Choice of scale at Graythwaite National!!

[geomorph]

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.

Here here.

Which brings us nicely back to the discussion on control descriptions and the suggestions on using map extracts in the control description.

I can run a 1:15000 until it gets into the dense detail around a control, provided the colours are 'strong/distinct enough (too many faint colours and I can't see them and that even happens with my glasses on - line thickness can be replaced by stronger/denser colour, and thus laser is not the way to print enlargements as this tends to wash out colour).

So a 1:5000 detail of say 100m diameter in the control description probably does the trick for me.

And I would happily pay the extra cost of printing these so that I could have them in my wrist holder.

Not sure I'd want the whole map at the enlarged scale.

[pete.owens]

So a 1:5000 detail of say 100m diameter in the control description probably does the trick for me.

And I would happily pay the extra cost of printing these so that I could have them in my wrist holder.

That must be quite some wrist holder.
100m at 1:5000 makes 2cm for each control - it could add up to 60cm if there were a lot of controls.

[awk]

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?

I can't find my Graythwaite map, but my relay map was offset litho printed. Which is part of the issue when discussing map scales. The advent of laser printing has been brilliant for a number of reasons, and it is constantly improving, but offset litho still remains (in general terms) easier to read and resolve. I strongly suspect that the advocacy for 1:7500 has been largely down to the creased prevalence of laser printing.

Which is why I am umming and aaaghing about which scale to choose for the National Event. My initial reaction to 1:10k offset litho was that this would be OK - as you say, previous reaction was fine. I have to admit that both planner and mapper saying that they would recommend 1:7.5k is what has made me think twice. If the 1:7.5k was offset litho, then I'd choose that - simply to play on the safe side, although I generally prefer 1:10k (and preferred 1:15k when I could read it!). However, with it being laser printed, I'm not so sure.

[swat]

Awk wrote:

down to the creased prevalence of laser printing

Have you tried folding the map more carefully?

[EddieH]

Last week I wrote an entry very similar to AWK's which for some reason never got logged and I couldn't be bothered to rewrite it. But I feel exactly the same.

[geomorph]

So a 1:5000 detail of say 100m diameter in the control description probably does the trick for me.

And I would happily pay the extra cost of printing these so that I could have them in my wrist holder.

That must be quite some wrist holder.
100m at 1:5000 makes 2cm for each control - it could add up to 60cm if there were a lot of controls.

Quite right
So I did a reality check and constructed my own with 3 sizes (1, 1.5 qnd 2cm squares, plus extra small boxes for 6 pictorials to give a per description area of 1by3, 1.5by3 and 2by3) and 30 controls.

The last one was massive and required the format to be 6 across by 5 deep and thus took up 20by15 with white space and safety info. But it did fit on my arm, and it was easy to read. The advantage was that it allowed some approach work to be conducted using it.

The smallest one was 17by7, very easy to wear, but did not allow for good approach work as in general you were almost at the control by the time you got onto the extract

On highly technical areas with high detail density it really does help to clarify the feature, but I don't think it works as an aid to precision navigation.

Now what would be fun is the EMIT block with a 2by3 screen, to which you download all your map-style descriptions at the -1 start.

[RJ]

Geomorph, I have an interesting 'picture' of your description holder sitting on your arm. IMO I think a compass with a magnifier would do the job for me (which is in fact what I use) and keep the 'arm' for a precise desription of the control site.

The symbol description that is currently used is non-reader-direction-specific, in that you read the information as you would a normal text document. But the enlarged circle of map is very much direction specific. You have to interpret from which direction you are approaching the control. The map itself is doing that, and if you are approaching from the north you have your map turned round, yea? But you will read the description on your arm.... after you have mentally turned it round! Plenty of opportunity for confusion and mistakes.... exactly what coloured description symbols wouldn't do (exactly the opposite in fact!)

