Sprint map enlargement?

[PG]

Reading the Urban League Thread I see these quotes after the Filey event

however, I asked many of the older competitors and they said it was ok for them as they always carry magnifiers! The detail was not as fine as that on my JK sprint map!

Had my first look at the JK sprint map this past weekend - found the path/flowerbed detail around the buildings almost unreadable even when stood still.

my one comment about the course etc (aside from it being a great event) was that I had a fair bit of difficulty reading the map at detailed points, e.g. around 3 and 4, and on the approach to 2 (I forgot to put it on my routegadget route, but I stopped dead for 10 seconds or so on my way to 2 to read the approach under a very high magnification, just because I couldn't see any of the detail otherwise).

Filey wasn’t a sprint event, so I’ve started a new thread.

Rules for sprint events include:

The Sprint profile is high speed. It tests the athletes’ ability to read and translate the map in complex environments, and to plan and carry out route choices running at high speed.

........

The map scale is 1:4000 or 1:5000. It is crucial that the map is correct and possible to interpret at high speed.

My 63-year old eyes had great difficulty at both British and JK sprints and I lost time at both due to failure to interpret the map correctly. Needing to use a magnifier might be OK for an urban league event, but is not compatible with the aim of sprint racing.

Can anyone explain why it is assumed that once we get to 45 our eyes will need some help with standard orienteering maps, but that we don’t seem to have the possibility of providing an enlarged version of map (and symbols) for sprint maps? Doing this at level A events (enlargements to 1:3000 or 1:4000?) wouldn't add a vast amount to the costs.

[Gnitworp]

Can anyone explain why it is assumed that once we get to 45 our eyes will need some help with standard orienteering maps, but that we don’t seem to have the possibility of providing an enlarged version of map (and symbols) for sprint maps? Doing this at level A events (enlargements to 1:3000 or 1:4000?) wouldn't add a vast amount to the costs.

The logical extension of providing 1:10000 and 1:7500 maps for Vets, I'd have thought.

I actually think 1:3000 should be a third available IOF standard scale for sprint maps, not just as an enlargement for Vets.

[yted]

I've always wondered why it is that, out of the many physical impairments that afflict us as we get older, orienteering rules cater for one of the possible problems with eyesight. I can see the map ok but my long distance vision is weak but no one provides me with bigger kites while my rivals with good long vision but weaker short vision get 1:10,000 maps (I'm happy with 1:15). Similarly, no one provides an escalator up the hills or helpers to aid me over rocky ground...... so why is there help for one section of BO members but not others? A weakness in short vision should be the competitors problem to solve (carry a magnifier) just as I solve my physical problems myself.

[keever]

I've always wondered why it is that, out of the many physical impairments that afflict us as we get older, orienteering rules cater for one of the possible problems with eyesight. I can see the map ok but my long distance vision is weak but no one provides me with bigger kites while my rivals with good long vision but weaker short vision get 1:10,000 maps (I'm happy with 1:15). Similarly, no one provides an escalator up the hills or helpers to aid me over rocky ground...... so why is there help for one section of BO members but not others? A weakness in short vision should be the competitors problem to solve (carry a magnifier) just as I solve my physical problems myself.

So you want to get rid of a large section of the orienteering community and give yourself a better chance of winning?

I'm only 21 and have no problems reading maps but would like to think that when I get older, and my eyesight inevitably deteriorates, that I will still be able to participate (compete) and so will my competition.

You seem to suggest that by giving an enlarged map scale to an entire age group you will somehow be put at a disadvantage.

You fail to mention that courses for older people are significantly shorter (and winning times are shorter), but I must assume that you think everyone should run the same course with no consideration for older people. After all surely it's people's own responsibility to solve their physical problems.

[seabird]

Having run on plenty of A3 sized urban maps at 1:4000, I really don't want a larger piece of paper. Neither do I want just a section of the map with my course confined within those limits.

I know when I have to peer a little bit harder at highly detailed areas, that most of my peers (fellows) are doing the same, so the competition is not radically affected. I wear glasses; some use magnifiers; some still have good eyesight; we have different tools to help overcome the effects of our ageing.

