British

[JEP]

The selection of 1:15000 scale was at the request/direction of Elite Competitions Group. There are few opportunities in the UK for elites to run on complex areas with this scale of map. This is the norm at World level. The World Champs in Sweden used an area in which parts were even more complex than Pwll Du and was mapped at 1:15000.

There can be problems when mapping for 1:10000 and then changing the scale to 1:15000. By careful planning and selection of control sites avoiding areas difficult to read or anomolous areas problems can be avoided. It also avoids the need to re-survey the who;e area for 1:15000.

The British at Penhale had similar issues. The area was of similar complexity and yet there were no complaints from runners and many good comments about the map. This was despite the Plamnner and Controller having reservations about the scale before the event.

Courses other than elite courses which used 1:15000 was down to the organisers. Presumably the 1:15000 for some courses was selected for pragmatic reasons.

I understand the 1:15000 map was litho printed for clarity while the 1:10000 was laser printed.

Generally the entry in the elite courses was less than ideal because the event clashed with he Nordic Championships and was not a selection race. Clashes with international events and international relays is pretty well impossible to avoid these days.

Hope this covers some of the issues.

[Adventure Racer]

I'm not looking forward to nopegrief should something go wrong.

I'd brace yourself - somebody is bound to find something to complain about

[FatBoy]

There are undoubtedly a minority who have a whinge on here. There are also times when people are upset - e.g. I can understand Becks - you train hard/spend time and money to go to a race then feel you didn't get a good result because of a problem with the organisation. However I think if you review most posts in this topic the majority are people volunteering constructive comments at the same time as praising the majority of the organisation.

I won't say Nope postings should form some sort of rules group, but there are more than a few very experienced orienteers on here whose opnions should be valued. To ignore such discussions as whinging would be very narrow minded. After all the forum is called "Discussion". Maybe we need a "Whinging" forum

On the subject of 1:10,000 vs 1:15,000 - I will state what I've said before. If you make 1:10,000 the norm then give it 5 years we will have over-mapped 1:10,000 and be calling for 1:7,500 to be the norm. The scale isn't the problem, it's the level of detail that has been mapped. It is not necessary to map every little rabbit hole and that is the skill of mapping (not saying I've necessarily got that skill for anyone who's run on one of my maps!). Unfortunately the prominence of CAD in mapping has made it very easy to draw highly (over) detailed maps.

[awk]

Another case of a map done to a price rather than to do a job? I suppose that's always going to be the risk of professional mapping, especially when tendering is involved (I don't know whether that was the case at Pwll Du).

What would people prefer at major events - paying extra (say £20 per run) to allow the mappers more time in the area to bring a map up to top quality, or getting a reasonable product for a fiver less? Put another way which scenario would result is less moaning?

My experience in the past has been that organising committees can simply go for (one of) the cheapest tenders; after all, that's why they've asked for them. Unfortunately that can be done without consideration for what the final quality will be: can the area actually be mapped to a decent standard in the amount of hours that tender actually allows for?

I'm not saying that's happened here, but has happened elsewhere, and the result has been disappointment all round. Of course, you also need to ensure that you are actually employing mappers who can bring in a good quality map, which will partly depend on the area too.

[Nails]

If i'd spent the hours that my tender said on the Scarborough map you'd only got one map not two!

In reply to JEP personally I thought that Penhale at 1:15000 was also unreadable in many places. There obviously needs to be a rule somewhere that says in detailled terrain a map shouldn't be used if it has been drawn at 1:10. That said I can see the problem facing organisers etc when it is a request/direction of the Elite Competitions Group. The rule should cover this situation. Too many times I've run on a 1:15 map that has just been a reduction from 1:10 and it is starting to pee me off. Thats twice this year.

The only time where you have no alternative but to use a 1:15 map is for a Long Distance WRE -hence the shrinkage at Whitbarrow.

Now -I want to put this in writing (because it turns out someone thinks that penhale had no objections) to someone who might do something about it but have no idea who. Anyone any suggestions -maybe the ECSG?

[RJ]

Do not all major events have an appointed Mapping Advisor. A qualified mapping specialist who can make judgements about the standard of the final map that the competitors are to receive.

Does the Mapping Advisor have enough "teeth" to insist on a standard?

In the past I have witnessed the disagreements that arise from the mapper(s) being advised that the standard is not being met. Usually about the final scale being chosen, and therefore the amount of detail to be shown.

Sparks fly when it is an "amateur" mapper who proposes to do it his/her way!! Just another area of the sport where the volunteer has to be listened to. We either accept what we get.... or we don't get anything.... or we have to pay for the professional to do it, and then surely the Mapping Advisor can stipulate what we get!!

[Adventure Racer]

On the subject of 1:10,000 vs 1:15,000 - I will state what I've said before. If you make 1:10,000 the norm then give it 5 years we will have over-mapped 1:10,000 and be calling for 1:7,500 to be the norm.

The problem though is that 1:10,000 is the norm. Hence you get situations like this where an area mapped at that scale is reduced to make a 1:15,000 map, hence the over-mapping. Your situation won't arise unless 1:7,500 does become the norm.

