Map Scales at 2014 BOF AGM

[Big Jon]

Seeing as Culbin gets a mention, I feel that allows me to step into this argument.

My view is simple - MOST areas can be perfectly easily mapped and drawn legibly at 1:15,000, however where my opinion differs from MAG is that I consider there are some areas where the detail is of a complexity and scale that cannot be shown by "generalisation". The most obvious examples of these are man-made areas (mining) and sand-dunes. At Culbin (BOC 2008) the map was drawn at 1:10,000. A 15,000 version of the map - as initially demanded by BOF would have resulted in large areas being unusable as they would have had to be mapped using the "broken ground" symbol. This includes areas with 3-4m high dot-knolls and areas of intricate gullies, spurs, hills, depressions - especially on slopes, all of which provided high quality, technically challenging and fair orienteering.
I challenge members of MAG to put their money where their mouths are and go to Culbin and remap the detailed parts of it and present it as a usable 1:15,000 map.

A history note - back in 1976 Culbin was used for the WOC relays - it was the first ever WOC map at 1:15,000, up till then they had all been 1:20,000. No doubt there were doom-mongers back then too who complained about too much detail and how the larger scale would adversely affect the competition.

[Duncan]

Not quite sure what you are implying there Jon. Is it that that the WOC relay '76 map was unusable? Or that in '76 mappers were capable of mapping Culbin at 1:15k, but today they aren't? Or did the WOC relay '76 just not use the "detailed parts of it"?

[buzz]

Thanks to GG for posting the MAG members' articles. Clearly a lot of thought has gone in to these issues. I do think, however that the arguments about legibility are something of a distraction and the key issue is one of level of detail.

I agree with Big Jon when he says

I consider there are some areas where the detail is of a complexity and scale that cannot be shown by "generalisation"

I would go further than this and say that there are many areas where the terrain is of a complexity which deserves mapping at a higher level of detail. I would cite the rejuvenation of part of Leith Hill for the World Cup in 2005 and the some of the amazing rural and urban maps around Sheffield. This isn't 'over-mapping' - it's appropriate mapping and its transforming our sport for the good.

Clearly the majority of us presbyopic vets would prefer offset-litho printing and/or a blown up map if the organisers and planners can manage the practicalities, but the problem of legibility can be resolved for most of us wrinklies by using contacts or a cheap pair of magnifying glasses, and is a side issue to the real debate.

My guess is that LOC are enjoying orienteering on over-mapped bits of lake district terrain and want to share the experience with the rest of us. I'm sure it would be possible to 'generalise' most of the terrain - but would it be as much fun!

[buzz]

I would like to pick up on one point at the bottom of the MAG articles posted by gg:

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.

Around 8% of men are colourblind which I would guestimate equates to around 6% of orienteers. A smaller proportion than the presbyopic vets, but nevertheless a significant one. I'd even suggest that colour issues have increased significance as they are more likely to impact on newcomers to the sport in the age classes that BOF are keen to attract.

But the key issue is that most people can do something about presbyopia simply by using contacts or magnifying glasses (the latter have rejuvenated my orienteering if not my appearance), but there's nothing the individual can do to correct colour vision.

So please everyone lets get the map scale issue out of the way quickly so that MAG can sort out the colours - it would be so easy to put a bit more blue in the greens and purples and use 'gold' instead of 'olive green' for example.

[greywolf]

Not quite sure what you are implying there Jon. Is it that that the WOC relay '76 map was unusable? Or that in '76 mappers were capable of mapping Culbin at 1:15k, but today they aren't? Or did the WOC relay '76 just not use the "detailed parts of it"?

The WOC relay map definitely doesn't cover the most complex bits of Culbin, which are further east. I've only seen online scans of the '76 map, so it's difficult to tell, but I'm not convinced it would meet modern ISOM spec for symbol/line size and separation (happy to be proved wrong if anyone has the evidence!)

[mykind]

[quote="buzz"]
I would go further than this and say that there are many areas where the terrain is of a complexity which deserves mapping at a higher level of detail. I would cite the rejuvenation of part of Leith Hill for the World Cup in 2005 and the some of the amazing rural and urban maps around Sheffield. This isn't 'over-mapping' - it's appropriate mapping and its transforming our sport for the good.

No - this is over-mapping. It may be perfectly legible when sitting at home in your comfy armchair but it isn't readable when running on the area. Let's not forget that orienteering is defined to be a running sport. IMHO we are seeing the almost complete demise of the long route choice leg in favour of the ability to control pick round the "planner's chosen route" using features which have no business on an orienteering map. A good example would be those maps which insist on mapping every holly sapling - when do we start on mapping every individual oak tree as well?

Mike Hind

[graeme]

rejuvenation of part of Leith Hill for the World Cup in 2005

The one where you just ran full speed to the middle of the circle and looked around, although the green bushes are helpful? At least, that's what a certain T.Georgiou said.

