Map scales

[DM]

Having enjoyed Bigland and Holme Fell, and attended a recent Gallopen, let's compare the experiences WE had as also rans (with exception of eldest sprog).

Bigland and Holme Fell;
Car Parking well organised and prepared for poor weather churning up the field.
Good assembly admittedly with a walk to it.
Appropriate scales and wherever I went on the day, good mapping.
A fair test in which the best rose to the top.
Quick and accurate results and submission of results to BOF system

Muncaster;
Good car parking field, pity about the grumpy welcome on arrival.
Good assembly.
Appropriate scale but really quite dodgy mapping in the early stages, I can't believe all those ditches and streams could have been overlooked, vegetation seemed to have changed a bit as well. Result was a bingo control.
Track running and bog hopping in too many places for my liking.
Results presented using wrong SI database and not (yet) submitted to BOF system.

For us the overall quality of Holme Fell and Bigland was much better and it's the prospect of quality that will help us decide whether to travel to events.

[Red Adder]

The reason BOF needs to wag the dog is that a significant amount of funding comes from the Govt. And the Govt (busy)bodies set significant parts of the agenda. The only way of making BOF fully accountable to the members is to remove the need for Govt funding - which in turn means either significantly increased fees / reduction in services. And of course the membership has to be willing to put in the effort to ensure that BOF does knows what we want, and implements it.

[roadrunner]

The reason BOF needs to wag the dog is that a significant amount of funding comes from the Govt. And the Govt (busy)bodies set significant parts of the agenda. The only way of making BOF fully accountable to the members is to remove the need for Govt funding - which in turn means either significantly increased fees / reduction in services. And of course the membership has to be willing to put in the effort to ensure that BOF does knows what we want, and implements it.

I don't doubt that's true - but I haven't seen any suggestion anywhere that the Govt. wants us all to run on 1:15000 maps

[Red Adder]

But it sets an agenda for control by BOF which spreads from demands for medals and club mark accreditation which the Govt wants in to other areas which the mangers think they should control.

Actually I'm not particularly against more stringent Cat B standards - when the 4th tier came in it seemed almost predicated on the desire from some areas for their pet events to have an extra cache (and premium entry fee). I'm aware of a number of Cat B's that really were no better than Cat Cs with a label and a high fee. So anything that sets standards so that events merit their level could be a good thing

[awk]

So anything that sets standards so that events merit their level could be a good thing

Perhaps - but you need to set standards that are about the quality of the event. Insistence on a set scale is, to my mind, not about quality (i.e. the quality of experience), but about slavishly following rules that may well not be appropriate and were written for different contexts (i.e. IOF rules).

I reiterate the questions I posed in an earlier post: was the standard of the LOC weekend improved by using 1:7.5k enlargements for over-45s? I suspect the majority answer will be a resounding yes. Was the standard of the British Relays improved by BOF insistence that they must use 1:10k. I heard a resounding no from many.

[graeme]

I reiterate the questions I posed in an earlier post.

If it's appropriately mapped for the printing scale, it shouldn't matter. The problem we keep having is map-for-1:10, print-at-1:15. It's interesting to compare Wharncliffe/Greno with the BOC 2003 versions. The new one has about twice as many mapped objects on it: obviously its going to be harder to read at the same scale.

[awk]

If it's appropriately mapped for the printing scale, it shouldn't matter. The problem we keep having is map-for-1:10, print-at-1:15. It's interesting to compare Wharncliffe/Greno with the BOC 2003 versions. The new one has about twice as many mapped objects on it: obviously its going to be harder to read at the same scale.

Whatever the level of complexity, 1:15k line sizes etc are very, very difficult to read at older ages. That is why WMOC uses 1:10k enlargements. I don't know how readable the Wharnecliff map was for the elite, but the 1:10k enlargements were fine from a vet's perspective, at least using offset litho. If the map was OK at 1:15k, then I don't see a problem, and didn't on the day.

