Graythwaite Start List

[SJC]

i.e. Please can you explain why the map scale must be consistent when it is surely better for everyone to be able to choose the scale best suited to their eyesight.

Lots of words about different course lengths, the sport becoming a hobby, etc. but still no explanation as to why, once the technology allows it, that if everyone runs the same course they shouldn't be allowed to choose their own map scale.

[ruth]

Wow, i really do have to spell it out in simple terms don't I...

because your eye sight is part of who you are, just as many other factors are (what i was getting at with the leg length) and if you evened out every single aspect of your physiology that makes you different from the next guy it wouldn't be a competition at all (but just a hobby as was my point).

[mharky]

SCJ>>>

In orienteering the map is what provides the challenge. OK, so the course is set out in the terrain, but what we rely on to navigate this course and make all our decisions is the map. It is very obvious why people like larger scales; it's easier to read. The mapper/planner/organiser/BOF/IOF make the decisions about what is a suitable scale. For Graythwaite this is clearly 15,000 for senior (not veteran) competitors. There is however no doubt that the 10,000 would provide a clearer image that the satisfactory 15k, similarly, 1:5000 would be clearer still, and 1:1 even clearer than that. If there is a choice people may opt for the larger scale because they know it will be more readable, this gives them an advantage. An unfair advantage. Either the map is usable at 1:15k (which it has been every other time it's been used) or it is not. the organisers should make the decision and provide the maps, rather than allowing people to make tactical decisions of map-scale.

I don't understand this whole "bad eyesight" argument. I have bad eye-sight, I'm near enough blind, so I wear corrective lenses. This gives me the super-power of corrected sight so I can read 1:15,000. If there are people out there with poor eyesight who don't wear glasses or contacts then that is just a bit stupid.

Another thing, maps are drawn at a specific scale with specific symbol sets. You can't just print a map at any scale. Much of the detail might be vectorised, but much of it might not.

[andy]

I don't understand this whole "bad eyesight" argument. I have bad eye-sight, I'm near enough blind, so I wear corrective lenses. This gives me the super-power of corrected sight so I can read 1:15,000. If there are people out there with poor eyesight who don't wear glasses or contacts then that is just a bit stupid.

I think you might find some older people disagree with you there, there are factors other than mere short/long sightedness (or so my mum and dad keep telling me when they can't read my 1:15k maps!)

edit: but then that's why those classes get 1:10k, so you're right really. suck it up and run with what you're given. everyone can struggle to read fine detail why trying to move fast through thick forest, get a map and practice it if you're worried you'll struggle in a race

[SJC]

If there is a choice people may opt for the larger scale because they know it will be more readable, this gives them an advantage. An unfair advantage.

It is not an unfair advantage if evryone gets the choice, and at some point there is a trade off between clarity of the map and the ability to see the route on the map. People will choose the scale they are most happy with.

Another thing, maps are drawn at a specific scale with specific symbol sets. You can't just print a map at any scale. Much of the detail might be vectorised, but much of it might not.

This may be true today, but in five years time won't be a problem.

Still nobody seems to be able to answer the question as to why, if everyone is given the same choice, having different map scales is in any way "unfair".

[ruth]

Still nobody seems to be able to answer the question as to why, if everyone is given the same choice, having different map scales is in any way "unfair".

no. everyone is answering your question but you think that our answers are wrong. that is different.

[Oldman]

I support the view put forward by ruth viz. that your eyesight is just another part of who you are and does not deserve special teatment. Having long legs does not mean that you should be able request course legs planned through heather. Or that as you age (and I know this only too well!), your flexibility decreases (and at different rates for different people), so you should be able to request no steep up or down slopes.

I also agree with seabird's point (if I've understood it correctly) that the same map scale should be used for everyone, even if it's non-standard.

[PKJ]

On the one hand, we have an excellent area & courses, a big car-park/assembly field across the road from the finish - a great advert for orienteering.
(I only wish I could go back next week and run it properly)
On the other hand we have a load of squabbling about map-scales and event status - aaagh - here's a foot, take aim, fire!

But, I'm pleased to read that the organisers didn't really want to offer runners a map-scale choice. Surely we don't want yet more complexity around events?
One scale for everyone in the class is fine by me - even if it isn't the ideal one for my eyesight.

[andy]

This may be true today, but in five years time won't be a problem.

Have you got any more info on this, or are you speculating?

Given my experience of printing anything at events in the last few years I never want to even try printing anything more than results / start lists again. It'd have to be some pretty amazing (and cheap) technology to sway me.

[graeme]

Some of you are in for a nasty surprise when you get older...

The point of an orienteering map is to help you navigate. There's a balance between clearer detail, a manageable piece of paper and seeing the "big picture". And the scale should be the ideal balance. If there's an "advantage" one way or another, then the mapper/planner/organiser/BOF/IOF have screwed up. People like to complain, so if there's an equal balance between those preferring a bigger scale and those preferring
smaller then the mapper/planner/organiser/BOF/IOF have it right: but at the moment the clamour seems consistent.

It's interesting to understand why this is: I think three things have drifted in teh last 10 years to make 1:10000 a preferred scale. First, the aging demographic, second poorer print quality (laser vs offset), third a tendency to overmap, compounded by remapping which always adds and never removes.

For organisational reasons, I don't think we can expect bespoke scales. But it's surely no more unfair to be given a large scale than it is to use a magnifier or contact lenses. And sure, eyesight is part of what you are, just like shoesize. It doesn't mean it would be fairer if we all had to wear size 8s.

WRT Graythwaite...

Either the map is usable at 1:15k (which it has been every other time it's been used)

Wrong.

