Graythwaite Start List

[madmike]

I'm really enjoying this debate - but I am a bit confused

Is it the map scale or the map scale choice that people are arguing about - they are two very different subjects.

Mrs H are you trying to add clarity to a debate on Nopesport? Suppose we could try it for a change!

Seriously though my argument has always been about map scales (but I welcome the choice). The last 3 years where Long-Suffering-Girlfriend (LSG) has been a 45 and I've been a 40 has brough the difference between 1:15 and 1:10 into focus when comparing runs post-event. Events like Croeso, BOC on Pwll Du, JK this year all left my flabber well and truely ghasted when I saw the clarity of LSG's map cf mine (and for Mharkey I struggled with 1:15 maps in technical areas when I was a 21 so it's not just an oldies problem here).

[seabird]

I think we are arguing about both and more.

The two points are not incompatable. Only one map scale but a generous scale if the map is detailed seems to the main consensus emerging if I am reading the posts right (at least amongst the older competitors.)

I think laser v. offset quality is also another important theme emerging.

i think paper quality is also an issue. Glossy over matt. I chose 1:10000 over 1:7500 not because my eyesight is great, (it isn't) but because I know with an A4 size map I can use it folded gently with no sharp edges so no print loss - a particular potential disaster in a detailed area.

The larger 1:7500 maps I have seen from the event have all had sharp folds and lost areas of print.

Like Andy, I have thoroughly enjoyed watching the long leg route choices on the longer courses. Haven't seen quite so much variety of choice in a long while. Has thoroughly made up for my own miserable run.

[Gonzo]

Not just laser v offset.

Laser quality varies.
Offset quality varies.
Paper quality varies.

On the whole, the main professional digital printers produce very acceptable maps as long as the areas suit digital printing. Some of the fringe or club printers have problems particularly with colours and keeping the toner actually on the paper! But you pays your money etc.
Some digital prints seem to handle fine contour detail much better than others.

Offset printing can be either 4 colour process i.e. made up from cyan, magenta, yellow and black just like a laser printer (although perhaps a bit more accurate) or from spot colours i.e. brown, blue, yellow, green, black and purple. That gives the best reproduction (but is more expensive) as e.g. a brown contour line is not made up of dots from different colours.
Cost is the problem and also turnaround time. Someone made a comment about what the cost of about 20-30 offset maps would be - I guess somewhere £200+ from past experience (long past!) so laser must win with these quantities.

The glossy paper is very 'hard' and so I think the toner must sit on the surface. That means it is almost certainly going to crack if folded. The softer materials like Pretex and normal papers probably absorb slightly and so cracking is less of an issue. Without wishing to re-start a previous thread on this - why do people use the glossy stuff?
It is disliked by most people I have spoken to - it is not environmentally friendly - it is expensive (I think).

There have been many different points of view about scales but, given that many people will not know in advance what an area is going to be like it seems to me that the planner/controller should decide what is best as they know the area, know the map, and know where the courses are going to take the competitors. You cannot apply a one size fits all ruling that cannot be varied on a local basis.

Finally on Graythwaite - as I stood in the start lane and looked at the two scales on offer I regretted my decision to go for 1:10,000 as the 1:7,500 was vastly clearer to me. I was so tempted to take the wrong map but felt that would have been rather unfair to the last starter on a 1:7,500!!

[graeme]

It seems map scale choice isn't something we can resolve, so its good to hear opinions.

Some people think good eyesight is a crucial aspect of an orienteer, like fitness and should be rewarded.

Others think it should be ameliorated where possible, like shoe size or sloppy pin-punching technique.

I'm certainly in the second camp, I think choice of scale is perfectly fair but I don't think its important enough to force on organisers.

But I've always thought debating map scale is completely missing the point. The point is really legibililty. So here's a Gedankenexperiment...

Cheapskate OC decide they can charge £3 less for their annual big event if they use someone's laser printer rather than lithoprinting. But the print quality is poor and they find the maps are now unreadable at 1:15000 (or even the mharky-friendly 1:12500). So they use a blow-up to printer-friendly A4-scale, (say this comes out at 1:7500) which restores legibility.

Is this...
a) An excellent way to keep costs down
b) A matter for the organising club
c) Unacceptable for a level 2 event

[Homer]

Do you mean Level 1 event? BOF obviously think so.

Another question regarding Graythwaite:
Why isn't Oli Johnson the M21 Northern Champion? He beat Ed Nash and he's a member of a northern club.

[mharky]

B

[roadrunner]

I don't remember there being a massive fuss at the JK04 or BOC99, so obviously the 1:15000 was acceptable.

Could this be because the average age of competitors has got older, and hence their eyesight degraded, since then? I had a 1:10000 map for BOC99 (as an M45), looking back at it now it's very detailed but also very clear - but then again, it wasn't laser printed. I didn't do the event this time so can't see how it compares against the new map.

