Eyesight and Map Scales

[EddieH]

Further, I am all for choosing a colour that helps the colour blind as much as possible (and would be even if colour blindness were rare). That is because everyone can operate with it. Similarly I am all for a greater flexibility in map scales for different areas, and definitely for blowing up the map scales for older competitors for the same reason.

Once a disability, be it sight or muscular, makes it impossible to do the sport, sadly that is life. Invent a new sport such as Trail O if you wish, but it is not orienteering just as wheelchair basketball (which looks great fun) is not basketball and never can be.

[RJ]

The point about visual disability beina linear rather than an either/ or thing is well made. And if you thinkk that there is no advantage for many in getting a blown up map then just talk to the Elite after they have to run on 1:15000 at Shining Cliff, Brown Clee, Pwll Du ...........

Is it not true to say that the area can be mapped at 1:15 so that racing can be achieved whilst reading it? Surely Swedish and Norwegian areas can be mapped at this scale and orienteers manage to compete at speed. Why should GB areas/mapping be any different?

I don't think your examples of basketball etc are valid. The visually impaired orienteer can still compete in the terrain and will only be distinct/different from others if you happen to notice an enlarged scale map. I really must reiterate..... try to see the bigger picture. Having been involved in providing a specially printed map I don't see the problems that you allude to.

[greywolf]

Is it not true to say that the area can be mapped at 1:15 so that racing can be achieved whilst reading it

Yes, the issue isn't really about scale per se - you can race around the hills on 1:25,000 or even 1:50,000 maps - it's about the density of detail that mappers feel obliged to include - and to my mind (and ageing eyes) GB mappers generally have a tendency to include too much! - which is why I and maybe many others feel more comfortable with blown-up maps of complex areas (a good example being Anagach at the S6D where never mind reading the map at speed, i couldn't make out the contour detail standing still - rain not helping the magnifier...)

The science of mapping is getting everything you include in the right place - the art of mapping is working out what to include and what to leave out...much harder than it sounds. I've only been involved in mapping one area - runnable coastal pine forest on sand dunes - early drafts were a real dogs breakfast of brown form lines, knolls, depressions etc, and I have to admit it took a real effort of will to remove half of them. Think the final version is better for it though.

[Peter B]

The BOF website claims that the sport "no barriers to involvement". We should consider whether not allowing people with visual disabilities an enlarged map is actually raising a barrier up, and also whether a person already with a visual impairment does actually have an unfair advantage over his/her competitors by having an enlarged map because of their disability - such is (presumably) why in the OP the ruling was that he must run n/c.

An alternative Trail-O competition may not be available to these people, also, they might not actually want to trail-orienteer but still be able to foot orienteer with map and compass - they still have the same right to as everyone else - if a governing body does actually want to keep its claims of having "no barriers to involvement" then it should be looking at actively helping these people in what they want to do.

Eddie, as a regular wheelchair basketball player, I disagree that it is "not basketball and never can be". Remember that, wheelchair basketball is basketball but adapted so that people in wheelchairs can still participate. My hope is that, certainly in wheelchair sports, the fact that they're actually mobility impaired affects them as little as possible. They all have the same range of talent as able-bodied basketball players.

[Jon Brooke]

if you thinkk that there is no advantage for many in getting a blown up map then just talk to the Elite after they have to run on 1:15000 at Shining Cliff, Brown Clee, Pwll Du

Maybe they shouldn't have 1:15,000 maps of those areas then?

As I'm almost a complete novice to the rules of orienteering (only been doing it for 5 years or so) and not fully aware of the labyrinthine and seismic movements and wranglings that have gone into shaping the current rules, could someone tell me why some classes have to run 1:15,000 rather than at a scale that would be more appropriate to the terrain?

[Gnitworp]

IOF Foot Orienteering Competition Rules 2007

15.2
The map scale for Long distance races shall be 1:15000. The map scale for Middle distance races and for Relays shall be1:15000 or 1:10000. The map scale for Sprint shall be 1:5000 or 1:4000.

[Jon Brooke]

I was really looking for more of a rationale. I know its a rule, but why is it the rule?

[EddieH]

The IOF have spoken, Jon
I wouldn't want to dictate what the elite want and maybe the point is that long races are supposed to be of the style that 1:15000 is appropriate for - i.e. simplify that detail more. Equally it may be that in some of these amazing areas (such as karst limestone in E Europe) the whole thing should be changed. I'd love to hear from the elite what they think.

