Choice of scale at Graythwaite National!!

[Wayward-O]

That will mean very big circles on the 7500 map.

No course is being offered with all three scales of map so the larger scale maps should only have one increase in circle size.

[NeilC]

Except if some controls are in common between the three scales then the circle size should vary to ensure that the control description remains the same whatever the scale. Not compulsory but a real pain for the planner/controller if the descriptions have to be changed to accommodate the change in map scale.

[Gross]

Differing scales also means that on courses where it should be 1:15000 say & is also offered at 1:10000 then the control circles / descriptions should show the same info... however if a course should be at 1:10000 and uses some controls from 1:15000 courses then there will be a case of the same control on a 1:10000 map possibly having 2 differing descriptions......

[graeme]

There's a clear BOF policy on circle sizes in the new FOCUS.

Basically, for 45+, the circle size depends on the map scale which the 21s are using

[greywolf]

Can anyone explain why the 1:15,000 & 1:10,000 maps will be offset litho, whilst the 1:7500 will be laser - are they going to different printers? or does the chosen print company have different maximum paper sizes? (but I thought that would be more likely to limit laser printing...)

[RichT]

Lakesorunner will have a better understanding of the litho vs laser printing decision.
I know LOC can do the Laser printing in house so I guess its a clarity/cost compromise.

Might be interesting to work out the opportunity cost of 1:7500 litho print, to provide all map scales with this print option.

I'll bring it up as a discussion point at the club champs this Sunday.

[Wayward-O]

Maybe the difference in printing has something to do with the fact that all colour-coded (EOD) maps will be at 1:7,500.

[IanD]

Maps printed at 1:15,000 (F) and 1:10,000 (T) will be off set litho printed.
Maps printed at 1:7,500 (S) will be a good quality laser print.

This is going to give me a real dilemma.
What interests me is the clarity of the map. It's not just a question of symbol size, but also the gaps between lines and the sharpness of their definition.

In general, the same map will be clearer if printed at a larger scale rather than smaller, as there will be bigger gaps between lines.

However, offset litho prints seem to be sharper than at least some laser prints. I have seen laser prints where lines which should be separate run into each other, even for example tracks turning into forest roads because the gaps in the symbol which should indicate that it is indeed a track have disappeared.

Maybe the "good quality" laser print will be as good as offset litho? Or maybe not?

So should I go for a 1:7,500 map for the clearer scale, or the 1:10,000 for the possibly clearer printing?
(As an M50, 1:15,000 is not an option for me).

Perhaps LOC would like to comment on the clarity of their laser print - but if it's that good, why are they using offset litho for some maps?

[awk]

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??

As so often Oldman, you are talking complete utter rubbish. Either you are totally ignorant on the subject, or trying to wind up. Having read many of your previous submissions, probably the former.

My eyesight is NOT fading, nor can the issue be sorted by getting "better" glasses (there are no such things as "better" glasses anyway). In fact my eyesight with glasses is probably better than yours, unless you have 20:20 vision. But, and it is a big but, once you reach the age of 45 or so, pretty much everybody experiences the issue of being increasingly unable to focus at close distances due to increased stiffening of the muscles supporting the eye and controlling focus (or so my optician explained in simply layman's terms to me). Again according to my optician, this is the norm. The exception is the person who retains that ability. So the sport should only cater for the small minority? Let's all go back to previous standards: 1:20k, or howabout 1:25k? Scale is simply a means to an end - to provide a readable map. It's not some tablet of stone.

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

Because, very simply, you have the choice of having that larger clearer map if you want it too. I'm not getting an unfair advantage over you. Even at the larger scale, the differences in eyesight will still be there. But I do want to aleast have a chance of navigating rather than guessing.

[Oldman]

I think awk's comments come under item 7 of my New Year resolutions viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9207, so I will say no more!

[awk]

So what's strange?

[lakesorunner]

Maybe the "good quality" laser print will be as good as offset litho? Or maybe not?

So should I go for a 1:7,500 map for the clearer scale, or the 1:10,000 for the possibly clearer printing?
(As an M50, 1:15,000 is not an option for me).

Perhaps LOC would like to comment on the clarity of their laser print - but if it's that good, why are they using offset litho for some maps?

Good point. One of the main reason for offset litho at 10,000 is to appease Map Group. As has been indicated, we (LOC) did not want to produce a 1:15,000 map for any course in the first place.
The larger scales being offered to competitors is the scale that is preferred by the planner for that course, taking previous events on the area and comments from other events such a Pwll Du? and BOC2008 into consideration.
As the person who prints maps for LOC, I would have had no problem producing maps for both 1:10,000 and 1:7,500, and would have no problem putting my name to them.
Maybe the real question runners should ask is 'If the planner thinks it needs a bigger scale, ...'
I think it was BigJon who compared this to the (similar) discussion from BOC2008 - who will know best?? The planner who has been out on the area and knows it intimately, or Map Group sitting somewhere else...
And please don't come back with the 'optician' thing again!! I have 20:20 and wouldn't dream of using a 1:15,000 on Graythwaite - I want to be able to see the map detail as I'm sure would everyone else.
Funny how the World Cup race used 10,000, isn't it...

Maybe the difference in printing has something to do with the fact that all colour-coded (EOD) maps will be at 1:7,500.

No - the difference is the colour-coded courses are for EOD, and we want to make sure they get as good an experience of Graythwaite as we can give them. Starts with a map they can look at and read better... which is what we want for everyone else too, hence giving you a choice.

[greywolf]

I understand (and appreciate) the scale issues - what I don't understand is why you are using 2 different print processes - why not all laser, if it's that good, or why not all offset litho, if it's that much better?

[pete.owens]

All the lines and gaps will be twice the size on the 7500 map as the original, so you can achieve the same degree of clarity with a lower quality print. It is only fair that the imperfections should also be enlarged.

[Ed]

Funny how the World Cup race used 10,000, isn't it...

From memory, the general opinion was that the map would have been ok at 1:15,000, or at least that the terrain is nothing which couldn't be sensibly mapped at 1:15,000.

Certainly the 1:15,000 version used for the JK (elite long courses only?) in 2004 seemed to be acceptable (with 1:10,000 for everyone else?) - can't find any complaints about map scales or unreadable maps on this thread about it from way back when.

Maybe everyone's eyesight has simply deteriorated in the last 5 years?

Ed (looking forward to running at Graythwaite again... on a 1:15,000 map)