Focus

[Mrs H]

well apart from roaring with laughter at the caption that read "Emily Benham will be hoping to repeat her international success"(with not much help from BOF)!

I was absolutely transfixed by the item next to it about a sprint map of the Eden Project - please please please please can we have an event there - perhaps on an evening after it was closed to the public - what about at next year's JK? - or whenever - in the delpths of winter - in the dark - whatever it takes - i would travel just if it was a stand alone event

[Scott]

a sprint map of the Eden Project - please please please please can we have an event there

Last I heard, KERNO were working on it gradually . No promises, though.

[Angry Haggis]

The OS statement in the most recent Focus is interesting - it says:

...they are claiming their copyright on
virtually all orienteering maps. Obviously
maps drawn directly from OS material are
included but also other maps based on
photogrametric plots (set up using spot
heights) and even those with national
grid references are covered under the
heading “derived data”. This means
that all these maps should include the
statement “Based on the Ordnance
Survey Mapping with the permission of
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown
Copyright licence No. 100015287.”

(emphasis added)

This is interesting - the OS is claiming copyright on a map simply because it includes a national grid reference? Maybe we should start quoting latitude/longitude on such maps instead.

[greywolf]

Focus hasn't arrived here yet - please stop posting spoilers

[Mrs H]

sorry Greywolf ....but I'v just come in from a very pleasant post jog hour on the swing seat and read Focus pretty much from cover to cover and a couple of things make me wonder at the BOF internal communications system.

First of all Mike Hamilton clearly states in his article that old district events should be reassigned at level two in the new system - which is what we all thought would happen as per the working group's recommendations but not according to the BOF event guidelines - is this a U turn?

......and then there is a fulsome report from the ranking working party explaining their thinking which is of course at odds with the recently published development committee's minutes - which of these two reports are we meant to take as pointing the way to the future of the now very over due unified ranking list?

[Angry Haggis]

Focus hasn't arrived here yet - please stop posting spoilers

Same here - but you can read it online at: http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/focus.php

[roadrunner]

The OS statement in the most recent Focus is interesting - it says:

...they are claiming their copyright on
virtually all orienteering maps. Obviously
maps drawn directly from OS material are
included but also other maps based on
photogrametric plots (set up using spot
heights) and even those with national
grid references are covered under the
heading “derived data”. This means
that all these maps should include the
statement “Based on the Ordnance
Survey Mapping with the permission of
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown
Copyright licence No. 100015287.”

(emphasis added)

This is interesting - the OS is claiming copyright on a map simply because it includes a national grid reference? Maybe we should start quoting latitude/longitude on such maps instead.

Interesting indeed. I guess if OS data (like spot heights) were used then they have a case, but I can't see how use of a grid reference gives them any claim over a map, since grid references map directly onto latitude and longitude, and the conversion algorithm is public (indeed, the OS allow you to download it for free and incorporate it in your own programs).

[Snail]

I can't see how use of a grid reference gives them any claim over a map

Well in a strict sense I can, because a grid reference is by definition based on OS data.

But enforcing it is surely shooting themselves in the foot. We could use latitude & longitude or postcodes on maps to show roughly where they are, and to navigate to (within signposting range of) an event. But grid references, even with non-OS based maps, might actually encourage us to use OS maps to see where they are and to navigate to them!

[Snail]

Mike Hamilton clearly states in his article that old district events should be reassigned at level two in the new system

But later, on p26, Rules Group reiterate that level two events require Grade 2 controllers (with no indication of any thought being given to reallocate / redefine existing controllers grades to fit with the new system).

[awk]

First of all Mike Hamilton clearly states in his article that old district events should be reassigned at level two in the new system - which is what we all thought would happen as per the working group's recommendations but not according to the BOF event guidelines - is this a U turn?

As I understand it from our fixtures secretary - yes!
Actually, it was never (as far as I can recall) our intention for all district events to map on to L2 - it was expected that smaller ones would/could still map on to L3. But on the whole the intention was that in general terms they would, and that they could then be used for a single list ranking scheme, unless the organiser wanted to opt out, or the events didn't really fit in (e.g. relays, score etc).

