Choice of scale at Graythwaite National!!

[Oldman]

Well, if you don't like the proposal, I have a suggestion for you all:

Don't enter.

Entry is voluntary, not compulsory.

That'd normally be fair enough, but this is a National event where standards for everyone in the same class should be the same and which is meant to attract people from all over the country.

[Oldman]

I like this idea, and much more constructive than many of the other replies which, as usual, are negative as ever.

Well, if you make strange decisions that are not fully explained, you get questions. And my first post was not negative, it was seeking answers.

[Oldman]

I disagree with Gross about fair competition - as long as the information on the different scales of maps is the same then to my mind it's exactly the same - the race is a test of navigation/fitness, not eye-sight (and if it was, then magnifiers etc. would have to be banned - maybe even glasses/contacts!).

And I agree with Gross - how can it be fair if someone else has a larger clearer map than you have? And if your eyesight is fading, then get better glasses. Why do people with faster deteriorating eyes expect changes for them, when people with faster (say) deteriorating running speed don't have courses changed to avoid long legs that don't suit them??

[roadrunner]

And I agree with Gross - how can it be fair if someone else has a larger clearer map than you have?

But anyone can have the larger, clearer map if they want, so how can you complain of unfairness if you don't take that option?

I do agree with Awk, though: if one scale is laser printed and the other offset litho, then the choice is a lot less obvious.

[distracted]

What about courses where the event is being used for selection purposes e.g. FCC. Surely these at least have to all have the same scale ?

According to the info, those on the FCC courses are all on 1:10 offset and don't get a choice.

[IanD]

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. In my opinion, orienteering should be a test of navigational ability, physical fitness, and the ability to make best use of them.

Not a test of eyesight.

I believe that offering alternative versions of maps is fair when everybody has the same choice. (Unless there is a hidden problem, like one scale being printed better than the other).

I congratulate LOC on their initiative.

[HOCOLITE]

I once was given a 1:7500 map at a Lakes 5 days. It was awful I never got in touch with the scale. I accept that this is familiarity, but I think I'd opt for 1:10000. Re KP's comments how will start officials ensure competitors take the maps that they opted for when they entered. I can imagine people who have sight problems and opt for the larger scale would feel pretty miffed if they turn up at the start and find no maps of that scale. Perhaps competitors should turn up with an opticians certificate

[RichT]

Right, an attempt to shine a little light into the gloom.

My understanding is gleened from being copied into some (but not all) email traffic.

LOC proposed to hold the event as 1:10000 for M21 etc and 1:7500 for juniors and older seniors. They also offered to provide 1:15000 scale maps for the elites if that is what was requested. This decision was based on planners experience of the map and the area.
Map Group replied with an instruction for 1:15000 and 1:10000 scales.
Discussion ensued . . .

Junior Competitions Group responded with a specific request for FCC courses to have 1:10000 and they have only this map scale option.

Given that one of the aims of the current event review is to provide competitors with what they want, LOC feel that providing larger scale maps satisfies a demand, and that offering a choice of scales is a way of proving that the demand is out there.

[madmike]

I for one welcome this decision, moreover, I regard it as unfortunate that it comes in my last year as an M40.

My eyesight got a 20 year head start by deteriorating at 25 vice the generally accepted 45 and I have struggled with 1:15 000 maps on numerous occasions. BOC at Pwll Du where individual was 15 000 and relay 10 000 meant 2 completely different experiences for me.

The ill-informed comment "get glasses" set my teeth rattling - if only it was that simple.

I have often mused on the need for an optician´s note for those of us under 45 whose eyesight can only be corrected to 4/6 or 5/6 with glasses or contact lens.

in my view this makes things more equal not less so I could not agree with Gross less!

[Big Jon]

Deja-vu! just like BOC 2008 the map group has decided against the advice of local (expert) officials and trotted out the 15K, 10K statement without listening to the reasons or visiting the area to meet with the officials and discuss the issue. They are defending a fundamentalist position that like all fundamentalism fails to accommodate the varying states of the real world.
However BOF map group is not the originator of this nonsense they are merely parroting the line from their puppet masters in IOF who state that an area that cannot be mapped at 1:15,000 is unsuitable for long race orienteering.
People who want to try to change this ridiculous state of affairs should complain to IOF and try to get them to change their fundamentalist stance.

[King Penguin]

they are merely parroting the line from their puppet masters in IOF who state that an area that cannot be mapped at 1:15,000 is unsuitable for long race orienteering.
People who want to try to change this ridiculous state of affairs should complain to IOF and try to get them to change their fundamentalist stance.

So how come the Swiss got special dispensation from IOF to use 1:7,500 for Trocknersteig at Zermatt in 2006 ? A precedent has been set and there must already be a way to circumvent the "standard" IOF / BOF rule.
I agree that if the complexity of an area justifies a larger scale being used then local knowledge should prevail (as it did at Culbin and Zermatt) and all should have a larger scale.

[EddieH]

Trockner Steg, as a part of Swiss O Week was surely not an IOF event. Were they really consulted about the scale? I cannot see that the Scottish 6 day (similar type of event) would consult the IOF if they wanted to do something slightly different.

[lakesorunner]

I agree that if the complexity of an area justifies a larger scale being used then local knowledge should prevail (as it did at Culbin and Zermatt) and all should have a larger scale.

This is what we (LOC) tried to do, but Mapping in their wisdom decreed otherwise. Trying to find a way round this, we were left with the less favourable option you now have, which still gives the competitor the choice they are happiest with...

[pete.owens]

The courses will be identical in all aspects apart from scale - it is a straight enlargement, so the contol circles numbers, etc will all cover the same area regardless of scale.

That will mean very big circles on the 7500 map.

[Snail]

Given a choice between 1:15 and 1:10 offset litho, it is difficult to imagine why anyone would choose 1:15. Most people will think along the lines of .... planner & controller are clearly concerned that the 1:15 map is difficult to use.... don't want a BOC 2007 type map ... all my peers will be thinking the same ... nothing to lose by opting for 1:10. So I wouldn't expect to get anything too meaningful out of the publication of choices.

But as awk said the choice before 1:10 litho and 1:7.5 laser is more tricky - and depends very much on the quality of the latter. This can only be a "fair" choice if every entrant gets to see the samples which are going to be produced. I hope these will be sent to a number of events in Scotland and the south as well as the north - not everyone can make BOC, particularly given that the date moved.