Map Scales at 2014 BOF AGM

[graeme]

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.

Actually, the courses went round and round the not-even-Stickle Pike part of the "Stickle Pike" map. (i.e. Dunnerdale). Which is very nice.

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?

Some maps (including Culbin I think) use ISOM detail level but don't use ISOM symbols, they just use smaller symbols to get the detail that ISOM requires. Since that detail is stuff like 2m high knolls you cant see past, its relevant at speed. The ISOM symbol is 7.5m across - if you have a couple of them you can distort the map for clarity, but given enough, eventually it fails.

Other maps use ISOM symbols, but not ISOM detail level. "Overmapping" is defined by ISOM: pits are >2m across/ 1m deep, boulders are >1m high, crags >1m. Anything smaller is overmapping. These are the absolute allowed minimum - it's OK to omit 1m boulders for clarity.

In most places in the UK maps with low detail level are overmapped - if this gives some control sites without damaging clarity I think that's fine. If the map is overmapped AND too hard to read there's a problem. Any place where I'm looking for a 0.5m boulder and I need a 1:7500 map is a problem. Whenever I go to the Lake District I find myself needing a 1:7500 map and looking for 0.5m boulders.

[mykind]

Mike Hind[/quote]
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.

how is a single holly sapling significant in any area? IMHO it would not be significant unless the mapped area was Lords Cricket Ground and even then it would be arguable. If we want to use areas which are almost featureless it is no use mapping stuff which is not a feature ( such as the 0.5m knoll or the 0.25m dry gully) we should just map what is clear and obvious and drawable at 1:7500 (the correct survey scale) and then use the area as well as we can ( and accept it isn't ever going to host the BOC).

Mike Hind

[greywolf]

Some maps (including Culbin I think) use ISOM detail level but don't use ISOM symbols, they just use smaller symbols to get the detail that ISOM requires.

Yes. e.g. ISOM symbol sizes at 1:15,000 are contour 0.14mm, small knoll 0.5mm, so blown up to 1:10,000 these should be 0.21 and 0.75 respectively.

The Culbin 1:10,000 map has contours 0.17mm, small knolls 0.6mm,
the Roseisle 1:10,000 map has contours 0.17mm, small knolls 0.45mm
and the Lossie Forest 1:10,000 map has contours 0.14mm, small knolls 0.5mm

ISOM also says the minimum gap between two fine lines of the same colour, in brown or black: 0.15mm (at 1:15,000), and that the small knoll symbol may not touch contour lines - neither of which are strictly adhered to on these maps even with the reduced symbol size

[buzz]

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.

how is a single holly sapling significant in any area? IMHO it would not be significant unless the mapped area was Lords Cricket Ground and even then it would be arguable. If we want to use areas which are almost featureless it is no use mapping stuff which is not a feature ( such as the 0.5m knoll or the 0.25m dry gully) we should just map what is clear and obvious and drawable at 1:7500 (the correct survey scale) and then use the area as well as we can ( and accept it isn't ever going to host the BOC).

The areas that I'm referring to that benefit from larger scale maps aren't featureless they are either too small to accommodate classic long distance orienteering or become featureless when generalised and mapped correctly at a large scale.

Here's a 1:2000 scale sprint style map of a typical Sheffield boulder strewn area.
http://www.syo.routegadget.co.uk/cgi-bin/reitti.cgi?act=map&id=48&kieli=

And here's the 1:10,000 version
http://www.syo.routegadget.co.uk/cgi-bin/reitti.cgi?act=map&id=45&kieli=

I suspect that further generalisation down to 1:15,000 would show only the larger 4m+ boulders.

Both maps are clear and easy to read on the run - one is suitable for sprint/ultrasprint style orienteering the other classic long distance orienteering. This particular event included both styles in one race which in my opinion made excellent use of the area - worthy of an A grade.

We have other small areas with each individual tree, and holly bush mapped which also offer challenging sprint orienteering. These safe supervised environments are particularly good for younger kids - much more fun than following paths and tracks around a traditional 1:15000 map.

In my opinion event organisers should be allowed the flexibility to make the best use of areas and offer a variety of fare without being shackled by rigid guidelines.

[NeilC]

I wonder what most Grade A controllers think - since they can effectively pass the decision making back to E&CC for major events.

Car park chatter down my way suggests that older orienteers like larger scales - start talking about symbol size though and eyes glaze over. Mappers and experienced controllers seem to prefer to stick to ISOM but accept that for a limited number of areas this might not be suitable for a major event.

Whichever way the vote goes I don't anticipate a large change in current practice. Hopefully requests for scale enlargement will continue to result in detailed scrutiny of ISOM compliance in all other aspects of that map so that standards are maintained.