But Snail has a very good point. Whilst BO are stuck on the idea of a G2 controller being required, then the whole system will clog up. Which is why we came to the conclusion that either the grades would need rejigging, or that G3s should be used (with G2s being used for some of the bigger ones), but we weren't qualified to decide. The whole thing is back to front: the controller system needs tailoring to the structure NOT forcing the structure to fit into the controller system. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

If what Snail says is true (I haven't checked yet), then I believe Rules Group have got it completely wrong. Simple as that.

[EddieH]

AWK I agree.

On those grounds alone our committee decided that Moray Mix would not be a level 2 event, and it seems unlikely to me that we would ever consider bothering with the level again. We are a geographically remote club and the grade 2 controllers in our region are heavily worked.

[RanaldMacdonald]

AWK and EddieH have a point and Events Committee decided last Saturday that there should be a more flexible approach to controllers and embargoes for Level 2 events until at least the end of 2010.

As Barry writes in the latest Focus "it is the competitive element that drives the requirement for a Grade 2 Controller". So, if an event is also a competition such as a non-Level 1 Regional Championship, FCC Final, Home Internationals or Harvester, Regions will probably wish to impose an embargo and require a Grade 2 Controller. It is then up to the Club to reach agreement with the Region as to what will actually happen. The focus should be on on ensuring that an event is of the appropriate quality and standard for the level of competition. Not that other Level 2 events will be any less competitive for many, particularly if they are seeking ranking points, and they still need to be controlled at the appropriate level to ensure fairness and standards of courses.

In our discussion reference was also made to the Rules, including:

1.5.2 Competitors shall not seek to obtain any unfair advantage over other competitors.

and it is in this spirit that embargoes should be applied.

Finally, a plea not to dissect what I have written as it comes from my rough notes rather than the agreed minutes as I just want to get some clarification into the thread. Others may correct my interpretation ...

Does that help?

[Mrs H]

Well not really - it almost seems like a third set of very subjective (flexible) parameters are being introduced by the events committee - which may only be temporary - so why bother? I think event organisers/planners/controllers will be even more confused by this and as I asked before - who are we meant to believe is pointing the way forward? - Mike Hamilton, the Development Committee, the New Event Structure Working Party, the Ranking Working Group - and now the Events Committee (as you have mentioned level 2 events and ranking points in one sentence) - because they all seem to be pointing in different directions.

[geomorph]

The OS statement in the most recent Focus is interesting - it says:

...they are claiming their copyright on virtually all orienteering maps. Obviously
maps drawn directly from OS material are included but also other maps based on
photogrametric plots (set up using spot heights) and even those with national
grid references are covered under theheading “derived data”.

This means that all these maps should include the statement “Based on the Ordnance
Survey Mapping with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown
Copyright licence No. 100015287.”

(emphasis added)

This is interesting - the OS is claiming copyright on a map simply because it includes a national grid reference? Maybe we should start quoting latitude/longitude on such maps instead.

Interesting indeed. I guess if OS data (like spot heights) were used then they have a case, but I can't see how use of a grid reference gives them any claim over a map, since grid references map directly onto latitude and longitude, and the conversion algorithm is public (indeed, the OS allow you to download it for free and incorporate it in your own programs).

I understand that HMG has a revenue shortfall this year for some reason or another and OS has been asked to do its bit to fill the coffers. They'll probably find some esoterica that justifies similar demands in GPS-based map systems and navigators, enforce the build in of a usage signal/messageand bill you direct

[Red Adder]

You could avoid the OS copyright if you use compass and wheel to do the survey - it is possible for quite a large area (6 sq km) in EA flat forestry commission rectangular plantation - just a lot of work. I've done it so I know - and achieved accuracy of around 99% over 3km when we compared it to OS maps later.

Nowadays I use aerial photos freely available on the net fitted to a grid triangulated using google earth (the measuring feature now gives both distance and angle) to produce my base maps. Since the closure on the triangles I create is to with 0.1 % I think it is accurate enough. It also depends on the APs being reasonably up-to-date - cue asking freiends when exactly did they build the extension / chop the trees etc.
I don't know if google and the satellite sites use OS data in preparation of their photos - I assume yes and quote an appropriate licence.