[Wayward-O]

The modern waterproof papers are quite expensive. Could it be cheaper to get a good quality map on A4 rather than a so-so lazer print on A3, due to the scales used?

[greywolf]

The modern waterproof papers are quite expensive. Could it be cheaper to get a good quality map on A4 rather than a so-so lazer print on A3, due to the scales used?

No, don't think so - no doubt it varies from printer to printer but main issue with offset vs laser cost is numbers, the former is very expensive for small quantities. (Quotes for a recent event suggested litho would be c. 5 times the laser price). Nor does laser printers + waterproof paper necessarily = poor quality - despite being a v. technical and complex area I heard no complaints about map legibility...

Although I understand the reasons for the map scale choice at Graythwaite I can't believe that it's a sensible idea for general adoption, quite apart from the issue of whether it makes competition unfair, it creates (completely unnecessary) extra work for planners, organisers, start teams etc, and provides another opportunity for things to go wrong...

[D,J,J&Ms Dad]

No, don't think so - no doubt it varies from printer to printer but main issue with offset vs laser cost is numbers, the former is very expensive for small quantities. (Quotes for a recent event suggested litho would be c. 5 times the laser price). Nor does laser printers + waterproof paper necessarily = poor quality - despite being a v. technical and complex area I heard no complaints about map legibility...

If anyone has any concerns about whether an area will look OK digitally printed, or even idle curiosity, then I am happy to produce a printed sample on Pretex material foc if they email the OCAD file to me alan(at)print5.co.uk.

[Homer]

So, what have we learnt from the Graythwaite 'experiment'?

Firstly, specific to Graythwaite, the facts:
1. The map was originally surveyed for the 1998 World Cup. It was field-worked at (i assume) 1:5,000 to be printed at 1:10,000. I also assume the IOF sanctioned the use of a 1:10,000 map as opposed to a 1:15,000 map for that race.
2. Since 1998 the area has been used a number of times, but prior to last weekend, the only time the map had been printed at 1:15,000 was for the elite classic races at JK2004.
Now some supposition:
1. The area has never been re-fieldworked at 1:7,500 for a map to be printed at 1:15,000.
2. Therefore I assume the JK2004 map was a scaled down version of the 1:10,000 map. I have no idea whether any modification to symbol sizes, etc was done (I don't have a copy of the 1:15,000 map).

Based on the above, I believe Map Group should have sanctioned the use of 1:10,000 (and 1:7,500 for M/W45+) at last weekend's event. In not doing so, in effect they were asking that the area be re-surveyed to produce a usable map at 1:15,000. I think that would be considered unreasonable by most people.

The above argument applies specifically to Graythwaite, where an earlier decision meant that the area had already been mapped at 1:10,000. If there was no existing map of the area then the decision may well have been different.

I believe that the argument in this thread has been about the legibility of the map rather than the scale. In my opinion this is more to do with the method of printing than the scale. I don't have a strong view on what scale is suitable for Graythwaite, but I do feel that Level 1 events should have the highest quality of map possible. In terms of printing I was of the opinion that this meant offset lithoprinting. However those with more technical knowledge than me may put me right on this. We (or, more specifically, Map Group)somehow need to specify the best possible standard of printing (and paper) and then this requirement should be compulsory for all Level 1 events.

If this becomes the norm as a result of Graythwaite, then I applaude LOC for their 'experiment'.

[EddieH]

Good summary Homer. Another farce like the 1:15000 BOC at Pwll Du a couple of years ago.

I do accept that the concern about overmapping is real, and that 1:15000 is a suitable scale for most elite long races. However when a map has not been surveyed to that spec it helps noone to insist it is printed at such.

[graeme]

I've run seven the last 10 BEOCs...

Four on 1:10000 maps specially reduced to be hard to read...
High Dam, Penhale, Graythwaite, Pwll Du

Two on 1:10000...
Culbin, Lossie

And only one real 1:15000 map (maybe so we could see the three way contour junctions?)
Furnace Wood & Woolbeding

I missed Magilligan and Newborough, so I don't know, and planned Loch Vaa (proper, legible offset-printed 1:15000)

So how many new maps are being surveyed for 1:15000 nowadays? I can't think of any in Scotland...

[mharky]

Is that maybe to do with the fact that there are no new large areas being surveyed today? If the map isn't too large at 1:10,000 (A4/A3) then maybe that is why they aint being mapped at 1:15,000

[DJM]

homer wrote

I also assume the IOF sanctioned the use of a 1:10,000 map as opposed to a 1:15,000 map for that race.

I'm pretty sure the IOF did not sanction the use and insisted on 1:15000 (as specified by ISOM) as for all other WOC/WCup Long races. The event went ahead with 1:10000 despite this requirement ...