Map Scales at 2014 BOF AGM

[pete.owens]

A3 @ 7,500 gives a map area of 3150m * 2275m, which ought to be plenty big enough for any M45 course.
In the olden days (i.e. before electronic punching) planners used a bigger area because they were reluctant to fold courses in the way that they can now. (and there are additional logistical and safety advantages to using a smaller area)

But the issue isn't principly about the overall size of the map (though the bigger it is the more origami you have to do en-route) - it is about the size of the map you have to hold in front of you to execute an individual leg - which could be 2km on an M45 course. That would be 26cm - almost the length of an A4 sheet at 1:7500.

At the larger scale it is more difficult to interpret the bigger picture. Yes, you can see every wrinkle in an individual contour, but you lose the overal shape of the hillside which you interpret by looking at the contours collectively. You can see the individual blue dashes, but lose sight of the overall shape of the marsh and so on.

[buzz]

Orienteering tests many aspects of physical capability, why not also vision?

It feels to me like it tests the ability not to get injured eat and drink too much for a couple of years and put on a couple of stone!

Anyone for compulsory weight handicapping? How about maps printed on lead sheeting for skinny types?

[awk]

Orienteering tests many aspects of physical capability, why not also vision? If I can't run up hills well, I can hardly expect courses to be level. Why then if my eyesight is not so good, must I have a larger scale map? If I slow down, I can read it (or climb the hills). So, I agree with DJM when he talks of eyesight testing.

My eyes are regularly tested - the optician I work with is a sports specialist, working with national and county teams. He reckons my eyesight, when set up with my prescription, is as good as it's likely to be for someone of my age (55). I have on quite a few occasions found an enlarged map necessary if it's to be read on the run. I have on other occasions found unenlarged maps (insisted upon by MAG) to be completely unreadable at any speed given light conditions under a canopy and in bad weather. It's not a test of visual acuity when nobody can read the map on the run, even if that was what orienteering was about. It does affect the orienteering when competitors can't read the map at all.

Whether it was "unnecessary" is not connected with whether it "works for me".

My point was that NWOA felt it was necessary. It would be valid to argue against that if for any reason the system doesn't work for you. Otherwise, as I see it, if somebody finds it necessary, and it's not a problem for others, then it's necessary.

[distracted]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

... [concerns] events on particularly complex, intricately contoured terrain.

The Scandinavians have plenty of "particularly complex, intricately contoured terrain". They don't seem to have a problem with producing clear, readable maps to the ISOM-specified scales.

Why do we?

[greywolf]

The Scandinavians....

Maps: Scale 1:10 000 for all classes except DH15–21 who will have scale 1:15 000 for stages 1,2,4 and 5. DH60–DH95 have scale 1:7 500 for all stages.

Yes, and they provide enlargements beyond ISOM-spec scale for older classes

[graeme]

The Scandinavians

Eek, I just entered a race in Scandinavia...

The rules of the Finnish Orienteering Federation (FOF) a will be applied to the competition. The scale of the map is 1:10 000.

...phew! They have plenty of paper in Finland
Edit - What greywolf said AGAIN. How did he get so much faster than me

[greywolf]

The arguments against the proposal might carry a bit more weight if the map group was actually upholding compliance with ISOM/ISSOM for major events, but that's not the case: e.g. I have sprint maps from JK 2009, BSC 2010 (Q&F) and BSC 2011 (Q) which are non-ISSOM-compliant. (It's posible that the organisers sought dispensations to deviate from the spec, but with the exception of BSC 2011 it's hard to see why they would be granted)

[NeilC]

I have sprint maps from .... BSC 2011 (Q) which are non-ISSOM-compliant.

In what way was this non-compliant? I know of a few things but mostly minor.

[roadrunner]

I've just read the AGM papers. I can see the justification for larger map scales for older runners in complex areas, but why also the younger ones (10 to 16)? Their eyesight should be fine, and apart perhaps from M/W16 the courses shouldn't require reading of fine map detail anyway.

On the question of overmapping, what do you make of this bit of an O-ringen map from 2006 (1:10000 for H50, the grid lines are 250m apart as usual)?

[Arnold]

Slightly off topic, but on graeme's post about jukola, did you see there were "media present at the printing of the first jukola map"? (indeed there are some chaps with cameras)

Maybe we should try and replicate this in the UK and issue a press release about the first print run for the JK? Can we get Paxo? Or at least Clare Balding?

[graeme]

The arguments against the proposal might carry a bit more weight if the map group was actually upholding compliance with ISOM/ISSOM for major events

I'm not seeing anyone claiming that the Map Group is doing a great job. But the proposal is to transfer the responsibility to controllers, and I can assure you that in practice controllers have no control over the mapping process (unless they do the mapping themselves). There's no chance of better compliance if the change is made.

Graeme (Grade 1 controller)

On that O-ringen map. I quite like the overmapping of the clearings. It doesn't clutter the map, gives a good idea of the open forest to expect. I doubt if its particularly accurate, but provided the course setter can be trusted not to use the clearings as control sites it should be OK. I like the way they use tagged crags to highlight the high point which was used as attackpoint.

[greywolf]

The map format should not exceed DIN A4.
Magnetic north line...spacing shall be 30 mm on the 1:5 000 map and 37.5 mm on the 1:4 000 map so in both scales they represent 150m on the ground.

3 of the 4 listed previously were oversized, and 3 out of 4 had the wrong grid line spacing (JK 100m, BSC 2010 125m)
Maybe some might think these trivial points (perhaps there's a special annotated edition of ISSOM which says which are the important bits and which can be ignored...) but then some of those arguing against the NWOA proposal here are using papersize and international consistency of presentation as grounds for their opposition...

[Wayward-O]

I'm not seeing anyone claiming that the Map Group is doing a great job. But the proposal is to transfer the responsibility to controllers, and I can assure you that in practice controllers have no control over the mapping process (unless they do the mapping themselves). There's no chance of better compliance if the change is made.

Graeme (Grade 1 controller.

No, but the controller should be able to say that, for a given course on a given map, the competitors should be provided with a map that they can read during the competition and that requires the map to be printed at a scale of 1:X.

[Wayward-O]

I've just read the AGM papers. I can see the justification for larger map scales for older runners in complex areas, but why also the younger ones (10 to 16)? Their eyesight should be fine, and apart perhaps from M/W16 the courses shouldn't require reading of fine map detail anyway.

Can you imagine a White or Yellow course on a 1:15K map? I can't.

[NeilC]

The map format should not exceed DIN A4.
Magnetic north line...spacing shall be 30 mm on the 1:5 000 map and 37.5 mm on the 1:4 000 map so in both scales they represent 150m on the ground.

3 of the 4 listed previously were oversized, and 3 out of 4 had the wrong grid line spacing (JK 100m, BSC 2010 125m)
Maybe some might think these trivial points (perhaps there's a special annotated edition of ISSOM which says which are the important bits and which can be ignored...) but then some of those arguing against the NWOA proposal here are using papersize and international consistency of presentation as grounds for their opposition...

Should and Shall. A >A4 map, if there is a good reason for it, does not contradict either the spirit or the letter of ISSOM.