Map scales

[RS]

As you know, juniors up to the age of 16 and seniors over the age of 45
normally use 1:10,000 scale maps, other age classes normally using 1:15,000 scale maps. However, as you know, Holme Fell is a very intricate area and therefore we decided to provide 1:7,500 scale maps for the younger juniors and older seniors and 1:10,000 scale maps for the other age classes, except for the elites, who had to use 1:15,000 scale maps.

From next year, planners and controllers will not be able to choose which map scales to use at Level B events. Any proposal to use larger scale maps will have to be approved nationally by British Orienteering, so we are really keen to know whether you support the decision we took for this event or whether you would have preferred to use a smaller scale map.

The above is taken from an email received today from Holme Fell planners. (Incidentally, I totally agree with their choice of scale). What bothers me is the beginning of the second paragraph:

" From next year, planners and controllers will not be able to choose which map scales to use at Level B events. Any proposal to use larger scale maps will have to be approved nationally by British Orienteering,"

Big Brother at work again or am I being unfair?

[andypat]

Being the devil's advocate a bit, I suppose that some sort of consistency is useful both in giving competitors an idea of what to expect at a level B event, and also possibly in ensuring that appropriate areas are chosen for level B events.

[Freefall]

There is of course a difference between British Orienteering and the Map Group. Note that "Authority is delegated to the Map Group by Events Committee for all matters related to mapping across the Federation; the Group will align its work to the vision, values and strategic objectives as determined by the Board". Possible hearsay, but there have allegedly been instances where the Map Group seems to have taken decisions against the vision, values etc of the Board. JK Day 2 this year?

[awk]

What bothers me is the beginning of the second paragraph:
" From next year, planners and controllers will not be able to choose which map scales to use at Level B events. Any proposal to use larger scale maps will have to be approved nationally by British Orienteering,"

Bothers me too. Andypat (as devil's advocate) suggests it might be useful to have consistency about what to expect from a Level B event......ironic that this was almost an inevitable fallout from wanting to instigating a fourth tier of event that had some sort of national status, rather than having a system where quality was defined locally and was part of the marketing, and that the drivers of this survey were members of the group who wanted this four tier structure. You reap what you sow

Having said that, I am in total sympathy with this latest issue, but haven't seen this rule in the offing - can anybody point to where it's stated? Certainly something I will be asking my club to look at - there was pretty much unanimous agreement in the club tent at the British Relays that BO's insistence on 1:10k overruling the wants of the organisers was wrong (again!!), and there was a lot of high level experience in that tent! For me the only blight on an otherwise outstanding weekend.

Having seen the 1:15k and 1:10k maps of Holme Fell, I was very glad of 1:7.5k.

[Scott]

Perhaps it's the rules about enlargements for older competitors (ie. how much bigger and at what age you get it) that need looking at? For my (relatively) young eyes, 1:15000 (with litho printing) was perfectly legible for Holme Fell yesterday; I certainly would not have wanted 1:10000 - can you imagine trying to plan a long leg diagonally across a piece of A3 paper? I think I can speak for a reasonable number of 21s in saying that we wouldn't want an unnecessarily enlarged map forced upon us either.

Ditto the British Relays: whatever we got (1:10000?) was fine for me, and I have to admit that I didn't even realise that there had been an issue.

[Spookster]

" From next year, planners and controllers will not be able to choose which map scales to use at Level B events. Any proposal to use larger scale maps will have to be approved nationally by British Orienteering,"

Big Brother at work again or am I being unfair?

Well, you're quoting from an email (survey) written by someone who clearly has an opinion on the matter.

Present Rules Appendix H:Mapping (July 2010) says:
2.2.1 Approval to vary any of the British Orienteering or IOF specifications or details in this Appendix must be obtained in good time from the Map Group.
and
2.3.1 The following scales and symbol sizes must be used for National (Level1) events.
Enlargements may be provided for classes M/W16- and M/W45+ subject to the planners and controllers agreement.

I haven't seen next year's rules, but I assume it just replaces Level 1 with A and B.

So we're back to the question of what Level B really is...

For my (relatively) young eyes, 1:15000 (with litho printing) was perfectly legible for Holme Fell yesterday; I certainly would not have wanted 1:10000 - can you imagine trying to plan a long leg diagonally across a piece of A3 paper? I think I can speak for a reasonable number of 21s in saying that we wouldn't want an unnecessarily enlarged map forced upon us either.

Even with 43 year old eyes, I was quite happy with 1:15 litho printed for M21E on Holme Fell. With a larger map I'd have been worried about it getting blown out of my hands in yesterday's wind...

