Map Scales at 2014 BOF AGM

[graeme]

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.

Yes, I've done that several times and I'm sure other controllers have too. ECC/Map group just checked I was right and approved. No rule change needed there.

In defence of Map Group. When I mapped JK2012 the map advisor was very helpful, visiting the site, improving on my contour interpretation and picking up the petty niceties greywolf identifies. If other advisors are less diligent, that's not a problem with the process. The only non-ISSOM came from laserprinting making the grey on yellow too dark: i.e. the concession we were granted.

[pete.owens]

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

but they are not subjecting under 60s to those enlargements. The longest course at that scale is 5.5km. I doubt the map group would have a problem if it was decided to offer 1:7500 maps to over 60s at this years lakes 5 days.

[Karen]

This is in the selection race thread:

"Final Details wrote:
At the start, both 1:150000 and 1:10000 maps will be available and you may choose which scale you use. There are sufficient maps of each type to accommodate the whole start list. Some runners may wish to take both, in which case they will probably need to bring an A3 poly bag. Both scale maps are digitally printed on waterproof paper. The 1:15000 map is A4 and the 1:10000 map is A3. The 1:10000 map is simply an enlargement of the 1:15000 map, so control circles (9mm) and descriptions are therefore also enlarged."

So our domestic level B events have to comply with IOF/Map group restrictions, but at international selection level you can choose your scale?

Just puzzled....

[mykind]

I think! that for level B you can use either scale (or both) if you wish - it is only level A that has restrictions which would prevent you from using 1;10000 for all the courses.

[Karen]

Even if it is just level A, still a bit odd that the elite can choose their map scales.

[roadrunner]

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

No - but surely the present standard of 1:10000 is OK, no need for 1:7500?

[awk]

but they are not subjecting under 60s to those enlargements.

You might think that you are being subjected - personally I have welcomed larger scales as providing a more even playing field since I was an M45 - and I'm still under 60 now. I regard it more as enabling.

But then the last couple of times I've run the O-ringen, they've used offset litho. It does make a difference, although they don't have the variety of green shades we tend to encounter, which is what really does the damage. As a result, 1:10k has tended to be OK there (although I recollect there was one area where even the locals thought they should have enlarged to 1:7.5k).

[awk]

but they are not subjecting under 60s to those enlargements.

You might think that you are being subjected - personally I have welcomed larger scales as providing a more even playing field since I was an M45 - and I'm still under 60 now. I regard it more as enabling.

But then the last couple of times I've run the O-ringen, they've used offset litho. It does make a difference, although they don't have the variety of green shades we tend to encounter, which is what really does the damage. As a result, 1:10k has tended to be OK there (although IIRCt there was one area where even the locals thought they should have enlarged to 1:7.5k).

[pete.owens]

Looking at the wording of the motion it looks like it would actually require the provision 1:10000 maps for nearly all senior courses at most level B events - which are colour coded so that any course can be entered by any age class.

Even if you just offer map scales to the recommended courses for the age classes you get:
S.Brown - M18,M20,W21, M21S
Blue - W35,W40,M35S,M40S
S.Blue - W18,W20,M20S,W21S
Green - W35S, W40S
S.Green - W18S, W20S
Orange - W21N

[gg]

Map scales at major events - the other side of the story!

By Bruce Bryant, Map Advisory Group member

You may have seen the article about choice of map scales for major events in CompassSport. As a member of MAG (Map Advisory Group) I thought that I should give you a brief overview of the other side to this story...
 
There was much discussion about the request to use 1:7500 maps for M/W45+ at JK 2015 within MAG and a number of questions and potential issues were identified to the “Events and Competitions Committee” that needed answering before any decisions could be made.
 
Apologies if the rest of this article gets a bit technical but it helps explain why there was much discussion within MAG and a request for more information before we could come to an informed conclusion.
 
There are many logistical issues – both for the mapper and planner/controller - with the use of 3 different scales at an event as requested for Bigland and Dunnerdale:
 
1/ What size of symbols is used on each map – are the enlarged maps just a straight enlargement of the 1:15000 map or does the 1:7500 map have the same size symbols as the 1:10000 map to allow more space between symbols and make the map easier to read?
 
2/ If the map is drawn at 1:15000 for the elite competitors and then enlarged to 1:10000 and 1:7500 for others, the 1:7500 map could end up with very large course overprints (12 mm diameter control circles and huge control numbers).
 
3/ If the M/W45+ ages classes all get 1:7500 - as the JK 2015 proposal -  the long distance courses for such as M45 may need a very large map. Note that for BOC at Culbin we ended up with an A2 map which is not easy to use for the long legs that you should get on a “Long Distance” course.
 
4/ The cost of offset-litho printing at 3 scales could be very prohibitive if the layout of the printing plates are not very carefully considered. This could dramatically increase the map printing costs compared to maps at only 1:15000 and 1:10000 – and therefore increase entry fees.
 
5/ MAG believe that much of the pressure for 1:7500 maps in the Lake District is a result of complex areas that are “over-mapped” with too much fine detail for the scale of map (lack of “generalisation”) combined with average or poor quality laser prints. The quality of print is particularly important where you have intricate contours sitting over rough open ground as found in many Lake District open areas. For a major event and to make the map as legible as possible, this type of terrain must have offset-litho printing rather than laser prints.
 
