Map Scales at 2014 BOF AGM

[graeme]

Well, I found a few new platforms in the first 30 seconds. But that's not the point; I couldn't read the damn thing in '92 either! We can agree that the map is illegible at 1:15 for 21s, and at 1:10 for us.

In BEOC 2003 (Haverthwaite) we had to find a 0.5m boulder, a 0.5m hill and a 0.5m crag. According to ISOM, they should never have been on. The controller didn't act to take them off then, they're still there. The battle I had to declutter the map for the Dalrulzion WRE*, and astonishment that it was even my business, convinces me that controllers wont police this in future either.

ISOM says that maps may** become illegible if you put this little stuff on. MAG is right to demand ISOM maps for major events, so we can read the blow-ups.

* For which I got a scale exemption from MAG
** I don't see a problem with little stuff on legible maps.

[DM]

Interesting survey just arrived in email. About map legibility. For me there is one field missing on this survey which is a free text area, often very useful for picking up comments that the other questions fail to.

Hope no one fills it in before the JK......

[bewildered]

And that it is re-sent after the JK.

I note that it is to be completed after the 2015 JK as well. Nothing like rapid research

[Ed]

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; ...

On the other hand I remember a conversation with an experienced Lake District mapper who reckoned that Stirling put way too much stuff on that 1992 JK map...

From which it may be deduced that this isn't a new problem, and that even among the top professional mappers there may be differences of opinion.

[gg]

Official statement on British Orienteering website

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... 9yZy51ay8=

[buzz]

Looking back through the LOC proposal it seems the main issue is with the new map of part of Duddon Valley targetted for Day 2 of the JK which is Middle distance for the elite and Long for everyone else.

As I understand it Middle distance races are supposed to be 1:10,000. I'd always assumed that they were also supposed to be mapped at a higher level of detail to suit Middle style courses, is that correct? It certainly makes more sense than just using a 1:15,000 blown up.

If that is the case, then for mixed course days such as JK day 2 we should have two maps - one for the elite mapped at a higher level of detail and one for the rest of us at the normal detail level - otherwise the guidelines aren't being followed.

Furthermore if a proper Middle distance 1:10,000 map has been surveyed at a higher level of detail then it should be blown up to 1:7,500 for consistency (as the LOC proposal)

Reading between the lines it sounds like Duddon Valley has been mapped with the middle distance courses in mind and LOC are offering what they see as the best compromise to solve the problem of mixed orienteering types on one map.

Personally I like the idea of a long course on a large scale map although I understand and have sympathy with the counter arguments, but if the Events committee aren't going to be flexible then perhaps they need to make the JK day 2 a Middle race for everyone or revert to the original format for the elite.

[Blonde bombshell]

So, let us get this right.

LOC legitimately submit a proposal at the AGM. This is explained in the AGM booklet (only available from the BOF website) with a supporting statement & explanatory table.

BOF & it's various committees don't agree with said proposal and issue a response and a statement from E & CC.

This results in various discussions inc Nopesport. Many are mis-informed & off topic. Specifically about over-mapping which LOC has stated is not part of the proposal.

This is fine. This is what you would want – proposal, response, discussion - leading to the vote at the AGM.

However, somewhere along the line a nerve is hit & a statement is published on the front page of the BOF website from chair of MAG replying to criticism. Why is this allowed?
Surely LOC should be given a public platform to reply to this statement NOW, before the closing date of proxy votes.

While we think Nopesport is important, many orienteers do not use it or follow the discussions it produces. Joe Orienteer in the forest possibly reads the BOF news page and has seen 2 negative responses to the 1 positive (proposal).

This cannot be right.

In the meantime, with regard to the response from chair of MAG, the quote from Hamlet’s mother comes to mind -

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[Scott]

As I understand it Middle distance races are supposed to be 1:10,000. I'd always assumed that they were also supposed to be mapped at a higher level of detail to suit Middle style courses, is that correct?

No. Areas should be mapped to the same level of detail regardless of whether they are being used for a Middle or a Long race; there should definitely not be more detail on the map because it is being used for a Middle race. The IOF Rules are quite explicit about this:

The standard ISOM specification shall be followed. The map scale is 1:10 000. The terrain shall be mapped for 1:15 000 and then be strictly enlarged as specified by ISOM.

ISOM specifies that you don't enlarge the size of the control circles when you enlarge the rest of a map and its symbols from 1:15000 to 1:10000 (although there is an exemption if the same course is being printed at both 1:15000 and 1:10000 for a "multi-age competition"). The idea behind using 1:10000 for Middle races is simply that it gives you greater separation between control circles, Middle courses being more likely to have lots of very short legs than Long courses.

[pete.owens]

As I understand it Middle distance races are supposed to be 1:10,000. I'd always assumed that they were also supposed to be mapped at a higher level of detail to suit Middle style courses, is that correct?

No. It is a straight enlargement - All the symbols, gaps between them are 50% bigger so the cartography is identical.

It certainly makes more sense than just using a 1:15,000 blown up.

If that was the case you would need to maintain two maps of every area - surveyed to different resolutions - one for middle distance races and one for long distance races.

There is a case that for middle distance races, where the focus of the planning is on fine navigation rather than long distance route choice and the M21s already have an enarged map that older competitors would benefit from a larger scale. (Indeed this is mentioned in the rules for the British Middle Disance Champs)

If that is the case, then for mixed course days such as JK day 2 we should have two maps - one for the elite mapped at a higher level of detail and one for the rest of us at the normal detail level - otherwise the guidelines aren't being followed.