[awk]

If i'd spent the hours that my tender said on the Scarborough map you'd only got one map not two!

I think you underline my point Nails. Scarborough was an outstanding map, but it wasn't mapped to a certain number of hours - it was done to a standard. My concern is that when a map is done to hours, if those hours aren't sufficient, then it's not going to be up to scratch. And if committees are going to go for lowest tenders, then they will tend to go for those who haven't allocated sufficient hours without paying enough regard to the consequences. If the mapper than decides (understandably) to stick to the hours..... In other words, we are increasingly likely to depend on professional mappers effectively being prepared to work voluntarily to get a decent map, unless those organising the mapping look beyond simply going for the cheapest.

[Jon Brooke]

I don't think it is reasonable to expect a fresh organising team NOT to make mistakes that have been made before.

Probably the only solution to this problem is to have tighter control from the top i.e. a major events team run by BOF.

Some of the advantages of this might be that they would have:

A shortlist of approved mappers.

A written procedure for ensuring controls are as they should be (updated after each event).

Someone with experience of parking (and un-parking) the number of cars that turn up to a JK or BOC (not a problem this year, thank God!)

A checklist of useful things to do - like getting in a urinal along with normal loos.

etc, etc. All of these things would benefit from having the same group learning from each event.

The disadvantages would be:

Increased overheads.

Maybe no one would want to work with them.

[Gross]

All the difficulties & problems that have arisen (or so it would seem) are controlling issues. What is needed is a means of 'controlling the controllers' as I've argued everytime this thread starts up!

And that doesn't mean passing blame.... it means educating controllers about the rules & the best way of doing things. That doesn't happen in GB orienteering...............

About BOC & W21E.... on the face of it if I was controller I would have voided the course BUT ONLY IF A PROTEST WAS MADE.... no protest then no apparent problem & everyone is happy... but of course that doesn't mean the problem didn't exist:)

[PorkyFatBoy]

it means educating controllers about the rules & the best way of doing things. That doesn't happen in GB orienteering

But I've seen the problem of the "wandering control" discussed in the "Controller's Conundrum" in CompassSport Magazine before now (maybe an old one ~1992) - so it gets discussed, but not collated into a single document that supports or explain the application of the rules.

I guess that a co-ordinate (i.e. BOF sanctioned) organisers manual (cf the planners manual) could also address best practice ensuring the organiser receives less nopegrief.

Hope this is constructive enough.

[FatBoy]

The problem though is that 1:10,000 is the norm.

Unfortunately you are right - it's happened already. It just needs somebody to rubber stamp it to be the rule and we're off in the direction of 1:7,500.

What we need is for a major event in a technical area to buck the trend and do a proper 1:15,000 map. That is the rule, and that's why the Elite Competitions group want to run events on 1:15,000. Reducing a 1:10,000 map only serves to fuel people's thoughts that you can't read a 1:15,000 map on a technical area - which is nonsense. Go to any part of Scandinavia and show me a 1:15,000 map which is too detailed to read. They're just better at leaving unnecessary detail off.

[SJC]

What we need is for a major event in a technical area to buck the trend and do a proper 1:15,000 map.

This would also have the benefit of providing the enlarged 1:10,000 map with the correct level of detail to be read by the older age groups. The larger scale was introduced to make the map readable. This is no longer the case.

Anyone know what is planned for the Culbin map for BOC 2008 ?

[graeme]

The World Champs in Sweden used an area in which parts were even more complex than Pwll Du and was mapped at 1:15000.

You seem to be completely missing the point, which is that Pwll Du was NOT mapped at 1:15000.

The British at Penhale had similar issues. The area was of similar complexity and yet there were no complaints from runners

That is not true.

I complained to you beforehand and I complained to you on the day - the original JK Penhale map was drawn at 1:10 for all, with dispensation from BOF because the mapper claimed to be unable to map it at 1:15. It was then shrunk to 1:15 for the elite race. This is NOT a 1:15 orienteering map, whatever you say about symbol sizes.

I didn't protest, as there weren't really any grounds for protest. But the map group were sufficiently concerned to ask for a report

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/D ... _03_12.pdf

Now, I feel obliged to say some nice things. Having acknowledged he couldn't map at 1:15 the mapper (can't remember who) obviously took great pains to ensure it was very legible at 1:10 - there's no clutter or meaningless formlines or overmapped pits. It is an excellent 1:10 map, and if I remember rightly it won an award. Having decided/been forced to run BOC on a shrunken 1:10 map (wrongly) it was also decided to offset print the 1:15 (rightly). The improved printing clarity of the 1:15 compared to the laserprinted 1:10 non-elites had is striking.

Exactly the same thing happened at the High Dam BEOC. I wrote to the map group then as well.

Culbin is just as detailed as Penhale or Pwll Du - I don't know what the plans are but with a new area and professional mapper as coordinator I'm confident we'll get a map properly surveyed for use at 1:15000, just like we're supposed to. And if I still need a magnifier, as is likely, that will be my problem.

[Nails]

well said graeme