbol, rather than offset to the marker location, so that 'which-of-several' ambiguity is not introduced

[NFKleanne]

i don't think enlarged map sections will help, at NOR events we get a seperate control description sheet at registration. I take my list with me so I can check what a symbol means if I am unsure what they mean. The simpleist solution would be to have a couple at the registration tent.

[Gnitworp]

My understanding of the origination of pictorial descriptions is that it was to avoid translation-based misunderstandings, e.g, the famous Swiss 'ramification of the oozes'. Given one world universally-understood language they may never have happened, in my view to no disadvantage, and NFKleanne would not need his/her 'list'.

[NFKleanne]

another thing. If i had been presented with pictorial contol descriptions at my first event i would probably understand them. They could have been explained in much the same way hte map was and i would have accepted them as the usual rather than something unsusual, but then I am in that adult novice class, mentioned earlier. I sure i'll get the hang of them eventually

[mxhornet]

My understanding of the origination of pictorial descriptions is that it was to avoid translation-based misunderstandings, e.g, the famous Swiss 'ramification of the oozes'. Given one world universally-understood language they may never have happened, in my view to no disadvantage, and NFKleanne would not need his/her 'list'.

The famous Swiss example you quote isn't famous enough for me to have come across. But I'm now intrigued as to what the correct translation is.

[Roger]

I quite like the "purple dot in the circle" showing exactly where the flag is. But it can obscure details. Perhaps the control description could be a circle-sized map segment with the dot in place. This could save the fiddly job of cutting the circle to avoid obscuring detail.

Nice idea, but the description disc would have to cover a somewhat larger area than the circle (which presumably would be printed in full on the map, with no cut-outs). Same idea as having an overlap between different OS sheets -- it's very hard to switch from one sheet to another without some overlap. I reckon that the eye would tend to ignore a feature (e.g. a curving ride, or half a pit) that's right on the boundary of the description disc, and on the main map it would be obliterated by the circle.

We could lose the boxes for 'which feature', bend / junction / crossing, and 'which side of feature', but should retain sequence number, code, and the 'adjective' (marshy / sandy / rocky /overgrown). I think that we could drop the final box. 'Radio control' has never influenced my navigation, drinks and first-aid points could be marked separately (just as they are when they're not at control sites), and in the distant past I naively lost time by taking 'manned control' at face value: 'that control isn't manned, so it can't be mine'. And anyway, e-punching has now removed the principal need for manned controls.

That leaves four boxes, one of them (for the disc) at least twice as large as at present, which suggests double-column layout.