WRE MAP SCALES

[Gross]

Just got a letter from the IOF indicating that some WRE's have not been keeping to the correct map scale as per the rules (not the terrain) and that in future if the scale etc does not meet IOF specifications & no rule deviation has been applied then the IOF EA will get his / her butt kicked.........

[Gnitworp]

There's a tug-of-war going on here: 1:10000 that better accommodates consistent and legible terrain representation versus 1:15000 that better facilitates long-leg route choice assessment and paper size limitation: not a contest that's ever going to be easily resolved.

Perhaps IOF should pay heed to the reason they're having to 'kick butts' so often.

[EddieH]

It seems a nonsense to me. 1:15000 in the most complex Slovenian terrain 1:10000 at Friston Forest. The former illegible and the latter I could probably read without my contacts (and I can't read anything smaller than newspaper headlines without).

Maybe they'd say that the former is not suited for long distance, nor the latter for middle (probably true in this case).

[andy]

I've never understood this argument. Have a list of acceptable scales that planners/controllers can choose what best suits the terrain, common sense prevails, everyone wins.

[graeme]

1:15000 in the most complex Slovenian terrain

Would be absolutely fine. I had a perfectly delightful run on the 1:25 map they gave us at OOcup. (Obviously just shrinking the 1:10000 map wouldn't work.

It would be a different type of orienteering from the "stop, get out magnifier, take bearing, accurately hit the mapped 1.1m rock among 0.9m rocks" we enjoyed this year.
There are plenty of things in the woods big enough to conceal kites, but most of the stuff on the maps doesn't help you get from A to B.

certainly better than Friston ...

[Big Jon]

Map scale fundamentalists in IOF have a lot to answer for!

[pete.owens]

There's a tug-of-war going on here: 1:10000 that better accommodates consistent and legible terrain representation versus 1:15000 that better facilitates long-leg route choice assessment and paper size limitation: not a contest that's ever going to be easily resolved.

There is absolutely no difference whatsoever in terms of terrain representation on a 1:10000 or a 1:15000 map. The former is just a straight enlargement of the latter - the cartography is identical.

[Gnitworp]

......which can become illegible at 1:15000.

Incidentally, the 1:15000 line thickness specification has been used at 1:10000 scale to good advantage in the past

[SJC]

There is absolutely no difference whatsoever in terms of terrain representation on a 1:10000 or a 1:15000 map. The former is just a straight enlargement of the latter - the cartography is identical.

Not necessarily so.
An area can be surveyed differently depending on what the intended map scale is.
This is particularly true if the 1:10,000 map is printed using 1:15,000 scale symbols.
Totally illegal, but often producing a very good map in terrain sufficiently detailed that it cannot be accurately shown at 1:15,000.

[AndyC]

and (I understand) mappers sometimes slightly move objects (on the map not the ground) for clarity. With the greater space of 1:10,000 compared with 1:15,000 I'm sure they'd want to adjust again to balance accuracy with clarity.