I believe the original map was surveyed at 1:10000 for the and BOF/IOF/controllers agreed to use that scale because it wasn't legible at 1:15. It hasn't been simplified since.

or it is not.

Wrong. Whether it is legible also depends on whether its offset printed or laserprinted.

[distracted]

I think Graeme has summarised things up pretty nicely there, especially with regard to the main issue - the standards of mapping. There are very few areas in the UK that are overly complex to make a 1:15 map out of the question. If you're surveying for a 1:10 map, you're most likely overmapping the area from the start, and hence the call for the 1:7500 enlargement... in a few years we'll all be running around the forest with tablecloths

In answer to the earlier question "Why is it unfair if everyone is given the choice?"

The competitor is then making a judgement based on what he/she thinks is correct. There is no way of doing a direct and fair comparison out in the terrain on the course using both maps, so how do you know if your choice was the best for you, that it made you equal to your peers in the eyesight stakes, that it gave you the advantage that you thought it would?

You cannot fairly correct for the variability of the human body by providing a choice. By not providing a choice, there cannot be any arguments that people were advantaged/disadvantaged by this choice.

[greywolf]

The mapper/planner/organiser/BOF/IOF make the decisions about what is a suitable scale.

Yes...but the problems start when they don't all agree...

I thought my 1:7,500 very readable - except for the very light green, which i could hardly see at all - was that my old eyes, the bright day, the laser printing or the horrible shiny paper?

One other idle query, what's the minimum separation between controls? there were 2 on the NW edge (176 & 155?) which seemed rather close

Mind you I was only there for a jog around in the sunshine (which was just as well given that my course took rather longer than Scafell Pike the day before...) and I thought it was a fun event - as PKJ says the happy sociable car park was a good ad for the sport.

[awk]

Can only agree with what graeme wrote, particularly about printing standards. I personally think that a 1:10k offset litho enlargement of Graythwaite would have been OK, but 1:7.5k would probably have been better as it was more inclusive. Given that it was laser printed, anything less than 1:7.5k was unlikely to be acceptable.

Like mharky, my eyesight is appalling, 8+ dioptres out, with astigmatism etc thrown in. Like mharky, for many years this wasn't a problem as glasses/lenses corrected that problem (lenses not as well as glasses, but good enough). As an M21 I distinctly preferred 1:15000 maps; indeed I was well used to running on 1:20k (see WOC76 maps of Darnaway, which we all used happily - so never mind those wusses thinking it must be 1:15k - it's only the current standard!). With the onset of the ageing issue, I now struggle to see them even standing still or sitting at the kitchen table. I can cope with 1:10k/7.5k with all sorts of juggling acts discussed with my optician (fortunately a keen and knowledgeable sports specialist). As Graeme says, some people are going to get an awful shock. BTW it's because we want to do it as a sport, not a hobby, that we're fighting for the larger scales.

There is one very good additional reason for enlarging maps. if you don't, you will gradually lose more and more over-45s, for whom the running sport they so enjoy is no longer possible. The vast bulk of your volunteers are over-45........

If I couldn't run and navigate, I wouldn't carry on - it's no longer the sport I enjoy, and I'm not prepared to be told by a rule-bound pedant that 1:15k or 1:10k is the 'right' scale. I agree about overmapping, but given that hasn't happened, these are still not necessarily the 'right' scales this info is printed at. The 'right' scale is the one where a race can be decided based on navigation/fitness skills, the essence of the sport, not on whose eyesight has managed to avoid ageing the longest; we are talking the vets classes here after all!! I don't care whether someone else has a bigger or smaller scale than me - good luck to them. I'm still racing based on the same information. I'd much rather be able to read that information at 1:15k - it's easier to see the overall shape of what's going on, route choice decisions are easier to spot, etc etc. - but that's not possible, so I'm prepared to accept the less optimal scale of 1:10k or 1:7.5k in order to still compete. As an M21, I would have often (and did) regard it as a disadvantage running on 1:10k, so don't start telling me that it's gaining "an advantage"; it's not, it's simply the lesser of two evils.

If you want to stop that, you can. But don't expect any of us to help you, because we won't be around to do it!!!! Don't forget, we are not talking about a minority here, we are talking about the vast majority of people being affected. This is not a 'special need' or special pleading - it's the norm, and any sport that ignores the needs of the majority hasn't got much of a future.

[Scott]

One other idle query, what's the minimum separation between controls? there were 2 on the NW edge (176 & 155?) which seemed rather close

6.2.3 Controls should not be sited within 30 metres of each other. (See Appendix B for guidance.)
6.2.4 Controls within 60 metres of each other should not be positioned on similar features or on features that appear similar in the terrain. (See Appendix B for guidance.)

Note that it's a "should", not a "shall" - section 3.7 of Appendix B discusses the issue at some length:

If you are going to infringe either limit, you will need a good reason
which you are able to justify to competitors... There is usually little point in putting controls closer than 30m apart – competitors are, in effect, navigating to the same point.

I personally thought the two controls in question (155 was boulder, 1m, N side; I'm guessing 176 was a reentrant) seemed to be a bit close together (they were also clearly visible from each other), and so I double-checked my control codes. And then, being a slightly boring man who had already been out for far too long, and anticipating the complaints on Nopesport if anyone mispunched, I paced the distance between the two kites, which I reckoned to be 14m.

[Scott]

A quick scan of the results reveals one runner (on M21L) was DSQed for punching 176 instead of 155; there were a further seven people across all courses who punched initially 176 for 155 before correcting their mistake, and two who punched 155 before 176. Which does suggest that they may have been a tad too close.