Map scales for "long" races

[EddieH]

This year's WMOC in Austria was fantastic with the most extraordinarily detailed maps.

However the detail meant that there was a huge amount of tiny detail. Iain Rochford and I stood relaxed after the race in bright sunshine, trying unsuccessfully to see the "reentrant" in a control circle. (We had both found the control by run arond and search method.) This is despite the fact that I was wearing a X 3 contact lens - (I read with X 1.5). It was only when I dobled the magnification to X 6 that I was able to see the kink in the contour. This search spoiled an otherwise superb course.

I remember when it was called the VWC in 1992 in Tasmania, Stephen Keys produced a great map for one of the races. However he was roundly criticised for producing the map to the wrong specification - he had surveyed it for 1:10000 instead of the usual 1:15000 with the map being printed at 1:10000.

As each year passes more and more maps are produced at 1:10000 with middle distance detail and each mapper seeming to try to beat the last in how much detail they can show.

I love the detail but only if I can see it fairly easily - that is why the new sprint O specification produces such fanastic fun. However if this trend is to continue then veterans should have 1:7500 prints. Had we had them in Austria I am sure that a number of visually challenged competitiors would have done far better and the competition would be much fairer not to mention that when you can't actually see the map it is no longer fun.

[graeme]

Couldn't agree more Eddie!

Its really depressing that people who should know better seem to think that making a map for use at 1:10000, then photoreducing to 1:15000 makes for a 1:15000 map you can orienteer on (BEOC 04/05).

Or that looking for single-pixel reentrants (JK 05/06) is really a mapreading challenge, rather than an exercise in running to the circle and hunting.

Graeme

[Kitch]

Oh my!
rewind 20 years
haven't we been here before ?

[Seamus]

I'm trying to think the last time I used a 1:15,000 map (I missed day 2 of the JK, having done the middle race on the saturday). Looking through the EYOC and JWOC out of all the races, only one used a 1:15,000 and that was on the Classic at JWOC.

Is the 1:15,000 map, once the main scale now a thing of the past?

[graeme]

Oh my!
rewind 20 years
haven't we been here before ?

No. Absolutely not. (almost) twenty years ago the old people were promised blown up versions of 1:15 maps, for readability. At that time, I thought it would quickly lead to more detail being crammed on until the same level of illegibility appeared. BOF map group assured me that wasn't the intention and wouldn't happen.

I don't usually have to be this patient to be proved right

[King Penguin]

The Swiss O in Zermatt obtained special permission to us 1:7,500 for all courses on Day 3, because of the complexity of the bare rock terrain. It was the best day by far. By all means have a "standard" scale for each event but let's be flexible enough to recognise when this is not practical and adjust accordingly. It would have been a terrible waste if that day had not been able to take place simply because the rules as "must use 1:10,000, or 1:15,000, for a classic race". However, as said by others the detail mapped must be appropriate to the scale; simply enlarging/reducing is not the solution.

[Kitch]

Ahh you see Graeme, thats not where the argument started (over) 20 years ago.

The point was that then an awful lot of maps were produced at 1:10, and because of the space on the paper when surveying (at 1:5) they were getting horribly overmapped with stuff that really didn't help.

The pressure at the time was to have mapping take place for 1:15 (survey at 1:7.5) to reduce/remove the temptation to overmap.

those of the veteran classess insisted they needed 1:10 to be able to see.
"Ah" went the argument
"what you need is to be able to see clear and meaningfull detail, and not excessive clutter, correct ?"
"yes" they said

"So" went the argument
"if we map for 1:15 to reduce clutter and silly fiddlyness, and then literally blow that up to 1:10 so that all the lines and dots and stuff are actually 50% bigger, and easier for your failing eyes to see, would that be good ?"
"that would be great" they said.

and it was.

Its the mapping scale that is the issue

The point Eddie makes is that more maps are being produced (mapped) for 1:10, not 1:15 and then blown up.
(Even I have the horrible feeling mapped for 1:10 then reduced to 1:15 for extreme illegibility - BOC ?)

so, I fear, we have been here before.....

have you ever had to wait this long to be told you got the wrong end of the stick ?

[FatBoy]

Ah my pet subject!

