Map Scales at 2014 BOF AGM

[RichT]

Lakeland have been in discussion with British Orienteering concerning the provision of larger map scales in detailed areas at Level A & B events. A range of options has been discussed without an agreement being reached over middle ground.

Consequently a Proposal has been submitted to be put to the 2014 BOF AGM (in six weeks time at the JK) to change who is responsible for determining the map scales to be used at major events. The full proposal and supporting statement can be found on the Lakeland website at http://www.lakeland-orienteering.org.uk ... m-proposal.

In simplistic terms it is not about allowing mappers to put more detail on a map, but rather replacing a small scale map which necessitates the carrying of a magnifier with an enlarged scale of the same map.

As a signatory to the proposal I would hope that it will gain support amongst my peers.

But I think it is just as important to ensure that all club members are aware that this Proposal will shortly be coming out with the AGM papers, that club members can discuss it amongst themselves, and are sufficiently engaged with the debate to cast a vote (by proxy or at the meeting) one way or the other.

Best wishes
Richard Tiley
Lakeland Chair

[DJM]

18 days on and (until now) there has not been a single reply to Richard Tiley's post. Perhaps it's not the hot topic that some think after all?

BOF AGM papers have just been published on the BOF website and I see that Proposal 4 is entitled "Map scales at Level A and B events". The supporting statement for the proposal is well-known as clubs have been circulated, nopesport readers have been alerted to it via RichT's post and a major CompassSport article has been devoted to it too. Not nearly so well promoted has been the case against the proposal ...

... the AGM booklet also contains a response to the proposal originating from the Events and Competitions Committee. This includes the following extract:

We understand that events may sometimes need to be flexible in their choice of map scale. The Events and Competitions Committee (E&CC) has already given permission for map exceptions - the printing method for Day 4 Relays at JK 2014 and map scales at Days 2 and 3 of JK 2015. The current system balances flexibility with the need for proper and adequate control to ensure that all aspects of map quality remain acceptable throughout our sport.
Our committee thinks that it's really important that orienteering maps are consistent across major orienteering events. If the choice of map scale is given solely to organisers and planners without considering any other relevant factors, this consistency would be lost – if not immediately, then in years to come. It is very important, in the interests of all orienteers, that consistency is maintained across the Federation, both in the period during which any changes to the Rules and other relevant documents are decided on and also thereafter.

I believe it's important to spot that the Lakeland proposal is more about who decides what map scales to use than what these scales are. Having read the statements for and against, I shall be voting against the proposal as it makes no sense to me to relinquish control of mapping standards to dozens of different pairs of individuals, who are bound to differ considerably on what the "right" standards are.

A recipe for problems methinks ...

AGM booklet:
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/images/uploaded/downloads/governance_agm_booklet_2014.pdf

[Gnitworp]

Maybe more allowable standard scales are needed, e.g, 1:3000, 1:4000, 1:5000 for sprints, and 1:7500, 1:10000, 1:15000 for middle and long so that there isn't an issue with events that conform to the extended range. The South East Sprint Championships is using 1:3000, and as event controller I am approving it because I think it is the best scale.

[andypat]

I believe it's important to spot that the Lakeland proposal is more about who decides what map scales to use than what these scales are. Having read the statements for and against, I shall be voting against the proposal as it makes no sense to me to relinquish control of mapping standards to dozens of different pairs of individuals, who are bound to differ considerably on what the "right" standards are.

A recipe for problems methinks ...

AGM booklet:
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/images/uploaded/downloads/governance_agm_booklet_2014.pdf

I'm not overly exercised about this topic, but my gut feeling is that a named event controller is probably more accountable to the orienteering public than the (apparently) faceless map group so i'd be happy enough with the proposed change.

[DJM]

Any orienteer can go to any race in the world, pick up the map and immediately understand it, both with respect to the symbols and the scale and, of course, the overall mapping standard.

Why? Because a "faceless map group" (this time, the IOF Mapping Commission) has set the standards which all Federations accept and follow.

[awk]

... the AGM booklet also contains a response to the proposal originating from the Events and Competitions Committee. This includes the following extract:

....Our committee thinks that it's really important that orienteering maps are consistent across major orienteering events. If the choice of map scale is given solely to organisers and planners without considering any other relevant factors, this consistency would be lost – if not immediately, then in years to come.

I believe it's important to spot that the Lakeland proposal is more about who decides what map scales to use than what these scales are. Having read the statements for and against, I shall be voting against the proposal as it makes no sense to me to relinquish control of mapping standards to dozens of different pairs of individuals, who are bound to differ considerably on what the "right" standards are.

