COURSE PLANNING GUIDELINES

[Gross]

New from the IOF...

http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uplo ... Events.pdf

[madmike]

New from the IOF...

http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uplo ... Events.pdf

fabulous - thanks Gross very timely!

[graeme]

Some oddities in there. The first example of sprint on an ISOM map? Details on planning qualification races for WOC? And nothing on sprint relay, which is really where planners are working things out for themselves.

[DJM]

Although it doesn't say so specifically, it's meant to be a living document and will be updated periodically. Sprint Relay is high on the list for inclusion, but only after some more experience has been gained.

And the first example of a Sprint course is on an ISSOM map. At least that's what Stirling Surveys were commissioned to produce! Don't forget that a previous version of ISSOM was current in 2005 ... and what makes you (graeme) think it was ISOM anyway?

[AndyC]

Two things got me "The course planner should be fully acquainted with the terrain before he or she plans to use any control or leg" -I for one learn about the terrain by producing experimental legs (and courses) trying them and experiencing what does and doesn't work. Some of those legs might survive the development process (and some won't) and I will find the grot!.
And what is this about mapping (for middle) at 1:15,000 and expanding to 1;10,000 -what's wrong with asking the mapper to produce the best (most usuable) map he can at 1:10,000 - if he chooses to initially map at 1:5000 or any other scale it doesn't matter it's the final map that counts isn't it?
As one thing I'll say about Thrunton Woods (BOC) is that some of it will have been mapped at a very large scale by one of the mappers and presented at the requested scale to the planner et al. He will have much more detail on his master map so if the planner asks for a particular feature to be added he will already have measured it.

[DJM]

And what is this about mapping (for middle) at 1:15,000 and expanding to 1;10,000

It's what ISOM says you must do!

[AndyC]

And what is this about mapping (for middle) at 1:15,000 and expanding to 1;10,000

It's what ISOM says you must do!

Ok I'll rephrase my question "Why does it say that"?
and logic tells me that because the symbols are bigger than the object mappers have to sometimes slightly displace them for clarity (or stop them overlapping) if you do that at 15k and then straight expand they would be significantly in the wrong place compared to a proper 1:10k map - yes?

[andypat]

Some oddities in there. The first example of sprint on an ISOM map?

They've gone the opposite way from you with the buildings Graeme

[bewildered]

I rather like this phraseology!

women’s course as challenging as the men’s (quite often the women suffer from being too short and thus not fitting into the concept)

[Gnitworp]

It's what ISOM says you must do!

More fool ISOM

[graeme]

significantly in the wrong place compared to a proper 1:10k map - yes?

Nope. The symbols and minimum gaps are all larger on a proper 1:10000 map, so that us old people can read the damn things. So although two pits may end up 10m in the wrong place, it's the same 10m regardless of map scale.

Unless you think "proper" means "unreadable by over 50s".

[Gnitworp]

It's what ISOM says you must do!

More fool ISOM

I'll elaborate. I've always thought there are often distinct advantages in using standard (1:15000) line and gap widths for a 1:10000 map and I have used it to very good effect in the past (when I believe it was 'legal'). You can often better represent detailed terrain whilst maintaining legibility equivalent to 1:15000 scale maps. For instance a small depression that can only be shown clearly with a U symbol at 1:15000 can now be shown with a ring contour and tag much more graphically to exact plan scale at 1:10000. There is no logical reason why an equivalent density of detail using the thinner (1:15000) lines shouldn't be used at 1:10000 for middle races with the advantage that complex detail is more graphically, consistently and understandable represented. Enlarging for Veterans is a different issue. The 'thin line' 1:10000 maps can always be enlarged to 1:7500 for them.

Simple enlargement to 1:10000 seems to me to be not capitalising on the cartographic advantages afforded by the larger scale. ISOM/ISSOM inconsistently does not stipulate that further incremental scale enlargements (for sprint etc) are accompanied by a proportionate increases in line thicknesses.

[AndyC]

significantly in the wrong place compared to a proper 1:10k map - yes?

Nope. The symbols and minimum gaps are all larger on a proper 1:10000 map, so that us old people can read the damn things. So although two pits may end up 10m in the wrong place, it's the same 10m regardless of map scale.

Unless you think "proper" means "unreadable by over 50s".

Given my eyesight is nearly as much a handicap as my fitness - I mean "proper" as in clearest for ANYONE

[Nimby]

The link has changed from the Original Post. It's now
http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Guidelines-for-Course-Planning-World-Class-Events_v2.pdf

[usuallylast]

I rather like this phraseology!

women’s course as challenging as the men’s (quite often the women suffer from being too short and thus not fitting into the concept)

certainly true for me!