Over mapping isn't just about survey scale, it's about experience. I wouldn't say hand on heart I always get it right but I don't decide to map a given feature based on do I have space on the paper, but more importantly is it a relevant feature in the area at the intended scale? Personally I often survey at 1:2500 because I'm the worlds scruffiest writer - leaves plenty of space to write big note and cross stuff out around the features.

Over mapping is rife now, and I'm afraid this is partly a result of (O)CAD being used. It's great we have CAD now, don't get me wrong, but as we don't have to hand draw them any more we can now draw ridiculous detail.

[tendon]

(Even I have the horrible feeling mapped for 1:10 then reduced to 1:15 for extreme illegibility - BOC ?)

Um ...... there were reasons

It was using the BOC06 map at 1:10,000 that convinced me I needed glasses - at one point I proposed 1:7,500 for the relays

[Gnitworp]

In my opinion, there are only 2 valid arguments for using a 1:15000 scale:

1) Very-long-leg route choices can be assessed more
easily

2) The paper size can be more manageable 'on the run'

If these are not relevant, there can be no other reasons for using 1:15000 rather than the now widely preferred and consequently more prevalent 1:10000 - orienteering is not a close-vision eyesight test.

Maps should be made to achieve, above all, legibility and consistency. A high level of detail in parts may be needed to achieve the latter.

[Kitch]

Maps should be made to achieve, above all, legibility and consistency. A high level of detail in parts may be needed to achieve the latter.

Agree entirely with the forst sentence but what you then implying is that in an area with inconsistent levels of detail you must map everything in the low detail areas to try and make them interesting, having done so you have to overmap the detailed areas.

Surely it is just as valid to opt for lesser detail -achieve consistency across the map with legibility in the detailed areas.

As Fatboy says it is about experience and I would tend to agree that OCAD perhaps allows the inexpeineced to get carried away.

There is nothing wrong with a 15:000 map if it was produced for to be a 15:000 map. And that doesn't just mean using the right width of lines etc. it means the mapper appreciating the level of detail that can be realistically shown on a 1:15,000, and that takes experience. Our professional mappers produce extremely high quality ligible and consisent maps to standard. When 'hobby' mappers get hold of OCAD then things can begin to get a bit variable.

You get into a situation which basically boils down to "I've overmapped it, can I print it at a larger scale ?"

[graeme]

have you ever had to wait this long to be told you got the wrong end of the stick ?

Frequently: Never argue history with the man who was King of the Forest when you started...

When I got involved, almost twenty years ago, we were already at the second stage you describe ("selling it to the oldies"). I hadn't realised there was a previous stage ("optimising for the elite") more than twenty years ago. But I understood Eddie's point to be exactly as you did - you should survey for 1:15000 legibility, and then the 1:10000 map is legible for those with poor eyesight. The issue is legibility not scale.

Our professional mappers produce extremely high quality ligible and consisent maps to standard. When 'hobby' mappers get hold of OCAD then things can begin to get a bit variable.

I know what you mean, but the divide isn't between "hobby and professional": there are plenty of dodgy professional maps around. And part of the problem is that we "hobby" mappers tend to limp along without proper basemaps.

It does open a question of whether bad mappers (such as me) should be encouraged or not. Given that in all the maps I've made, the alternative is "no map" rather than "professional map", I think I'm doing a service, but when people talk about holding championships on one of my basemap-free amateur efforts I'm not so sure.

[EddieH]

I am glad I've stirred up a hornet's nest. Graeme and Kitch understand my poit exactly.

King Penguin, I agree that day 3 at SOW was the best and the scale (which I never realised when I was running on it!) was not relevent to my point.

Yes lets survey areas at a scale appropriate to them. However old people's eyes do deteriorate, and whatever is the appropriate scale for an Elite long race is nearly always better blown up for veterans.

[Kitch]

Graeme I wouldn't want to discourage the 'amateur' production of maps - it underpins probably half the sport.

I wonder if there is an appetite for survey training weekends ?
Not as a beurocratic stipulation but to help new mappers / enthusiasts to understand the ins, outs, approachestechniques and pitfalls, because they want to...

[graeme]

I wonder if there is an appetite for survey training weekends ?

These already exist. I've been on mapping weekends, and instructed by some excellent mappers, and the main thing I've learnt is that mapping is, in part, a gift. An untalented athlete can get to maybe county standard by hard work, but no further: mapping seems to be similar. Although I know what to do to make a professional standard map, I can't actually do it (any more than I can paint a realistic elephant).