Firstly, the argument quoted is incorrect: control is NOT being given solely to organisers and planners. It is being given to the planner and controller IF they are in agreement. If they are not, arbitration is then referred to the higher committee.

Secondly, it is not more about who than about what: the new rule is still specific about which map scales are allowable. There is more choice, yes, but it is still a restricted choice.

Those differences are important. Indeed, they, along with the history on this, are actually what make the proposal acceptable, indeed attractive, to me.

[Oldman]

I find it interesting that again an AGM proposal (like the largely unnecessary change to 4 levels) has come from NWOA. I agree with DJM - and I support the views of ECC, a group of very experienced orienteers who are willing to listen to arguments before taking decisions.

[Blonde bombshell]

I like it ...... NWOA leading the way.

Only in this case it is LOC, a club with many 'very experienced orienteers' who are hoping to improve the orienteering experience for everyone.
A club 'owning' many complex areas.
A club who have tried to discuss this matter with ECC, only to be rebuffed.

Surely the problem it that ECC have NOT been willing to listen to arguments.

Who are the members of ECC?
Which associations are they from?

[Gnitworp]

Any orienteer can go to any race in the world, pick up the map and immediately understand it, both with respect to the symbols and the scale and, of course, the overall mapping standard.

Why? Because a "faceless map group" (this time, the IOF Mapping Commission) has set the standards which all Federations accept and follow.

Once the IOF stipulated 1:20000 scale for orienteering maps, which was used for the 1976 Darnaway WOC Individual Race. The standards are evolving to match evolving types of competition and expectations. Do you believe such evolution should or will end now?

[awk]

Who are the members of ECC?
Which associations are they from?

They are listed at the top of the ECC page on the British Orienteering site:

Chris James (NGOC)
Barry Elkington (OD)
Graham Gristwood (FVO)
Peter Hornsby (LEI)
Chris Phillips (LEI)
Ernie Williams (LEI)
Sally Pygott (British Orienteering staff)

Interesting distribution.

[King Penguin]

... and I do not agree with one of the counter-arguments I have seen -
"... if the area is too complex for older orienteers with diminishing eyesight to navigate on at 1:10,000 then it is too complex for them to be on....."
Sand-dunes usually need 2.5 m not 5m contours (e.g. Kenfig vs Merthyr Mawr recently) to accurately depict the terrain; this is a variation on the norm which I believe is generally accepted; why not 1:7,500 for the more complex areas ?
I'm with NWOA - make the map as appropriate to the area - and no I do not mean and am not in favour of over-mapping.

[greywolf]

The event officials are responsible for planning appropriately challenging (and safe) courses, seems sensible that they might also be responsible for whether or not the map is readable by competitors.

[SJC]

and no I do not mean and am not in favour of over-mapping.

Unfortunately this is already happening and is what is driving the demand for larger map scales. If the maps were produced with the correct scale in mind from the outset then they would be readable. Supporting this proposal will only continue this trend, and the skills of navigating over long distances being replaced by a sport more akin to a treasure hunt.

[awk]

and no I do not mean and am not in favour of over-mapping.

Unfortunately this is already happening and is what is driving the demand for larger map scales. If the maps were produced with the correct scale in mind from the outset then they would be readable. Supporting this proposal will only continue this trend, and the skills of navigating over long distances being replaced by a sport more akin to a treasure hunt.

I disagree. Yes there are examples of overmapping, but there are also good examples of where it's simply case of a complex area needing a decent enlargement. That is what is driving the demand. I've taken out older maps for training on, and found I can't read the map on the run as I used to - it's nothing to do with any trend to overmapping, more to do with an increasing older population who have grown up orienteering and expect to be able to continue running at speed, and want the tools to enable them (us) to do so. The counter-argument cited by King Penguin shows this: there ARE areas that need enlargements, it's just that the legislators appear to want to say that if you need one you can't use the area!

That and the fact that we've largely moved from offset litho to laser printing. There is a difference, and it needs to be acknowledged, either by requiring the latter (which will have knock on effects in terms of entry dates, cost, time scales etc), or by acknowledging that larger scales can be used.

[greywolf]

Any orienteer can go to any race in the world, pick up the map and immediately understand it, both with respect to the symbols and the scale and, of course, the overall mapping standard.

Only because (usually) the scale, contour interval etc are written on the map (and in the final details) I've not done a lot of orienteering overseas, but a scan through my collection reveals quite a few non-spec maps including from WMOC and National Champs