Mapping Training in 2010

[Paul T]

The "MBE thread" (RIP) did inspire me to get hold of a copy of the Harvey book - Mapmaking for Orienteers. It was a struggle. There aren't many copies around.

Several things struck me. Of course several chapters have been almost completely overtaken by technology. The incredibly detailed descriptions of cartography by pen & ink or by scribing are no longer needed, thankfully. As we click and drag, import this or export that, perhaps get a bit frustrated with some of OCAD's quirks and so on, its just a massive relief that we are not having to cope with all that scribing. Its amazing that any maps were created at all. The book does mention the 'new' OCAD3.
It also includes long descriptions of symbol definitions, dimensions, etc which are now readily available on-line in ISOM and ISSOM.

However the book also has some timeless chapters describing the fundamentals of what an orienteering map should be, the survey process and techniques, selection and generalisation, use of contours etc. They seem just as relevant now as when they were written. Perhaps they are even more important now that it is much easier to acquire the tools and skills to do the cartography, without necessarily having the corresponding surveying skills.
Like many people I can usually tell a good map that's easy to use from the other sort, but without being able to put my finger on why. Reading these chapters helps to understand that. I thought the ideas were well articulated and illustrated, and that it would be a great service to mapping in general for that information to be widely available again.

Then I saw a piece in the December Focus about training for mappers in 2010, and even some sort of accreditation/registration if I read it correctly.
Does anyone know anything more about that?
What are the essentials for training orienteering mappers?
Is 'sprint' a different mapping discipline?
Science or art?
Born with, or learned?
Discuss.

There. That should start something

[Gnitworp]

Science or art?

Since absolutely unequivocal communication is the objective, Science; requiring 'the perfect map' produced with unlimited time using the criteria outlined in Robin Harvey's book. We dream on.

[graeme]

ISSOM - science
ISOM - art

[madmike]

neither black nor white but infinite shades of grey

I offer scientific art

[Big Jon]

I agree with Graeme - ISSOM - things are either there or not. ISOM - vegetation blends imperceptibly from white to light green to mid green, ground shapes are often impossible to show as they are (2d picture of 3d model), cliffs - where to start on the sloping rock face etc etc etc. ISOM mapping (dare I call it "real" mapping?) is where the challenge is and it doesn't matter how many courses a person goes on - if they can't "see" the contours that will show the landform in front of them then they'kll never make a good artistic map.

[graeme]

Nice we agree! "Real" mapping is an important distinction - people are getting a reputation for being good mappers just based on ISSOM maps. I have no idea how you guys work the contours to look right in all directions.

they'll never make a good artistic map.

Though I'm looking at a Corstorphine Hill map from the early eighties, and thinking maybe never is too strong...

I have some questions: I was going to start a new thread, but here seems as good as any because they address the art/science issue.

1/ What is a contour interval?
2/ Should a crag be on a contour?
3/ Is a large depression a point feature?
4/ Can you have an undergrowth screen in light green forest?

To expand:

1/ Some early maps had contour interval "about 5m". The artists use contours to pick out every feature: but a rigid 5m interval would surely miss some.

2/ Similar to 1. A 5m contour has only 20% chance of cutting a 1m crag. But on most maps they do. Do artists move the crag, or bring the contour downhill?

3/ Never thought about this until (after) BOC at Woolbeding. I had no idea what three brown lines meeting meant, but later I realised if you think of the large depression a point feature, and the contour as where the ground would have been if they hadn't dug the hole, its quite OK. Opposite to 2/ artists seem to move the contours to miss depressions.
Actually, I did know what it meant - it meant follow Clive Hallett 'cos he'll find the control anyway. Worked a treat.

4/ Hardly ever see this, but why not?

[Big Jon]

1-Contour interval - it is the average gap between contours, but the contour should be moved to show the ground shape more clearly to an orienteer. After all an orienteer doesn't see a line at an exact height in the terrain because contours are a man made construct, he or she sees a series of ground shapes of varying size, complexity and clarity. Using exact 5m intervals for contours will not help in ground interpretation.
2-Crags - I feel they look better on a contour - they are by definition a steeper part of the slope than normal so the eye is drawn to them in the forest and from a cartographic point of view they look better on contours rather than floating in white paper.
3-Large depression - they are not point features, they have shape and are drawn with a line to show their actual shape and appearance rather than a conventional symbol (eg "U" shaped depression and "V" shaped pit). Stopping a contour to allow a large oval depression is dreadful use of contours - the contours don't stop simply because a depression occurs.
4-According to ISOM the answer is no - so "legally" no. However I believe there are situations where it should be used. An example would be young slow run pine plantation, all roughly the same tree type and thickness, some with clear ground and some with deep heather. Using light green and mid green conveys less information then light green with green stripes as the latter uses different symbols for the tree thickness and the undergrowth. I think I saw a sample print of the ISOM before it was finalised that had this option, shame it wasn't adopted in the final symbol set.

[mappingmum]

Mapping = Surveying + cartography [simplified]

Most of the principles being discussed here are cartographic.

[madmike]

So Mappingmum is surveying science and cartography art then?

[mappingmum]

Ahhh Mike! I had actually typed:

Carto is more an art than a science
Survey is more a science than an art

But then decided such generalisations needed more thought before committing to screen and I have work to do!

[graeme]

I knew I'd forget one.

5/ When/why do you put tags on crags.

[seabird]

I can recall running to a line of tagless crags thinking they were a path through a bracken strewn area. Could avoiding any such confusions be a consideration?

[Ed]

Personally I'd say put tags on when there's enough space to do so without obscuring other detail and at least one of the following
(i) it's otherwise hard to interpret in which direction the crag is facing (e.g. in spur-gully or moraine type terrain with lots of small ups and downs - if it's in the middle of a big slope then it should be obvious)
(ii) the crag could be mistaken for something else (path if a line of short crag symbols, forest road if a long crag, etc.)
(iii) it's a big enough crag that it deserves a bit of emphasis

(personal opinion from a very occasional mapper)

[seabird]

As another occasional mapper, I prefer tags - but can see the need not to use them if visual clarity is required, particularly if the area has a wealth of rock features.

I prefer tagged and tagless not to be mixed on the same map, other than to emphasise particularly dangerous crags with both the bolder symbol and the tags.

[mharky]

I've seen French map which had a lot of crags and other rock detail which address the tag problem. Paths/Tracks were drawn in a distinguishable dark grey. It worked quite well.

This is similar to MTBO maps, where only paths/tracks should be mapped in black and rock / man-made stuff should be drawn in dark grey... not that many maps I have seen actually do this, but it's in the IOF specifications