BOF Scottish 6 day map survey

[frog]

I think they've used the wrong word then. If I'm describing terrain as runnable I usually mean that I can run in it. Also the more complex a map is the more you have to concentrate and slow down a bit to read it. If the map is of an open area with a couple of fences you can charge along and disengage your brain, if there are lots of contour lines and crags you have to slow down and concentrate. The map can still be clear and accurate though, and more rapid to orienteer in than a map with less detail that missed half the necessary features out.

[Big Jon]

If ba-ba and kingpenguin want to pass me more specific notes of where exactly their complaints with the map were, I'll make sure I visit them if I'm revising the maps in the future or at least pass their notes to the club mapping officer for their information.

[ba-ba]

someone's already contacted me about the rogue marsh (think they were a controller on day 2) - have given them info

[pete.owens]

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 suspect what they mean was how accurately the runnability was mapped.
ie. if you a chose a a direct route across a white area of the map rather than a longer path run (think of Tentsmuir) only to discover that you were fighting through brashings, then that would indicate a problem with the map.

[EddieH]

I don't believe that is what is meant pete.owens as no other question refers in any way to the quality of the surveying which I don't believe is what this questionnaire is about. I think they mean ability to run and read it at the same time even though that is not what the words mean.

In any case as the question clearly means radically different things to different peole it must invalidate any value to its answer.