Control Descriptions Poll

[mharky]

I'd be interested to see a scan of a map that you weren't a fan of, with regards to whether the person setting the position of the numbers did all they could to maximise readability. Sometimes people don't move the numbers from where OCAD or whatever originally places them.

And Fatty Boom Boom only spent 2 minutes, it shows that it can be used even in British style relays.

On another note, overprint where there is ~0.3mm white around the outside of the purple control number makes a big difference sometimes.

[tbc]

No it doesn't - there's plenty of detail obscured (and plenty of the numbers difficult to read, especially given the light conditions that existed in that particular area).

I completely disagree that detail is obscured, perhaps you could give an example to explain your point?

I agree that some of the numbers are difficult to read but this can be avoided with a little more time spent on it.

Okay so potentially some courses could be unsuitable for this format due to control density or some other reason (although I have yet to see an example). But surely we can rely on the common sense of the planner in these rare cases to say we are not including codes on the map due to whatever reason. It should be the norm in events and the exception when codes are not on the map.

[awk]

And Fatty Boom Boom only spent 2 minutes

.
Totally accept that - partly why I made the comment about more care being needed.

I completely disagree that detail is obscured, perhaps you could give an example to explain your point?

4-34: what's going on under the numbers if you marginally overshoot?
5-35: again, what's going on under the overprint if you marginally overshoot?
9-39: again (less of an issue, but still too close)
11-41: overprint covers approach line if you stray to the south of the red line.

That's in addition to the numbers that are difficult to read. This is an unfortunate example, as the map was almost impossible to read anyway under the canopy at the scale the planners were forced to use. The purple on top of the brown would have simply made matters worse.

I'm sure they are sortable, and, as I said, I would certainly see this system as a step forward for relays, but I don't think it was a good example to prove a case.

I'd be interested to see a scan of a map that you weren't a fan of, with regards to whether the person setting the position of the numbers did all they could to maximise readability. Sometimes people don't move the numbers from where OCAD or whatever originally places them.

I don't keep all my maps going back those number of years, but I'll try and have a trawl through the stacks of boxes. To the most part, I just didn't see them as adding anything to what was available description-wise (relays being an exception), just another piece of work /something to go wrong. But I do agree about the importance of positioning. As I said, if it's an adjunct to loose descriptions (individual) or map based ones (relays), then I'm not against, just not a fan. If a replacement, then, yes I am against, but I don't think that's what you'r suggesting anyway.

[Street]

I would like to respectfully disagree with the fact that the detail is obscured. Yes it could be better but the detail that you would need should you miss the control is perfectly readable (highlighted in red)

[awk]

I would like to respectfully disagree with the fact that the detail is obscured. Yes it could be better but the detail that you would need should you miss the control is perfectly readable (highlighted in red)

All this is fine if you're into window orienteering. I'm not. I don't use odd patches broken up by bits of purple printing - I use the whole map and the relationship of features to each other (especially if trying to relocate!). That sort of information is obscured by the overprinting, as is the equally important question of whether there is anything parallel that is actually under the overprint (not unknown). And we're not doing this in the comfort of the armchair, but in a race in a forest where the canopy and scale is already making the map difficult to even see, let alone read.

[tbc]

fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think it is still clear what is going on under the numbers but let's move on from that as most people seem to be in agreement that it will be an improvement and at least worthwhile giving it a go. So how do we get this to actually happen?

[AndyO]

I've done codes on the map before, and did find it difficult to place codes on the map in a way that they can be linked with the particular control and at the same time be readable. It just needs care, though, and it can be done, and I'd like to see it tried more.

For loose CDs in relays, can they be provided for each course, and include all gaffles to show, eg control 1, control 2, then 3 options for control 3 according to gaffle? can this be done in Condes?

[seabird]

If control codes on the map was adopted (and I am in favour for relays) 2 digit control codes are a real bonus. Even with just the control number to display a lot of care is frequently required to locate it so it is readable to all, and does not obscure important map detail. The more purple the harder that task.

We have to recognise that a many of the areas we use here are more constrained in size than Scandinavian areas, which could impact on this proposal being practical ( although you can't get much smaller than Hugset).

[Snail]

I'm in favour of codes and decriptions on the map, for both individual and relays. (But that needs 4 votes!). And no loose descriptions at all.

I rarely need to use the description for every control, so the occasional unfolding needed isn't a problem. But always check codes so having them on the map is an advantage. To reduce clutter / confusion on the map we could revert to 2-letter codes, which used to be common, rather than 3-numeral codes that now seem to be fairly ubiquitous.

No loose descriptions also simplifies organising / planning / controlling, and removes the risk of them being incorrect / mixed up by competitors / running out.

I understand that seeing pictorial descrptions in advance is helpful for novices, but this could be addressed by having a single list displayed at the start of the descriptions likely to be encountered on the easier courses.

But if we keep loose descriptions please don't print them on waterproof paper - or have perforated sections on waterproof maps. Where loose descriptions are used there are always some left in the terrain after an event, so make them as biodegradable as possible.

[madmike]

Snail agree with everything you say but the no loose descriptions bit - for me (and i suspect many others) loose descriptions are an important part of orienteering technique: therefore, we cannot, should not, must not, get rid of them unless thereis an electronic reusable replacement - or something along those lines. No if we keep........ about it.

Good point about biodegradable btw.