[Gnitworp]

Orienteering is a test of navigation using a map, not a test of who has the best eyesight. If you can do it on a larger scale map, you can do it, end of argument. If you like small scale maps, lets make them 1:50000 so we all have to carry microscopes.
Maps for all should be at the largest scale possible compatible with other important considerations such as paper size and ease of long leg route assessment. I think we're fixated on rigid IOF requirements probably to the sport's detriment.

[graeme]

Sometimes we seem to forget that it's meant to be fun. Running in terrain is fun. Finding controls is fun. Reading the map is fun. Pinpunching and copying master maps are not fun, which is why we got rid of them once technology allowed. Bushwhacking through grot is not fun either, so even though some people are better at it than others we try to avoid it.

Focussing on the map is not fun. I hope that technology will consign illegible maps to the dustbin of history, alongside control cards and master maps. e.g. by blowing up the map around each control an an inset.

In the meantime I look forward to my BEOC run: I couldn't turn down the physical and navigational challenge of a proper length course on Wharnecliffe set by possibly our top domestic classic runner. I just hope I wont be undone by the minutes lost wandering around in unreadable quarries.

(Is there an old map online somewhere? Maybe I can bring a legible version with me )

[JennyJ]

set by possibly our top domestic classic runner

I'm assuming you just missed an s off the end there by mistake?!

[Spookster]

In the meantime I look forward to my BEOC run: I couldn't turn down the physical and navigational challenge of a proper length course on Wharnecliffe set by possibly our top domestic classic runners. I just hope I wont be undone by the minutes lost wandering around in unreadable quarries.

(Is there an old map online somewhere? Maybe I can bring a legible version with me )

Yes, here's a previous map

I've seen the new map and the litho printing looks excellent. There are plenty of very small features on the 1:15000 map though - good luck Graeme

[pete.owens]

The scale is not the issue - it is the size of the symbols that matters in terms of what over 40s can focus on. The reason for changing the scale of 1:15000 maps to 1:10000 is purely side effect of using a larger symbol set. However, when we move to larger scale maps 1:7500, 1:5000... we don't enlarge the symbols any further so there is no advantage in terms of readability; the larger scale tends to be used to include more fine detail.

The size of most symbols used on sprint maps (other than the special ones which tend to be very clunky to make uncrossable things very obvious) is exactly the same as for 1:10000 maps. ie the map already has been drawn to a standard suitable for older eyes. We use the same symbols for 1:5000 and 1:4000 and would do for 1:2500, 1:1000 or whatever scale was used.

The problems with legibility of sprint maps (as with other O maps) usually comes down to cartography, most commonly insufficient gaps between objects. The solution is to draw the map according to the standards - this may mean simplification or local distortion in order to achieve clarity. While a straight photo-enlargement of a poorly drawn map would make it easier to read, this is not what would be achieved by specifying a larger scale, as the cartographer would simply use the extra space to cram in more detail.

[EddieH]

I think your missing the point pete.owens.

It is not the actual scale that PG was bringing up. It is the fact that older competitors have been recommended a blown up map scale in standard orienteering - 1:15000 printed at 1:10000 and 1:10000 maps at 1:7500.

Where is the logic in doing this but not doing the same thing for ISSOM maps?

You are of course quite right that mappers tend to increase the detail as the survey scale increases and this point often gets missed by the movers for ever larger scales. However the issue here is that whatever scale is adopted for the standard map, an enlargement should be considered for older competitors.

[graeme]

...
's spouse
...

[Mrs H]

Ooooo there's patronising

To counter yted's argument that catering for this one condition is unfair, apparently Presbyopia (for that is what the damn thing is called) affects everyone to some extent as they get older - even short sighted people - which is a bit of a bummer isn't it?

......and in any case all the other age-related conditions are effectively dealt with by offering shorter courses.

[EddieH]

I had assumed that yted was being ironic. Providing escalators is hardly practical and would seriously alter the nature of the sport.

Mind you Wellington NZ had a score event which included bus timetables

[Mrs H]

I used an escalator in the London race two years ago and a lift at Eden Project