I think, in practice, the enlarged picture on the description list won't work. The same thing goes for the image on an EMIT block screen. There really is no substitute for the map giving you the info you need.... just use a magnifier!

[EddieH]

Yes RJ I agree totally

Regarding colour descriptions this is exactly what I used to do before the IOF appeared - I wrote them on my control card in 6 coulours1. The idea is nice, but there will still be events in places where it is difficult to produce them, and what would happen at these events if written descriptions are to be scrapped?

The existing ones work well, don't take much learning, and of all the things in the sport seems to me one worth leaving as it is.

[RJ]

The existing ones work well, don't take much learning, and of all the things in the sport seems to me one worth leaving as it is.

Yes EddieH I can see what you are saying..... but I really do think that a BROWN dot would be very much more intuitive than the current BLACK dot.

[geomorph]

Geomorph, I have an interesting 'picture' of your description holder sitting on your arm. IMO I think a compass with a magnifier would do the job for me (which is in fact what I use) and keep the 'arm' for a precise desription of the control site.

The symbol description that is currently used is non-reader-direction-specific, in that you read the information as you would a normal text document. But the enlarged circle of map is very much direction specific. You have to interpret from which direction you are approaching the control. The map itself is doing that, and if you are approaching from the north you have your map turned round, yea? But you will read the description on your arm.... after you have mentally turned it round! Plenty of opportunity for confusion and mistakes.... exactly what coloured description symbols wouldn't do (exactly the opposite in fact!)

I think, in practice, the enlarged picture on the description list won't work. The same thing goes for the image on an EMIT block screen. There really is no substitute for the map giving you the info you need.... just use a magnifier!

Tend to agree with this re its use for navigation... but it does seem good as an alternative description, especially when I add fine line cross hairs.

As I have t o wear glasses for mapreading then I'm a user of slightly magnified lenses instead but the problem with magnification is the thickening of lines which does not always improve clarity, so i'm always searching for an alternative


So my next silly idea is to put these enlargements on the map itself (sort of like when had control punch boxes), then they are always turned the way you want them, when you want them.
I know, it will make to map too big..... and its totally useless when you fold your map

[EddieH]

The other thing you forget with map enlargements is that control descriptions DO contain useful info that is NOT on the map.

Which side of a boulder can be very relevent, particularly in Czech where they can have a control on both sides!!!

The height of features I often use, and in a British sprint champs Building, [b]1m[/b] was VERY relevant!

Similarly boulder 6/0.5 tells me rather a lot about what to expect.

Again in Czech Between boulders, 6m, Top of was rather less correct although I correctly guessed that 6 should have read 6/0.5

[geomorph]

The other thing you forget with map enlargements is that control descriptions DO contain useful info that is NOT on the map.

Which side of a boulder can be very relevent, particularly in Czech where they can have a control on both sides!!!

The height of features I often use, and in a British sprint champs Building, 1m was VERY relevant!
Similarly boulder 6/0.5 tells me rather a lot about what to expect.

Fully agree.
That's why I had one big box and 6 little ones and a ridiculously massive layout.

[TimField]

Just received this information from Carol McNeil

"1:15,000 will be printed offset litho (NOT 1:10,000)

1:10,000 and 1:7,500 will be laser printed by BML as at the British Champs 2009"

Infomation on LOC website updated.

The web site contains a fun poll about the map scales.

http://www.lakeland-orienteering.org.uk/index.php?option=com_poll&id=2:graythwaite-national-map-scale-i-would-like

So far only one person has voted for a 1:15000 map.

[DJM]

TimField wrote:

So far only one person has voted for a 1:15000 map.

Maybe only one course 1-7 competitor has voted so far ...

The poll is pretty meaningless unless we also know which age group voted for which map!

[TimField]

TimField wrote:

So far only one person has voted for a 1:15000 map.

Maybe only one course 1-7 competitor has voted so far ...

The poll is pretty meaningless unless we also know which age group voted for which map!

Agree that why I described it as a 'fun' poll.