If the former it seems quite clear that in Britain we don't have that mentality - few, if any, maps are produced for long as opposed to middle style races. Often areas are not chosen with any reference to what sort of event they are suited to. For the great orienteering (elderly) public does it matter

I don't really know but I do think that when a scale is produced for any elite competition, whatever scale is chosen should ideally be enlarged for older competitors. WMOC suffers from mappers mapping at larger scale as for any elite event.

However overall I don't want it all too prescriptive as it is not desirable to drive people out of the sport because their experience of officiating is negative.

[runnerbean]

I received the following reply from Barry Elkington, Chairman of BOF Rules Group. I've also attached the document referred to below:
"Whilst you are correct in stating that "orienteering is not supposed to be an eyesight test" there is no doubt that a larger scale map with larger symbols can be read more easily, and whilst running faster, than one at a smaller scale. This is particularly true in complex areas. Hence the decision that the scale of the map is very relevant, and that in order to compete on equal terms everyone must use the same scale map.
Attached is a longer explanation of the decision regarding eyesight and map scales."

Eyesight and Map Scales.doc

(22 KiB) Downloaded 399 times

I think I'm reluctantly persuaded that it was the correct decision, but it still irks me somewhat!

[IanD]

I still think that the larger scale map will not completely compensate for poor eyesight, the competitor will still be disadvantaged, and therefore need not be branded uncompetitive.

However, the appropriate committee have clearly considered the matter carefully and conscientiously and come to a decision. Let's accept it and move on.

If and when technology reaches the point that everyone can choose their preferred map scale without adding to the organisers workload, that would be time to reconsider.

[awk]

So what Event Ops is effectively saying is that we know that a larger scale is quicker to read, but we're going to deliberately build in a disadvantage, which we insist everybody is subject to. Err?!

Actually, i believe this is wrong. The choice of map scale tis aimed at providing the best scale for quick reading and decision making. 1:15k isn't chosen to deliberately disadvantage anybody, but because it's generally the best balance for that terrain and course type for good/average sighted runners (as long as it's mapped for 1:15k!). Same with 1:10k for the areas and classes it's used for. So the logical sequitur is that any other scaling of those maps provides a disadvantage, so to give a poor eye-sighted individual a large scale map is not to give them unfair advantage.

Personal experience bears that out. When I was young and with better eyesight than now (only 8-10 dioptres out!), I found 1:15k quicker to read most of the time, because it was easier to see the shape of the land than at 1:10k - all that extra map folding didn't help either! Equally, put a standard length course on a 1:5k map, and there was no advantage (still isn't!) - just try reading and planning a 1k leg at that scale! In other words, The only advantage at 1:5k is that the poor eyesighted individual might actually be able to read it.

If the larger scale does give an advantage, then why not give it to everybody? Because it isn't actually an advantage.

[Gross]

It's all crap......... orienteer with what you have & don't moan................

[awk]

That's all very well Gross if you are able to orienteer with what you've got.

[Adventure Racer]

It's all crap......... orienteer with what you have & don't moan................

Fair enough. Let's all orienteer on maps reduced to 1:50,000. Then it becomes an exercise in how good your sight is - and I'll put money on mine being better than most of my competitors (I might have to slow down a bit, but they'll be slowing down more)

[RJ]

"Whilst you are correct in stating that "orienteering is not supposed to be an eyesight test" there is no doubt that a larger scale map with larger symbols can be read more easily, and whilst running faster, than one at a smaller scale. This is particularly true in complex areas. Hence the decision that the scale of the map is very relevant, and that in order to compete on equal terms everyone must use the same scale map.
Attached is a longer explanation of the decision regarding eyesight and map scales."

The Rules Group still haven't seen the point. Of course TWO people with the same eyesight quality with maps of different scales, then the one with the larger scale will have an advantage.

But the whole point of the query in the first place was that of those TWO people ONE of them has severely impaired eyesight quality. A larger scale merely helps to balance the disadvantage. No reason for it to alter the balance of competitiveness.

All the ruling achieves is to definitely prevent an orienteer from being able to compete at a major event. The orienteer with severely impaired eyesight still has to struggle with detail, using a magnifier, on the larger scale map. More so than the average orienteer on the normal scale.

Rules Group, IMHO, are more interested in the clear definition of the rule than an understanding of what the rule is trying to achieve in this case. Of course the 'scale of the map is very relevant' ....... but the consequence of the two scaled maps in the hands of TWO orienteers could be seen as balanced, and providing faireness to the visually impaired competitors.

It is likely to affect a very few people, and probably not at the top end of the results, so where is the problem. A poor decision..... and exemplifing how the sport is full of unbending rules and regulations. We just like clear cut, easy to interpret rules don't we?