Choice of scale at Graythwaite National!!

[Oldman]

The statement also says that a strong emphasis was put on the fairness of different runners using different scales. As you know ( ) I think that's complete rubbish: it's perfectly fair for the reason that everybody has access to any of the scales (it would only be fair if some couldn't choose one of the scales), especially as that is all that is different.

I beg to differ (but in line with my NY resolutions, accept your right to put forward such views). The reason is that having once run on a different scale to someone else, you must de facto have been at an advantage or disadvantage ... unless, that is, there is no difference, in which case why is there the need for two scales?

[roadrunner]

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

Quite appropriate here, I would have thought. Of course we need some rules to define the sport - and the ones we have are fine for that - but I think almost all the rest could have the status of guidelines.

Incidentally, the information on map scales is in an Appendix to the rules (and is badly out of date - no mention of sprint events), and it's not at all clear to me whether it's a rule or just a guideline (or whether this depends on the type of event).

[RJ]

Apparently you can get books with larger sized type..... so if you have impaired sight you can read more easily because the words are larger.

Now.... does the reader of a 'larger type' book have an advantage over the reader of the 'normal sized type' book? Perhaps the opposite would be the case..... they have to scan the text faster, move the eyeball more.... and turn over more pages with the larger text.

The 1:10 v 1:75 scale debate really is a very silly one. It doesn't make any difference! The impaired eyesight gets a clearer picture with 1:75 which helps them 'read' the map. It is all about enjoyment of the orienteering experience.

The argument that when we orienteer we should have a level playing field..... with nothing that can possibly be seen as unfair...... what a load of rubbish! We all start at a different time, get help from various people/situations, follow trods.....

Some of you need to get out and experience different scales before pontificating!

[awk]

Totally agree RJ.

Oldman: it's not about gaining an advantage over others. Whether I have a larger or smaller scale, the inability of the eye muscles to work as fast, the demands of reading a broader area of map, the requirement to fold and refold more often, the inability to see all of the longest legs in one section etc. etc. will mean that I will still remain at a 'disadvantage' against those who can read smalle scale maps. I'm gaining no more advantage than I do by choosing one type of shoe over another, or by choosing to tape my ankles or not (or is that not allowed because I might get an advantage over somebody else?), or by using a magnifier or not.

It's interesting that pretty much all the arguments against larger scales come from those who can quite comfortably read smaller ones. Nothing like trying to give yourself an unfair advantage!

[Oldman]

It's interesting that pretty much all the arguments against larger scales come from those who can quite comfortably read smaller ones. Nothing like trying to give yourself an unfair advantage!

Again you do yourself no favours with your fallacious debating-style point. What you assert is not true: as an example, I wear reading glasses, and have difficulty seeing small detail especially in poor light, but do not argue for larger scale maps: rather for better maps ... and eespcially the same scale for all!

[Mrs H]

Well as the issue here seems to be the differing scales not the scale itself - and as a precedent has already been set in that direction at Culbin it seems to me that if LOC were interested in retaining National status there is a fairly easy solution.

However I don't think they're too bothered

Have Map Group, Major Event Group and BOF finally got tired of the 'tail wagging the dog'????????

On the contrary RJ - I'd say the tail was now wagging two fingers at the dog


Out of interest will there be a levy issue with the down grading?

[graeme]

The reason is that having once run on a different scale to someone else, you must de facto have been at an advantage or disadvantage

Indeed. I understand that BOF are even considering allowing people to run in DIFFERENT SIZED SHOES! Why oh why should anyone be allowed an advantage over the standard (and most common) size 9s that I wear?

Incidently: sorry to spoil the party if LOC think they're doing something revolutionary - the first time I had a choice of mapscale was at the US champs in 1989.

[mharky]

Apparently you can get books with larger sized type..... so if you have impaired sight you can read more easily because the words are larger

Reading isn't a competative sport though, is it?

This aint a matter of getting an advantage.

The planner, mapper and controller should decided what scale the map needs to be at and stick by it, like Culbin. BOF & IOF should then listen to the "expert" advice. It's either complex or not. Everyone on course x should have map scale y.

