Map Scales at 2014 BOF AGM

[buzz]

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.

Not necessarily. Most of the Middle distance races that I've done have been on areas that are too small to accommodate Long distance orienteering The only one I can think of that has two map scales is Leith hill and the large scale map is just a small part of the area.

In each case the maps appear to have been surveyed at a higher level of detail than ISOM would allow typically because the terrain includes detailed mining/quarry or rock formations and little else of interest (e.g. Tankersley, Loxley, Cademan, Brimham, Stanton Moor). These are the sort of maps that would receive legitimacy from LOC's proposal even if LOC don't see level of detail as the issue.

The best three middle distance events, in my opinion, were LOC events on Haverthwaite, Bigland and Graythwaite which were all presented as 1:7500 map scales and again appear to have been mapped for 1:10000 scale. Versions of all three maps have been used at 1:15000 in the past, but legibility was an issue for many (as has been documented many times in this and other threads), and LOC appear to more often than not use 1:10000 for Long distance courses on these areas, presumably for legibility.

[pete.owens]

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.

Not necessarily. Most of the Middle distance races that I've done have been on areas that are too small to accommodate Long distance orienteering The only one I can think of that has two map scales is Leith hill and the large scale map is just a small part of the area.

In each case the maps appear to have been surveyed at a higher level of detail than ISOM would allow typically because the terrain includes detailed mining/quarry or rock formations and little else of interest

And this is a good way of making use of small areas - typically maps will be produced to a scale that can be printed on A4 - and drawn using the 150% enlarged symbol set that you would be used for standard 1:10000 maps. You can then map intricate detail that would need a simplified abstaction on a standard map to give more choice of control sites in a restricted area. You are not going to be holding the JK or BOC in this sort of area, so it is not what the motion is about.

(e.g. Tankersley, Loxley, Cademan, Brimham, Stanton Moor).

Actually Cademan was used for the British Middle Champs in 2009 - with a standard ISOM map at 1:10000 - and very good it was too.

These are the sort of maps that would receive legitimacy from LOC's proposal even if LOC don't see level of detail as the issue.

No, LOCs proposal is NOT about using the enlarged scale to cram in more detail - it is about enlarging standard ISOM maps for older competitors by 200% rather than 150%. The table in the LOC proposal still has 18-40s using the same 1:15000 maps as at present. Indeed, if an enlarged scale is used to map a higher level of detail for 21s the presumably the LOC veterans would require a 1:5000 map as (the 1:7500 map of Culbin is every bit as wrinkly as any 1:10000 Lakeland map for example)

The best three middle distance events, in my opinion, were LOC events on Haverthwaite, Bigland and Graythwaite which were all presented as 1:7500 map scales and again appear to have been mapped for 1:10000 scale.

Larger scales are less of a problem for middle races than for long as there is a greater focus on fine navigation rather than long route choice legs. The 21s already get a 1:10000 enlargement so I think a case could be made for 1:7500 for vets.

However, those examples are all straight enlargements of 1:15000 maps - look carefully at the thickness of the contour lines or the spacing between the lines for marsh or undergrowth hatching and compare it with a bog standard 1:10000 map. I have run on Bigland on both 1:10000 and 1:7500 maps - and much preferred the former as the 1:10000 map gives a much clearer picture of the overall shape of the ground. When the map scale issue first reared its head for the Northern Champs at Greythwaite I chose the 1:7500 map and regretted it.

[buzz]

Pete. I think this conversation is in dire need of a bottle of whisky.

[graeme]

So one simple question to each side. Consider the general case or specific example of Haverthwaite discussed above.

To LOC... Are you in favour of maps showing more detail than allowed by ISOM?
To MAG... Why, over many years, has nothing been done about what you regard as overmapping?

[RichT]

Graeme,

In my first post I state ". . it is not about allowing mappers to put more detail on a map, ."

On Page 7 I post "Let us be clear that Lakeland are NOT asking for larger map scales to be allowed so that maps can contain more detail."

I don't understand why you don't understand?

I shall be reaching for that bottle of whisky tonight, but only to toast the fine performances of Kris Jones and Cat Taylor at the Europeans.

[graeme]

I don't understand why you don't understand?

As I explained earlier, Haverthwaite (and many of your maps) contain many small features which should not be shown under ISOM. This is not just my opinion: it comes from the rules of ISOM and control descriptions used by British championship planners and controllers, and most recently the WOC trials.

You repeat that you don't want to add even more detail. Good. But the question is whether you are happy with the existing overmapping? Do you want to declutter the old maps and map the 2015 JK according to ISOM?

[mykind]

It doesn't seem quite fair to just bite LOC on the subject of overmapping. Almost every club in the land will have a few overmapped areas. Not least because planners can now very easily add "that lovely little boulder" onto the map so that they can use it as a control site and once a feature is on the map it tends to stay put. The "lovely little boulder" which was very obvious with a "lovely big marker" hanging above it now sinks back into its deserved anonimity and merely serves to confuse those who were relying on it for an attack point three years later. Overmapping is a creeping disease which strikes a map down by slow degrees.

[maprun]

Was the resolution approved at the AGM?

[Spookster]

Was the resolution approved at the AGM?

Yes, the proposal was passed.

[graeme]

And so we decided to use 1:7500 at the Scottish Relays ("A4 scale").

One issue with this is that, because it's not covered by ISOM, we didn't know what size of symbols to use. In fact, we went for a blow up of the JK map (presumably double-sized from ISSOM 1:15000). There was some comment that once symbols are blown up once (converting 1:15 -> 1:10) they are already big enough. So e.g. each little black dot of stony ground became the size of standard ISOM boulders.

What do/did you think?

[Gnitworp]

Use a blown-up version of 1:10000 drawn with ISOM standard 1:15000 symbols?

[NeilC]

The brain is an amazing thing. I ran the SE sprint champs that back on page 1 Gnitworp claimed had to be printed at 1:3000 to make it legible.
http://www.happyherts.routegadget.co.uk/rg2/#156

For most of the first race my brain was telling me something was wrong, not only were things coming up too quickly but objects on the ground were smaller than I expected. I suspect that the reason for that was that I was used to sprint/urban maps being produced to the correct specification. I would look at a building (for example) on the map and my brain would work out what it should look like on the ground. I was really surprised about how off putting this was and for me at least another good reason not to mess around with scales/symbol sizes at important events if at all possible.

[Gnitworp]

Good feedback from a useful experiment at a C Grade event.

I was Controller, and supported it rather than vetoed it.

[Paul Frost]

And so we decided to use 1:7500 at the Scottish Relays ("A4 scale").
One issue with this is that, because it's not covered by ISOM, we didn't know what size of symbols to use. In fact, we went for a blow up of the JK map (presumably double-sized from ISSOM 1:15000). There was some comment that once symbols are blown up once (converting 1:15 -> 1:10) they are already big enough. So e.g. each little black dot of stony ground became the size of standard ISOM boulders.
What do/did you think?

The below examples show the difference when you change the scale of the map in Ocad.
The copy of the map I had was already at 1:10,000.

1:10,000 map re-scaled to 1:7,500 with symbols left at 1:10,000 size

1:10,000 map re-scaled to 1:7,500 map with symbols resized to match (as used at the Scottish Relays)

I prefer the top image as the contour lines and paths are not so dominant. It also looks a bit less cluttered.