[EddieH]

I liked the scale yesterday, although I had completely forgotten that I was running on 1:7500 during the event. However I'd have coped okay with a 1:10000, and if the larger area of map I'd have thus got would have changed the planner's courses I might have preferred that - I don't know. I enjoyed my course but the size of the mapped area was maybe a bit limiting on the planner.

I had intended to enter the men's selection, but decided against this when I realised it would be 1:15000. Seeing the map I'd have struggled a bit but coped. how well I'd have coped with the physicality of it I never found out .

[awk]

Even with 43 year old eyes, I was quite happy with 1:15 litho printed for M21E on Holme Fell.

Just about to happen then! The last year or two of M40s were when I moved from being a 1:15 aficionado to preferring, indeed needing, enlargements; several M/w40s in their last couple of years commented that they really struggled at the British with the 1:15 map, offset litho or not. Looking at the 1:15 map yesterday, it would have been nigh on impossible for me to use, and one or two older competitors who ran on it commented exactly that to me. I would much prefer 1:15 if I could see it, but it just doesn't happen anymore.

Yesterday's map was difficult at 1:10, but would probably have been OK if offset lithoed (Wharnecliff was fine, but Tankersley, a laser print, was not), but how many level B events are going to use that??

[Nottinghamshire outlaw]

Not sure I want the enlarged scale forced on me - I found it difficult to see the whole of the long legs (OK we don't usually get 'long legs' at W60 but the ones we had didn't fit with the way I like to fold the map) and I found that the enlargement pulled out the contour shapes so that they were not as obvious as on to 1:10k from the 2004 National event.

[AndyC]

Blatant Plug Warning.
I've been asked to plan on a new NATO area of Druridge Bay (down the coast from where the mapper successfully planned the BSOC a couple of years ago- I paid my dues planning the training day and then parking cars on the day itself). Which is virtually all sand dunes (there isn't a tree mapped). Adrian has mapped at 1:7500 and it needs it because of the wealth of detail - trying to plan on an early draft at 1:10,000 meant great areas disappeared in brown squiggles. Simplification in this case could well mean confusion as there are a lot of features per hectare.
To add to that I've decided to take a blow up at 1:2500 of one of the parts with me on my next planning trip to help me understand which feature is exactly which (after all the planner has to know that he is right -or at leat the Controller does) but then you'll have a flag to help.
We've agreed that the junior courses will be at 1:5000 simply because that makes sense.
Strange shape to the area 3.5k long but 200m wide -relocation makes sense if you run E or W but then the challenge will be how far have I travelled N-S?

3rd July -see you therehttp://www.newcastleorienteering.org.uk/flyer/dby.html

[Gnitworp]

What's the contour interval?

[RJ]

Andypat (as devil's advocate) suggests it might be useful to have consistency about what to expect from a Level B event......ironic that this was almost an inevitable fallout from wanting to instigating a fourth tier of event that had some sort of national status, rather than having a system where quality was defined locally and was part of the marketing, and that the drivers of this survey were members of the group who wanted this four tier structure. You reap what you sow

Go on.... have a dig!

Level A events are International. Level B events are really championship level. They should (are!) be planned for the WINNER, for the best person in the age class. They should represent the best quality that the 'region' has to offer. There should be no compromises if at all possible. Maps and courses should present the very best test of skill for the competitors attending. No compromises should be made to cater for the also ran who can't read maps at a particular scale.

BOF and the various Groups and Committees set the standard that the sport should be using at these levels..... A and B. Why compromise the standards?

There are plenty of level C events where the same areas can be used; where the same planners can plan just as good courses; where you can have any scale you wish, to cater for the visually impaired; where you can have shorter courses to lessen the pain.

Once again we are trying to cater for all ages, all abilities and all and sundry in our level B events. No.... if you can't cope..... tough!! Just a thought!!!!

[Mrs H]

Mmmm put that way.... Level B events are getting less and less attractive aren't they? Both from the competitor's point of view and from the club putting them on. Given that most of us fall into the "also ran" category and do it because we want to enjoy ourselves why pay a fortune and travel a long way to run on a map we can't read? Unless you're one of these poor sods who feel you have something to prove that is.

Numbers will fall and clubs will realise they are better off putting their efforts into low key events. And as for level A - after reading the BOF contract I should think they will become the ultimate poisoned chalice.

[SJC]

Level B events are getting less and less attractive aren't they?

Judging by the entries to the level B events used for the Masters Cup this doesn't seem to be the case.

And as for level A - after reading the BOF contract I should think they will become the ultimate poisoned chalice.

Agreed. There doesn't seem to be any reason why a club would take these on any more. You do all the work and take the blame for the ever increasing entry fees. BOF take all the profits.

[Mrs H]

Yes I nearly added a caveat about the Masters' cup - it's been the only thing to keep me interested - what would have happened without it?