Different issue with Tankersley. Drawn for 1:10k, it should have been enlarged to 1:7.5k, especially as it was a laser print. I have no idea whether it was mappable for a 1:15k print, but looking at the map, it doesn't look like it, without losing too much,

[Gnitworp]

I thought Tankersley was a great map, easily readable at 1:10000, however I thought it would have benefited from the use of a 2.5m contour interval since many of the form lines were already almost continuous across the map. An unbroken contour line would be easier to read than a broken one, and the steeper gradients would be correctly emphasised. The need for form lines would be greatly reduced and available for useful additional clarification like showing shallower hill summits. I think (enforced?) slavish adherence to a 5m contour interval is a similar issue to slavish adherence to a 1:15000 etc scale, and doesn't necessarily enhance readabilty.

[RJ]

awk, I think we are agreed that the general rules for map scales and other level A and B guidelines are fine. They seem to work in most cases.

Your attention is on Tankersley. I think I am right in saying that the decision to use 1:10 was made after 1:7500 was requested and rebuffed. I am in sympathy with your argument abour readability, particularly at relays and middle/short distance events. Fast accurate navigation makes the events much greater fun..... but only if the map and course is readable at competition race speed. We need to show at level C that this works really well and give the 'committee/group' the evidence they need to make better decisions.

I found the 1:10 of Tankersley readable while running, but had to use my compass magnifier when any where near the circle. I think it was the course that was the 'complex' part of the problem rather than just the terrain. As you get older your sight does in fact become 'age impaired', some people much more than others. We should be setting the standard fopr the average 'age impairment' not for the extremes..... at either end of the spectrum! We need accurate data from competitors on the general question of scale.... perhaps the guidelines are right!!

[pete.owens]

There seem to be two issues conflated in this thread.

1. That BOF is acting like big brother by dictating map scales at level B events.
2. What scale should O maps be printed at.

To address the first one.
The big brother accusation is entirely unfair. As I remember the campaign, BOF did not seek to have authority over events at this level and indeed campaigned against creating the new level. However, they lost the vote, the new level was created thus the responsibility for specifying the standards was forced on them by the grass roots.

The quality of the map is one of the most significant aspects of the event organisation so it is entirely right that they take an interest in the standards of cartography and printing.

[EriOL]

Holme Fell is (as I understand) mapped at 1:15000 and so can be used at that scale. There are detailed bits and compromises have to be made on the mapping. They seem to manage fine in Sweden, what's the difference here? And if it hadn't been a 1:15000 map I probably wouldn't have seen the route choice I used on the long leg yesterday, let alone seriously considered it as an option.

And the time taken (wasted) on this issue could have been much better spent on the consistent mapping of windblow on the area...

The Swedish Orienteering Federation has been quite successful in enforcing the use of map specifications in the last ten years or so. Nowadays not many competitions are held on maps that are totally out of spec (drawn for 1:10000 with wrong symbol sizes and so on). For swedish mappers generalisation to make the map legible is also second nature. In many places a map like Holme Fell wouldn't be considered very detailed, just normal.

For laserprinted maps, only prints from certified printshops can be used. (Printshops can be certified for 1:10000 or both 1:10000 and 1:15000.) Most of those that are certified are specialized in orienteering maps (some of them are also mappers so they can do the complete product).

I can't believe I wrote so much praise for SOFT. Despite all this mistakes are still made sometimes, even by mappers and printers who should know better, and the debate about maps will probably never die completely.

[EriOL]

I thought Tankersley was a great map, easily readable at 1:10000, however I thought it would have benefited from the use of a 2.5m contour interval since many of the form lines were already almost continuous across the map. An unbroken contour line would be easier to read than a broken one, and the steeper gradients would be correctly emphasised. The need for form lines would be greatly reduced and available for useful additional clarification like showing shallower hill summits. I think (enforced?) slavish adherence to a 5m contour interval is a similar issue to slavish adherence to a 1:15000 etc scale, and doesn't necessarily enhance readabilty.

