Choice of scale at Graythwaite National!!

[greywolf]

http://www.maprunner.co.uk/content/view/61/183/

scroll down for a timeline

seems like decades ago... and i still think DA should've been n/c .. not that i'm bitter or anything

[awk]

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!

You are but one example. However, you imply you'd be happy with a map at the same scale as M21E? If so, there is no problem with your eyesight compared to most over-45s.

I'd be perfectly happy with everybody in the same class having the same scale, as long as it's one that the very substantial majority are able to read. However, I would equally be happy with a choice of scales as long as everybody had access to the same choice: I have no wish to foist my need for a larger scale on others who would rather have a smaller scale map (after all, I would prefer them if I could see them!).

I'd be interested to know what you mean by better maps.

[Oldman]

I'd be interested to know what you mean by better maps.

Less fussy maps. There seems a temptation (especially the larger the scale) to overmap (be worried by large white or orange spaces and/or decide that minor pits, knolls etc need mapped), leading to less legibility, leading to demand from certain unnamed quarters for larger scale maps (or the choice of one).

I have noticed this with particular mappers, have you not?

[awk]

I'd be interested to know what you mean by better maps.

Less fussy maps. There seems a temptation (especially the larger the scale) to overmap (be worried by large white or orange spaces and/or decide that minor pits, knolls etc need mapped), leading to less legibility, leading to demand from certain unnamed quarters for larger scale maps (or the choice of one).

I have noticed this with particular mappers, have you not?

Yes, but not at Culbin or Graythwaite. Bear in mind that the teams for these events included those who have competed and officiated at every level, including World Championships. We're not exactly talking inexpert or inexperienced here, and we're not exactly talking lone mavericks either. On balance, I trust their judgement.

I think we've reached a stage where rather than just telling people to use certain scales, Map Group need to start showing us how to do it. Not just little snippets for a mapping conference, but a full scale demo. Maybe take an area like Graythwaite, and remap it for a major event?

Incidentally, my own choice at Graythwaite would have been 1:10k if offset litho printed. But having run on both laser and offset maps on this area, with laser being used, I would definitely go for 1:7500 for the greener areas. I was happy on 1:10k in the complex white runnable area in the south at a regional event a couple of years ago, but anything with a vegetation screen would have been extremely difficult. If 1:10k had been enforced for the forthcoming event, I simply wouldn't have bothered entering, as my enjoyment and competitiveness would have been (and has been in the past) ruined. I don't want to use larger scales, I much preferred 1:15k when an M21 for most events, but there reaches a point when necessity takes over, and there are no better glasses! I just wish Map Group would recognise this, rather than sticking to the letter of a law that is an ass, not least because it doesn't recognise the technologies currently being used.

[IanD]

I am completely baffled.

I think everybody has the option of running at their "normal" scale, of 1:15000 or 1:10000. Most also have the option of choosing a different scale.

I could understand, if not necessarily agree with, objections to people being forced to compete at the "wrong" scale for their age class.

I cannot however see how being offered a choice of scale is unfair to anyone, provided everyone in the same class has the same choice.

Unless, that is, there is a belief that it is unfair to reduce the advantage enjoyed by people with above average eyesight (for age). I can see some merit to this; after all, few would suggest that the advantage of people with above average fitness should be reduced. However, I would ask that those whose reason for objecting to the choice of enlarged maps is that it will help those with average eyesight have the honesty and integrity to state this openly.

And please don't repeat the canard that a better pair of glasses would solve all eyesight problems.

If there are other objections to being offered a choice, please explain clearly enough for a simpleton like me to understand.

[NeilC]

There could be unfairness if there are differences in the two maps (other than scale) which were not made clear to the competitor before they made their choice. For example if one scale were printed on a laser and the other using spot printing then there might be differences in colour making the distinction between different vegetation types more difficult on one map than the other (for example). Quite rightly we would assume on entering that no such (unfair) differences would exist - if they did though I wouldn't like to be on the Jury.

[mharky]

There could be unfairness if there are differences in the two maps (other than scale) which were not made clear to the competitor before they made their choice

Aye, like when you have a routechoice leg with 2 options, but the map just doesn't show that one of the paths is nice and fast and one of them is knee deeo mud...

[NeilC]

There could be unfairness if there are differences in the two maps (other than scale) which were not made clear to the competitor before they made their choice

Aye, like when you have a routechoice leg with 2 options, but the map just doesn't show that one of the paths is nice and fast and one of them is knee deeo mud...

Yep another good example. Of course the best planners/controllers would have test run both legs and adjusted the leg/map/final details accordingly to minimise any major unfairness.