Echoing mykind, I was lucky enough to run the Blodslitet race on Silver Howe, one of the few old school maps in the Lake district. Perfectly legible at a scale where you could plan routes on the many long legs. It took a while to realise that the map showed "obstacles to run" and "features needed for route choice" rather than "Somewhere to put a control": then it was wonderful. Haven't seen anything like it since.

the long distance courses for such as M45 may need a very large map

They might, but as we saw at Stickle Pike, in practice they won't get one. Cheaper and easier to go round in circles in one corner of the area.

Very few areas, need large scale across the area. Many areas would benefit from blown up insets for the detailed areas (Bigland being an example). This is not precluded by rules which say you should have a 1:15,000 map.

[madmike]

rejuvenation of part of Leith Hill for the World Cup in 2005

The one where you just ran full speed to the middle of the circle and looked around, although the green bushes are helpful? At least, that's what a certain T.Georgiou said.

If I recall correctly Graham he said he used the "green stains" as beacons to navigate

[mrmoosehead]

I was lucky enough to run the Blodslitet race on Silver Howe, one of the few old school maps in the Lake district. Perfectly legible at a scale where you could plan routes on the many long legs. It took a while to realise that the map showed "obstacles to run" and "features needed for route choice" rather than "Somewhere to put a control": then it was wonderful. Haven't seen anything like it since.

Mind you, was up there with YHJS this weekend and I concur that the map was generally great, but some glaring omissions of black features in places...

Plus the sun was shining down on us for the whole weekend. Lovely.

[SeanC]

I've heard that BOF are considering trialling a new map scale, first at some of the RunChallenge events, but this could be applied to all orienteering events in future. See the Shooters Hill map in the "North West Kent League" article in Focus.

[buzz]

I would go further than this and say that there are many areas where the terrain is of a complexity which deserves mapping at a higher level of detail. I would cite the rejuvenation of part of Leith Hill for the World Cup in 2005 and the some of the amazing rural and urban maps around Sheffield. This isn't 'over-mapping' - it's appropriate mapping and its transforming our sport for the good.

No - this is over-mapping. It may be perfectly legible when sitting at home in your comfy armchair but it isn't readable when running on the area. Let's not forget that orienteering is defined to be a running sport. IMHO we are seeing the almost complete demise of the long route choice leg in favour of the ability to control pick round the "planner's chosen route" using features which have no business on an orienteering map. A good example would be those maps which insist on mapping every holly sapling - when do we start on mapping every individual oak tree as well?

Mike Hind

No these areas aren't 'over-mapped' - they show the details that are significant in that particular area and use an appropriate scale so that they are perfectly readable when running at speed. The alternative is to show nothing or use broken ground or semi-open vegetation screens. Its not a legibility issue its a level of detail issue.

You happen to have a preference for 'classic' long distance style of orienteering. Some (mostly Greame ) argue that this requires larger scale maps with low levels of detail. Personally I don't think this is always the best solution and some of our finest areas are best represented at higher levels of detail and therefore larger scale.

Its particularly difficult to plan challenging shorter courses on maps with low levels of detail as you end up with meaningless legs through areas with no mapped features. If you can't afford to map the area at two different scales then for most events and most areas the larger scale maps offer the best challenge for the majority.

Incidentally we've already started mapping every single oak-tree for Ultrasprint and micrO' style events you should try one sometime you might even enjoy it!

[redpossum]

Good news! Problems with map scales are solved in latest ISOM 201x draft. From now on orienteering maps will be printed on rubber and athletes can simply stretch the map to zoom in. More:
http://www.pannier.com/printing/ink-jet/rubber-printing-system/
http://orienteering.org/resources/mapping/

[mrmoosehead]

Good news! Problems with map scales are solved in latest ISOM 201x draft. From now on orienteering maps will be printed on rubber and athletes can simply stretch the map to zoom in. More:
http://www.pannier.com/printing/ink-jet/rubber-printing-system/
http://orienteering.org/resources/mapping/

Brilliant! I could have maps printed on a rubber top, and as I get older, slower and my waistline gets out of control, the map will stretch to suit my failing eyesight!

[Wayward-O]

Not sure I understand some of the comments made in this thread. How is more detail able to be added at 1:10K than at 1:15K, assuming a 50% enlarged symbol set is used as per ISOM? Or are these maps produced at 1:10K using the 1:15K symbol set?

[bewildered]

They might, but as we saw at Stickle Pike, in practice they won't get one. Cheaper and easier to go round in circles in one corner of the area.

As far as I am aware, the area used for the Stickle Pike event is the Stickle Pike part of the much larger Stickle Pike / Caw map.

It seems reasonable for us to use just one half of that to put on a pretty good Level C event. The courses seemed to me to use the best bits of the area without having to go over that bl**dy big hill, that we normally have to.

In terms of over and under mapping. It seems that Stickle Pike is probably affected by both.

Compare the 2009 versionhttp://www.loc.routegadget.co.uk/rg2/#24 with 2012 http://www.loc.routegadget.co.uk/rg2/#43

Under mapped leg 11-12 on Blue, where some really obvious rock features aren't shown (south of the line where it crosses the river, and over mapped on the same leg where control 12 is.

It is a fascinating exercise to try to identify the same leg on the 2009 map!