I had a look at Tankersley and I can't really see the need for a 2.5 meter contour interval. Why would you want even more brown garbage on the map? But I'm not a big fan of 2.5 meter contours in general. As I see it the smallest landform you are allowed to draw on a map is 1 meter regardless the contour interval. With 5 meter contours and careful use of formlines you can almost always draw anything you have need for and you get much less clutter.

Other things that struck me on the Tankersley map (I have never been there, so take everyhing with a grain of salt):

- Vegetation is overmapped. Lots of too small green areas. Seems like individual bushes has been drawn in the forest.

- The natural pit symbol has been used for pits that don't look very natural. My guess is that some of these aren't very distinct or are less than 1 meter in depth. In some complicated areas maybe the broken ground symbol could have been used instead?

- Are index contours really necessary on this map? I mean the specification says you should always use them, but when you disregard so many other things, why bother?

[awk]

[awk, I think we are agreed that the general rules for map scales and other level A and B guidelines are fine. They seem to work in most cases.

Agreed. In particular, I have no problem with the provision of 1:10k when it is an enlargement from the M21's 1:15k, although, as at Holme Fell, I would prefer 1:7.5k in complex areas. Where I have a problem is, if it is deemed that M/W21s need to use 1:10k, then we should be getting an enlargement of that, and that is what is not always happening (there are occasions where they are given a 1:10k because that's the standard scale of the map - that is not what I'm talking about here).

Your attention is on Tankersley.

Only because it is the most recent example.

I found the 1:10 of Tankersley readable while running, but had to use my compass magnifier when any where near the circle.

I managed OK with Tankersley on the south (assembly) side of the road with the same caveat (just as well it wasn't raining!),with one or two minor exceptions. Where there was a real issue was on the north side, where the low light levels made the map pretty much impossible to read for many, not just at a run but even standing still. Most I talked to (and I include some of the best on the course) had to navigate pretty much blind, and resort to simple compass and pacing, 'hoping' to hit the control. That, to my mind, is not what our premier relay should be about.

We need accurate data from competitors on the general question of scale.... perhaps the guidelines are right!!

Well the pretty much unanimous opinion amongst the over-40s in our club tent, was that they weren't in this case.

The natural pit symbol has been used for pits that don't look very natural. My guess is that some of these aren't very distinct or are less than 1 meter in depth.

As you say, you weren't there. The pits/depressions were generally significantly bigger than that, and very distinct. The general feeling was that the map was excellent.
What you are referring to in SOFT isn't the issue here - it's the provision of enlargements, and what enlargements are provided. Last O-ringen I went to, they provided 1:5k for the oldest classes, so they are providing appropriate enlargements beyond what BOF appear to be willing to do. And these were on offset litho printed maps, not lasers.

[Gnitworp]

I had a look at Tankersley and I can't really see the need for a 2.5 meter contour interval. Why would you want even more brown garbage on the map?

I'm not advocating more detail be added, I'm advocating showing the same amount of detail in a more readable manner, after all, a continuous form line right across a map, is (by the ISOM definition) to all intents and purposes, a 2.5m contour.

BTW there is no 'brown garbage' on the Tankersley map.

[pete.owens]

I thought the Tankersly map was pretty clear, but it is fairly obvious that it has been converted from one originally drawn at a larger scale.

I don't think 2.5m contours would have been a very good idea as they would have to be used throughout the map (making it very brown on the steep areas). I think the map would have benefited from some pruning of detail - eg. removing form lines that do pretty much what you would expect from interpolating the contours, deviating contours where this can show shape shown by form lines, replacing small hills by point knolls and small ring depressions by cup symbols, using a contours rather than form lines for small hills, enlarging hills where there is a pit or depression on the top, removing tiny areas of undergrowth.