6/ The crux of this JK 2015 discussion is all based around improving the legibility of the map, however the JK team are now asking for 1:7500 laser printed maps which will compromise the print quality and legibility of the final maps.
 
7/ MAG know of a number of competitors who chose laser printed 1:7500 maps for a Lake District event at Graythwaite - where they had a choice of map scales - and later regretted the decision due to the poor quality of the laser printing and trying to read the map in dark forest! Many later commented that they would have preferred an offset-litho map at 1:10000 - but that wasn’t one of the choices offered...
  
In summary, apart from the tricky question of map scales for JK 2015, I do have concerns for the quality of map that will result if major events are free to make their own decisions about map scales and printing methods.
 
A Better Way Forward

By David Olivant Chair Map Advisory Group

Bruce’s article highlights the main issues around map scales, MAG considers that more research is required about map symbol dimensions and vision issues with older competitors, in particular those over 65.

1:10000 scale
ISOM 1:15000 symbols are enlarged proportionally by 150% for 1:10000 maps. However cartographic science states that enlargements should not be linear and Swiss O cartographers believe that 135% enlargement gives a clearer result by creating more white space between symbols. On MAG advice the BMDOC 2013 map at Stanton Moor used a similar enlargement and it would appear that the map of this complex area was well received. This alone may resolve clarity issues in detailed areas but more research is needed.

1:7500 scale
There are several problems with enlarging maps to 1:7500. There has been no research into symbol size at this scale. A straight 200% enlargement from 1:15000 gives symbols that are very heavy and doesn’t create the white space needed for clarity. 150% enlargement may do this but there is the problem of loss of perception of slope, the Swiss say that 2.5 metre contours would be required to restore this (back to square one), and when shown both scales most competitors say that there is a loss of ground shape turning map reading into a two dimensional rather than three dimensional exercise. Again, more research is needed.

Helping Older Eyes
As we age the eye loses its flexibility and its ability to focus on close objects, this is presbyopia. This happens to almost all people between the ages of 45 to 60 and some sort of correction is needed. What is new is that we suspect there is a difference between how the detail on a map is perceived by those people who are myopic (short sighted) and those who are long sighted. The theory is that presbyopia happens to short sighted people earlier and their brains adapt to focussing more easily than those who are long sighted who typically don’t have the problem until over 60 and then the brain struggles to cope even with corrective lenses. If this is the case then this could explain the polarisation of views on the subject of scales and a better solution should be possible. But we have no idea of the numbers affected or even if this is true. There are other eye issues of course, some age related such as difficulty with low light and at any age a small proportion of people who suffer colour blindness.

More research is needed to find the best solution to these crucial issues.

[gg]

ps. I am one of the 'faceless mapping group'

[EddieH]

Interesting - If JK 2015 really are asking for 1:7500 laser printing instead of 1:10000 offset litho then I am adamantly opposed to that.

However the suggestion that MAG have authorised laser printing at this year's JK, but are then refusing 1:7500 I find disturbing also.

On balance I think the rules are better placing the decision with a properly functioning overseeing body than giving individuals with deep set predjudices the decision and therefore I will not vote for the motion.

The provision of enlarged scales for ordinary events with laser printing I applaud, but this is not what the motion is about.

[PhilJ]

so how can this be solved without carrying out tests/user feedback at level B complex events, such that 1:7,500 maps are/are not allowed. That way conclusive evidence can be collated.

Looking at the lakes 5 day Pike O Blisco and Hampsfell & Eggerslack would be nightmare at 1:15,000 and for the M45+ 1:10,000 may well be a struggle. I would not expect the Lakes 5 day to pick up the cost burden for multiple map versions, BO, if they wanted to put this to bed would need to pick up the printing costs (if the Lakes 5 were interested in an experiment), else this topic will not move on with the nayes and yeas at loggerheads.

test it, get feedback, produce conclusions

This is turning into a similare debate over e-punching and pin punching that was held 10+ years ago. If it is perceived to be a better experience for the competitors then why not carry out comprehensive testing? I am not a mapper man so may well have missed the target on this one.

[awk]

Interesting pair of articles - thank you gg. The problem remains though that movement on this issue has been a long time coming, and, with all the research etc that apparently MAG need to do, further developments remain so. To put it bluntly, most of us vets haven't got that time to hang around waiting! Until that happens, I'd much rather run on enlargements and know I can read the map, then be forced (as has happened in a national championship) to cope with a map that couldn't physically be read, even stopped still, simply because we're still waiting for MAG to "do the research".

But I do agree about the issues surrounding poor laser prints!

[greywolf]

On balance I think the rules are better placing the decision with a properly functioning overseeing body than giving individuals with deep set predjudices the decision and therefore I will not vote for the motion.

So, last year when you controlled a Level B event that used 1:7500 for over-45s, you're saying that you wouldn't have minded if MAG or whoever had insisted that you stuck to the rules and gave everyone 1:10,000? And likewise if they insist that everyone has 1:10,000 for this years Moray Mix at Lossie that's OK?