If you want to know what orienteering in the future will look like, go to Scandi. They've been doing it a lot longer than we have, on a a lot more technical areas. They havn't come up with this chose your scale nonse, or coloured control descriptions.

These quirky nopesport inventions aren't new to the o world because no one has thought of them and British orienteering is actually full of geniuses, it's because they are crap ideas. Sport should be run like a business, top down. You don't get lower league footballers suggesting to the FAthat goals should be a bit wider for people with bad eyesight.

[RJ]

Mharky, I have some sympathy with your argument.....

However, F1 has been tinkering with the 'rules' for years to make the 'sport' fairer. Rugby League and Rugby Union have changed their games out of all recognition over the years.

A sport evolves and changes. Some hardly change at all, others quite a lot. There was a time when orienteering was finding markers on vague features, using coloured crayons to register a visit at the control, and reading 1:20000 black and white maps. Times change, things develop.

Orienteering has been evolving for years. It is clubs that have provided this impetus for change. Some good ideas filter up through the sport and get recognised as 'good' and are adopted. Electronic punching being the most recent.... NWOA and Cumbria led the way! Rules Group, Map Group and Major Events Group settle the rules and guidelines and do a good job. They are just so sllloooooowwww to make changes. They will always be about two years behind the 'thinking' out there in the real world.

Map scales are fixed because not so many years ago a club had to purchase, maybe, 5000 copies of a litho printed map. No scope for getting two or three scales printed at the same time! There has been a change, and we are going to have to assess this change and alter the rules...... because the rules will change.... eventually.

Over the last six months I have run on 1:3000, 1:4000, 1:6000, 1:7500, 1:10000, 1:15000 and 1:25000 maps at different events within Cumbria. The 'orienteering experience' has been good at each of the events..... with different event formats using the different scales. The scale doesn't make any difference! Depending on the nature of the event it is the picture that the map gives that is important. For some areas a scale of 1:7500 gives you the picture of the terrain that gives you the greater 'orienteering experience' and makes the sport enjoyable...... because there is no point in doing it if it is not enjoyable. Struggling to read a map with a magnifier in a dimly lit forest is not what I describe as enjoyable. It is a racing sport..... we left treasure hunting behind years ago, didn't we?

For Graythwaite the planner, organiser, controller and the club all decided to offer the scale choice.... which you suggest Map Group should take on board. LOC are the 'experts' in this case, so why aren't we listening to them. Is it just that some people know better?

[mharky]

I totally agree, I'm well up for silly map scales. I just don't think there should be any choice.

As for the sport development, I go back to my point about Scandi, how many years behind norway were we with electronic punching? We are still years behind those guys. We still don't even know how to organise maps in relays!

[RJ]

...... I go back to my point about Scandi.....

Quite agree. We have a lot to learn.

I just wish that BOF and the various Groups involved in the decision making had just let the Graythwaite event go ahead as it was and then evaluated it afterwards. They could then have made a definitive ruling on the scales issue after the event with 1200+ competitors providing an input. I think it was an issue that would have benefitted from analysis after the event. One event would have made no difference to the standing of the 'national event' structure.

[mharky]

Are is actually in these various map groups and committees?

Do they ever go orienteering?

[graeme]

They could then have made a definitive ruling on the scales issue after the event with 1200+ competitors providing an input.

I would be a really bad event base a definitive ruling on.

The ruling question is "Should areas be mapped at 1:15 or 1:10".

But competitors can't input to that question - there is no 1:15 map. The only question competitors could answer is "given an area mapped at 1:10,000, would you prefer a map printed at 1:10,000 or reduced to 1:15,000". And input would be further complicated
by the litho/laser printing.

Graeme

PS Scale of Edinburgh map this weekend is 1:5000. Unlike last year's 1:5150 or whatever it was

[Gross]

Electronic punching being the most recent.... NWOA and Cumbria led the way!

Bollocks.... Norway & Emit were light years ahead of BOF, NWOA or Cumbria

[RJ]

Bollocks.... Norway & Emit were light years ahead of BOF, NWOA or Cumbria

I stand corrected...... Cumbrian clubs brought SI to the UK.... not the world!