[pete.owens]

In my opinion event organisers should be allowed the flexibility to make the best use of areas and offer a variety of fare without being shackled by rigid guidelines.

Different scales can be indeed used to good effect for novelty events - ultra sprints, micr-O, mazes and so on. And nothing is stopping organisers holding such events. Indeed I have mapped my workplace and surrounding area and run events using maps surveyed to at least six different scales (is this a record?). But these have been fun events - not national championships.

[bewildered]

maps surveyed to at least six different scales

On the same map? That would be interesting.

[pete.owens]

I don't think Ive used more than two scales on a single printed map - but but have used more than that in the course of an event.

[buzz]

In my opinion event organisers should be allowed the flexibility to make the best use of areas and offer a variety of fare without being shackled by rigid guidelines.

Different scales can be indeed used to good effect for novelty events - ultra sprints, micr-O, mazes and so on. And nothing is stopping organisers holding such events. Indeed I have mapped my workplace and surrounding area and run events using maps surveyed to at least six different scales (is this a record?). But these have been fun events - not national championships.

I'm not sure I would call the Burbage event a 'novelty event', nor the LOK Ultrasprint last year which was part of the UK Orienteering League.

I agree that National events should follow guidelines for consistency, but if they are too rigid then we either have to exclude many of our best areas or map them at inappropriate scales.

Having been to BOC in Culbin (non-guideline map scale) and BOC Relays at Tankersley (guideline map scale) it was clear which map was preferred by the competitors.

Getting back on thread - Lake district terrain is a difficult example because much of it can be mapped at lower levels of detail and still offer challenging orienteering, but I guess LOC believe they can offer the majority a better event if they choose a higher level of detail.

[mykind]

LOC are not asking to map at a higher level of detail. They just want to blow up the existing map.We need to be clear about the distinction between enlarging a maps scale and remapping it in greater detail. I trust nobody wants to go down the second road for any major events.

[buzz]

LOC are not asking to map at a higher level of detail. They just want to blow up the existing map.We need to be clear about the distinction between enlarging a maps scale and remapping it in greater detail. I trust nobody wants to go down the second road for any major events.

Perhaps somebody from LOC could clarify this (apologies if it's clear from this thread). Was the area originally mapped for 1:15,000? If it was mapped for 1:10,000 but printed at 1:15,000 to suit a previous major event then it should be us

As for remapping an area in greater detail as I said before, in my opinion if the appropriate scale for the terrain is 1:10,000 (for example most sand dune areas) then either we don't use them for national events or they should be remapped if necessary - as I understand was the case with Culbin.

Also as I said before think there's an argument for using larger scale maps of the lake district as they potentially offer more interesting orienteering for shorter courses (the majority of competitors), although I appreciate this could impact the longer courses.

Ideally we would have large scale maps of part of the area and small scale maps of an extended area for the longer courses. Would the minority longer course runners be prepared to pay a premium for small scale maps of the areas?

[mykind]

Why would we need to pay a premium? We would just be using the appropriate scale of map. I can see why the molehill hunters who want every blade of grass to be individually mapped might need to pay a premium but not those who want to use the internationally agreed scale and level of detail for orienteering.

Mike Hind

[RichT]

Let us be clear that Lakeland are NOT asking for larger map scales to be allowed so that maps can contain more detail.

My understanding of standards is that maps are surveyed at 1:7500 to be printed at 1:15000 with an appropriate level of detail on the map for the elite. The older competitors work with a 1:10000 version.

However, there are some areas, having been appropriately surveyed, which are still difficult to read at 1:10000 for older competitors. All that is being asked for is a straight ENLARGEMENT of appropriately surveyed map - like being able to read a 1:10000 with a magnifier BUT WITHOUT THE MAGNIFIER.

Anyway, enough talk, to action - have you exercised your Proxy vote - one way or the other?

[graeme]

remapping it in greater detail. I trust nobody wants to ...

Very misplaced trust Mike. Many many people do want, have got, and do use greater detail than ISOM allows. Take a look at your old courses on these lakeland maps which are "too detailed" to map at 1:15000. How many crags, knolls and boulders less than a metre high did you have to find?

[Derek A]

Graeme, look at the Haverthwaite map from the 2010 Middle Distance and look at the 1:15,000 JK 92 map, then post and say that there are more things added; I've just looked and there are not. If I was capable I'd scan both and show everyone and they could make their own minds up. Maybe someone else could?

As someone else asked, I am a grade A controller, I want an enlarged map without any more detail so I can continue to orienteer (read map when running).

Derek A