Whilst you've all got your map-scale hats on, can I ask a supplementary question.
ISOM 2017 introduced new control circle sizes which if I understand them correctly suggests a 5mm diameter circle for 1:15,000, 7.5mm for 1:10,000 and 10mm for 1:7,500. So keeping the circle size at 75m relative to the ground for each.
In my opinion this works well where scales are increased for clarity purposes - with everything just magnified. The old standard seemed to allow for this but it hasn't been used consistently.
However, where larger scales are used for juniors courses using smaller control circles allows for shorter legs which are often more appropriate particularly for TD1 courses where decision points can be very close.
I seem to remember that introducing 1:10,000 for short distance and relay courses was originally intended to allow for shorter legs rather than encourage more detail or improve clarity - I can't see any reference to this now though.
BOF rules don't appear to have been updated to suit ISOM 2017 in this area.
Anyone know what the rules/guidelines are for junior course control sizes and any opinions on best practice for junior courses?
1:7,500 for younger competitors
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
1:7,500 for younger competitors
To oblivion and beyond....
-
buzz - addict
- Posts: 1197
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 10:45 pm
- Location: Sheffield
Re: 1:7,500 for younger competitors
buzz wrote:any opinions on best practice
Unless you use a direct enlargement of map and circles, your circles cover different areas on different maps. So you may need multiple control descriptions (e.g. "northern path junction" becomes "path junction". This is hard to do in course setting software, so can lead to mistakes.
You might take the view that the extra clarity is worth it - and kids don't read descriptions anyway.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4724
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: 1:7,500 for younger competitors
Under the previous control description regime, you're probably correct. But note that the IOF 2018 spec for CDs states (for Column C)
So there has been a welcome addition of common sense to this nit-picking issue - in effect, there is no need to state "which" feature unless the situation really is ambiguous.
And this is unlikely to be the case where a second feature appears in the circle on one map scale but not when the scale is different.
These symbols need only be used when required to clarify on which of several similar features the control flag is placed i.e. the features are close enough on the map such that the intended feature is not obvious. They are not required if, for example, a second feature lies near the edge of the control circle.
So there has been a welcome addition of common sense to this nit-picking issue - in effect, there is no need to state "which" feature unless the situation really is ambiguous.
And this is unlikely to be the case where a second feature appears in the circle on one map scale but not when the scale is different.
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: 1:7,500 for younger competitors
DJM wrote:Under the previous control description regime, you're probably correct. But note that the IOF 2018 spec for CDs states (for Column C)These symbols need only be used when required to clarify on which of several similar features the control flag is placed i.e. the features are close enough on the map such that the intended feature is not obvious. They are not required if, for example, a second feature lies near the edge of the control circle.
So there has been a welcome addition of common sense to this nit-picking issue - in effect, there is no need to state "which" feature unless the situation really is ambiguous.
And this is unlikely to be the case where a second feature appears in the circle on one map scale but not when the scale is different.
That's interesting (and sensible) - though I think many planners still use the symbols whenever there are multiple features in the circle. Looking at the Tamar Triple maps of Braunton, for example, I think I'd have known which feature was intended without the extra information (though I still might have had a problem finding it!)
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 76 guests