Graythwaite Start List

[Big Jon]

All new maps that I survey are surveyed at 1:7,500 (as I always have) which can be printed at either 10k or 15k - its up to the clubs......
Modern maps are surveyed to a more detailed level than the old days of the 70's (that BOF map group and IOF seem still to be stuck in) - its what the competitors and planners want and makes the competition fair and interesting. If a club wants an old fashioned map (a la 70's) I can scoot through an area in half the normal time and produce a cheap, nasty map that most competitors will complain about vociferously......

[madmike]

All new maps that I survey are surveyed at 1:7,500 (as I always have) which can be printed at either 10k or 15k - its up to the clubs......
Modern maps are surveyed to a more detailed level than the old days of the 70's (that BOF map group and IOF seem still to be stuck in) - its what the competitors and planners want and makes the competition fair and interesting. If a club wants an old fashioned map (a la 70's) I can scoot through an area in half the normal time and produce a cheap, nasty map that most competitors will complain about vociferously......

whatever you do - some of us will whinge about it

[geomorph]

All new maps that I survey are surveyed at 1:7,500 (as I always have) which can be printed at either 10k or 15k - its up to the clubs......
Modern maps are surveyed to a more detailed level than the old days of the 70's (that BOF map group and IOF seem still to be stuck in) - its what the competitors and planners want and makes the competition fair and interesting. If a club wants an old fashioned map (a la 70's) I can scoot through an area in half the normal time and produce a cheap, nasty map that most competitors will complain about vociferously......

Don't revert. I spent a lot of time comparing old versions of Culbin with the current and love the present result as a map product.

That I have difficulty reading and interpreting dense detail when travelling (at speed ) is not a fault of the well produced map. I need to supply myself with additional tools to see the detail at my comfort level, and I need to hone my skills in using only the relevant detail whilst improving my personal positioning technique (bearing and pacing). I must understand what the map scale limits in terms of distinction between closely adjacent similar features and I must be flexible in my interpretation of map symbol rendition to actual feature.

Oh and if you want an example of how not to... look at the latest OS 1:25k's and the lack of colour contrast twixt roads and access rights boundaries nd dense contours. It makes reading Cublin easy.

[graeme]

Oh and if you want an example of how not to... look at the latest OS 1:25k's

If you think scale is everything, you should try comparing OS 1:25k with the Harveys 1:40k ....

[geomorph]

Oh and if you want an example of how not to... look at the latest OS 1:25k's

If you think scale is everything, you should try comparing OS 1:25k with the Harveys 1:40k ....

Have to plead ignorance re the Harvey maps. I'll check them out separately
My gripe is not with scale but with 'contrast'. OS 1:25k has always been produced with wishy-washy orange-brown colour, but now that same toning is used for access rights, some B and minor roads, and contours, thats just too many similar linears.

[Scott]

Behold! Yet another survey.

[Homer]

How is one supposed to answer question 5 (rate the quality of the map)?

The survey (as you would expect for a Bilbo map) was excellent.
The printing was just about adequate.
The paper was awfull.

Which of the these qualities are they asking about?

[King Penguin]

The survey (as you would expect for a Bilbo map) was excellent.

Curious that this year's map had a distinct lighter corridor between the two big blocks of dark green.
When I checked my JK map from several years ago the dark green joined up.
Based on my use of this "corridor" this year I would say the older map was more accurate at that point.

Apart from that and one control site which on the map was on the wooded side of a white / pale orange boundary yet on the ground I would say was in the pale orange I thought the mapping was very good.

[Homer]

Curious that this year's map had a distinct lighter corridor between the two big blocks of dark green.

I noticed this too. I suspect the latest version was trying to make the best route through the green more obvious than it had been previously.

one control site which on the map was on the wooded side of a white / pale orange boundary yet on the ground I would say was in the pale orange

I also got a bit confused at one point where a felled area was bigger on the ground than on the map.
I guess the map is now over ten years old and the vegetation is always going to be the first thing to get out of date. However, as I remember being taught many years ago (by Geof Peck?); contours are for navigation, vegetation for route choice.
I therefore stick by my assertion that the survey was excellent, the map being let down by the printing and the paper.

[seabird]

Curious that this year's map had a distinct lighter corridor between the two big blocks of dark green.

I noticed this too. I suspect the latest version was trying to make the best route through the green more obvious than it had been previously.

Also encountered this - but failing to follow Homer's dictum "contours are for navigation, vegetation for route choice" drifted into the grot of the eastern dark green.

[Scott]

I stick to what I said earlier - the "dark green" is in need of a remap, as none of the bits into which I took a couple of merry detours could be described as "barely passable", and a fair bit of it now seems to be significantly more runnable than the "white" forest near the start. Plus there's actually some unmapped (and usable) contour/rock detail in there. But still, I wouldn't have gone wrong if I'd just used my compass rather than attempting to navigate off indistinct veg boundaries .