BOF Scottish 6 day map survey

[EddieH]

What is the reasoning behind BOF Scottish 6 day map survey?

Why are we asked about the paper quality fo 6 different events which all used the same paper?

Ditto regarding printing quality?

[greywolf]

but no questions about the survey / cartography... (before Jon M duffs me up i'd better say i'm not suggesting there were big problems with these, just that i would've thought they'd've asked)

[EddieH]

Well I did wonder if it was a typical case of focusing on minor matters whilst ignoring the most important - the survey. However I reserve my judgement on this until I get an answer to the purpose of the survey.

[distracted]

What are questions 2 and 4 asking if they're not about survey/cartography? Surely clarity and level of detail are indicative of this - generalisation/overmapping etc.

[Duncan]

In answer to Eddie's question, maybe it is because the standard of paper and / or printing quality required can depend on the level of detail on the map, and the scale to be printed at. So whilst cheap paper and laser printing might be acceptable on a day on a less technical area printed at 1:10,000, you might need top-quality paper and litho offset on a day on a technical area to be printed at 1:15,000 (just hypothetical examples - I know no-one ever had 1:15 at the 6-days this year).

I agree that questions 2 and 4 adequately cover cartography.

But they don't cover survey, which in my mind is about whether the map was actually "correct" as opposed to whether it was easy to read and aesthetically pleasing.

[greywolf]

What are questions 2 and 4 asking if they're not about survey/cartography? Surely clarity and level of detail are indicative of this - generalisation/overmapping etc.

well yes they are part of the story - but this doesn't cover key questions, e.g. about "objective" accuracy - was everything mapped in the correct place? or about the mapper's subjective choice of symbols - e.g. extent of "open with scattered trees" or "undergrowth"?, or more formal cartographic concerns such as map design.

[PMG]

A bit of a loaded survey in my opion round the debate of map scales with missing questions, in particular influence of map scales on "O" technique. I found it unhelpful to run different map scales. Not an excuse for serious brain fade on Barry Buddon either!

It will not be much use unless some some proper analysis is completed of the answers. The LOC survey results lacked this in my opinion and was just a list of answers.

Peter

[Jon X]

I know no-one ever had 1:15 at the 6-days this year

spot the elite who couldn't be bothered with a long drive for a long race in the pouring rain on day three

[graeme]

But they don't cover survey, which in my mind is about whether the map was actually "correct"

True. But what can BOF-central actually do about that? Demand that the 6-day find some better mappers

Not much point wasting our time on providing them data they can't use.

I didn't think it was loaded either - I didn't think any of the questions were particularly leading. The only problem with this sort of survey is that people tend to just answer the question "Did you like the map?" multiple times.

My only query was about distinct trees (Loch Ordie, Barry Buddon). These were often the most distinctive feature. Some purists would leave them off to make navigation more challenging (I disagree, but I understand the point). But, having decided to map them, why use the almost-invisible "forest" white on light yellow, rather than the, um, distinctive tree symbol?

[ba-ba]

the only gripe I had was when I found possibly the biggest marsh ever (it was pretty much a pond covered in reeds) on Day 2 which somehow wasn't on the map!
Still, meant my shoes got a wash

[King Penguin]

... and my only gripe was an unmapped cliff in a control circle on day 3 which was bigger than the cliff the control was on ! I should have had the confidence to stick with my conviction I was in the right place, but didn't.

[King Penguin]

I have finally got round to actually completing the survey, and like others I am not impressed by the questions asked. I do not think this particular survey does anything at all to further the debate or decision-making on map scales which should be used. There's no option to add additional comments, and no question about the quality, accuracy or appropriateness of the mapplng itself.
To me the over-riding principle should be to consider and use whatever scales are most appropriate for the intricacy of the area in question, taking into account variations required for age and experience. The extent to which the detail is mapped should be appropriate for the intricacy of the area and the scales to be used.
I do not agree with suggestions that "elites should always run on 1:15,000" or "others should always have 1:10,000", for example.

[Gross]

Was it an orienteer or someone from BOF Office who put the survey together????

[frog]

I got unstuck at question 1. To me the clarity and runnability of the map are 2 completely different things. You can have a clear map that's in an area with lots of brashings so you can hardly run at all and a vague map with dodgy vegetation boundaries in runnable parkland. Am I misinterpreting this question?
I thought the day 1 map was pretty clear, just not that runnable. That isn't a mapping issue, it's a nature of Scottish forest issue.

[distracted]

I would imagine in this case 'runnability' is nothing to do with the physical nature of the area (ask yourself why should that matter for this survey?) and instead is pointing at the ease of reading the map on the run - which is going to be linked to the map clarity.