Running two courses on the same areas but with different cartography would be a logistical nightmare. Apart from the cost of having to survey the area twice you would have to ensure that any controls shared between courses had separate descriptions with circles placed differently.

Furthermore if a proper Middle distance 1:10,000 map has been surveyed at a higher level of detail then it should be blown up to 1:7,500 for consistency (as the LOC proposal)

But that is not the case - and explicitly not the LOC proposal (as has been explained here several times by the proposers of the motion) The LOC proposal is for a proper ISOM standard map at 1:15000. This would still be used at that scale for several courses (the M21L will not be running on a reduced scal map). The only difference is the degree of elargement offered to older competitors.

[AndyC]

As I understand it Middle distance races are supposed to be 1:10,000. I'd always assumed that they were also supposed to be mapped at a higher level of detail to suit Middle style courses, is that correct?

No. It is a straight enlargement - All the symbols, gaps between them are 50% bigger so the cartography is identical.

Can I calmly point out that it is sometimes necessary for a mapper to slightly displace symbols because they are larger on the map than on the ground and would otherwise overlap other symbols. Even if the symbols are 50% larger in the enlargement it is possible that the mapper could move a displaced symbol nearer to its correct position BECAUSE the gaps are larger. Such an adjustment would be sensible when the map was enlarged and in the spirit of clarity (no extra symbol just a correction )

[andypat]

That seems an unecessarily negative perspective BB.

I thought the statement on the BOF website seemed reasonable and clear. I think the underlying issue is that this sort of clear comms from the group seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

[roadrunner]

Running two courses on the same areas but with different cartography would be a logistical nightmare. Apart from the cost of having to survey the area twice you would have to ensure that any controls shared between courses had separate descriptions with circles placed differently.

ISOM specifies that you don't enlarge the size of the control circles when you enlarge the rest of a map and its symbols from 1:15000 to 1:10000 (although there is an exemption if the same course is being printed at both 1:15000 and 1:10000 for a "multi-age competition"). The idea behind using 1:10000 for Middle races is simply that it gives you greater separation between control circles, Middle courses being more likely to have lots of very short legs than Long courses.

You potentially need different control descriptions anyway if the map is enlarged but the control circles are not - and I certainly remember this being done in the past. (For example, "middle pit" at 1:15000 might just be "pit" at 1:10000).)

[pete.owens]

Running two courses on the same areas but with different cartography would be a logistical nightmare. Apart from the cost of having to survey the area twice you would have to ensure that any controls shared between courses had separate descriptions with circles placed differently.

ISOM specifies that you don't enlarge the size of the control circles when you enlarge the rest of a map and its symbols from 1:15000 to 1:10000 (although there is an exemption if the same course is being printed at both 1:15000 and 1:10000 for a "multi-age competition"). The idea behind using 1:10000 for Middle races is simply that it gives you greater separation between control circles, Middle courses being more likely to have lots of very short legs than Long courses.

You potentially need different control descriptions anyway if the map is enlarged but the control circles are not - and I certainly remember this being done in the past. (For example, "middle pit" at 1:15000 might just be "pit" at 1:10000).)

That is true for straight enlargements - which is why we often get huge circles at events with maps at 2 scales.

But, if you change the scale of the cartography to show more detail then you may need to move the centre of the circles.
Knoll, south foot (with a circle centred on the middle of the brown dot) could become
Hill, south foot (with the circle displaced to the edge of the contour line)

[Wayward-O]

But, if you change the scale of the cartography to show more detail then you may need to move the centre of the circles.
Knoll, south foot (with a circle centred on the middle of the brown dot) could become
Hill, south foot (with the circle displaced to the edge of the contour line)

If you change the scale of the cartography from 1:15K to 1:10K, you map with 50% enlarged symbols (and allowable minimum distances between symbols), so the result should be very similar. Anything else is over-mapping, not ISOM and should not be allowed.

[buzz]

Thanks to Scott and Pete for clarification on the current rules, but I'm now really confused by the LOC proposal.

This is a long thread and it may have been explained elsewhere, but can someone explain what this actually means:

For Day 2 of JK2015, a partly new area for orienteering has been mapped in the Duddon Valley in the western Lake District. Martin Bagness, a very successful elite orienteer in his day and a highly regarded professional mapper, has done the mapping and is now planning the elite middle distance courses. Last November Martin suggested that all competitors, as well as the elites, who use 1:10,000 scale maps on Day 2, should be allowed to use map enlargements on this area.

I had assumed from this and reading MAG response that a request had been made for 1:10000 and 1:7500 maps to be used for JK2015 day 2. LOC seem to be suggesting that the map isn't legible at 1:15,000 (although MAG disagreed and thought it was OK).

Terrain that cannot be fieldworked at a scale of 1:7 500 and legibly presented at a scale of 1:15 000, is not suitable for international foot-orienteering

If its not legible at 1:15000 then surely its been mapped at a higher level of detail than is appropriate for a 1:15000 map (or over-mapped as MAG would describe it). If it is legible at 1:15000 then why do we need 1:10000/1:7500 blow ups for the long courses?

The Duddon Valley has some particularly challenging looking orienteering terrain. It may be that the area isn't suitable for 'international' orienteering, but if previous Bagness/LOC collaborations are anything to go by the orienteering will be excellent.

Please LOC can you put this poor 'mis-informed', 'off topic', voting BO member out of his misery and explain why its nothing to do with the level of detail.