Map scales (again!)

[awk]

One thing I learned from the long and (at least to me!) interesting thread last year "Eyesight and map scales" was that enlarged maps for the M45+ age classes was an option that was up to planner/controller. Recently, I've been to two events on complex areas (sand dunes/Lake District woodland) where my enjoyment has been seriously spoiled by the planner/controller excluding M45/50L from being given the enlarged scale.

I am extremely grateful to the organisers for these events - they both obviously involved a lot of work, and organisation was otherwise excellent - but the impairment of enjoyment is just so great, that I'm either not going to enter such events in future, or get a non-comp run on another course - the frustration is really that bad. This was driven home to me today at the LOC event: I found the map virtually impossible to see in some places, let alone interpret, exacerbated by the laser printing, which I find regularly affects the readability of maps. This was in stark contrast to last week's SYO race at Tankersley, where the map was enlarged to great effect - a superbly enjoyable event. I'm really sad - Bouth promised so much, but it became more of an eye test than an orienteering challenge, and not the enjoyable orienteering I had looked forward to. Those with "older" eyes were seriously disadvantaged, and I don't see why they needed to be. At least the forest was a pleasant place to have a run, and I'm sure others with younger eyes or enlarged scales will have enjoyed themselves enormously.

So really just a plea to planners and controllers: please DO include M45/50L in the enlarged map categories,especially when using laser printed maps - for some (many??) of us it's the difference between a thoroughly enjoyable event and total frustration.

[RJ]

Agree with most of what you say awk. But you are obviously challenged with your eyesight and aren't necessarily representative of the M45 age group. The map today at Bouth was 1:10000, with 1:7500 for the older groups. As far as I could tell it was only courses 1, 2 and 3 who had 1:10 maps. However, your map reading ability may have to be solved with optical magnification!!

Even so, I would support you in asking for larger scales. Being able to run and read the map is what it is all about. M21s can probably get away with 1:15 and 1:10 in very complex terrain, but for others the larger scale makes the experience more enjoyable, as you say. It isn't just a map reading exercise... it is a race as well.

If the rules say that maps shall be 1:15000 with a blown up version at 1:10000 for others, and that no other scales are allowed (except for Sprint/Park racing) then WE NEED TO CHANGE THE RULES!!!!!!

Enjoy what we do.... and not what you imply...... be frustrated by inadequate racing setups.

[DM]

We all thought the event had good well planned courses. I was on 1:10000 on course 2, running up for some reason I can't remember now. I found it OK but a larger scale would have been better.

However, if the larger scales are for the older runners with not so good eyesight in general then how do we explain the fact that all the following had 1:7500?

M55L, M60L, M35S, M40S, JM5M!!, JW5L!, W35L and W40L.

Confused.

[awk]

But you are obviously challenged with your eyesight and aren't necessarily representative of the M45 age group.

Well...yes I am challenged, but only when I'm not wearing glasses: when I am, my eyesight is, according to my optician (a sport specialist), better than normal for my age. But you are right about my not necessarily being representative of M45, as I am an M50 now!

The map today at Bouth was 1:10000, with 1:7500 for the older groups.

Sorry, it wasn't quite. As you say later, it was 1:7500 for courses 4 upwards (downwards?), which is subtly different. These, as DM shows, includes a lot of not very old people, whilst in the meantime, M50 (and M45) were lumbered with a 1:10k map - even if we like to think we're still not very old! I wasn't the only one commenting on the difficulty of reading it.

As for getting optical magnification: I already use a magnifier, usually very happily. It's great especially for fine-O, but any magnifier has a limited width of view, and whilst it's of some considerable help, it is still hard to keep a wider perspective, which is what you need to be able to do, especially in Lakeland terrain, especially when running under trees. Today, even with a magnifier, the nature of the map production (printing, line widths etc.) meant that it was very difficult to read (and I'm not talking about interpretation). Last week's map was so clear and at the appropriate scale that even though the area was as detailed as today, I hardly used the magnifier - similarly at the Scottish 6-day.

Almost any map (except perhaps BOC07!) is readable under a good light when sitting or standing still - but they need to be readable in shaded light on the run, which is something that I think officials miss, particularly now we use laser printed maps so often (which I am not protesting about - I welcome them - but the issues need to be taken on board).

Being able to run and read the map is what it is all about.

Too right - best sport in the world by a long chalk!

[Oldman]

Well...yes I am challenged, but only when I'm not wearing glasses: when I am, my eyesight is, according to my optician (a sport specialist), better than normal for my age.

awk, are you saying that you run without glasses and are complaining about the map scale, or do you run with glasses?

[awk]

awk, are you saying that you run without glasses and are complaining about the map scale, or do you run with glasses?

Run with glasses - I wouldn't get very far without!!

[Tatty]

Never seen awk without his glasses in many, many years!!

[graeme]

you are obviously challenged with your eyesight and aren't necessarily representative of the M45 age group.

I'm completely with AWK. My choice of course nowadays is dictated by whether I think I'll be able to read the map. And so I'm still unsure about the British, as its not clear whether M45 will get a blown up map (despite various closing dates been and gone)... Or if I'll have to run short to see the map

If the rules say that maps shall be 1:15000 with a blown up version at 1:10000 for others, and that no other scales are allowed (except for Sprint/Park racing) then WE NEED TO CHANGE THE RULES!!!!!!

The rules don't say shall (but where they do talk about blown up maps, the suggested cut off is M45). And the problem isn't scale, its cartography, overmapping and print quality. A map can be perfectly legible at 1:15000 (e.g. WOC selection race at Creag Leach, and in fact most of my maps from 10+ years ago) or illegible at 1:10000 (you know where). Almost every remap nowadays is harder to read than its predecessor - even M21s are running round with magnifiers! - You just don't need to map every last bit of rock...

Urban races are still working on this. The Edinburgh map, widely praised for its accuracy, was in fact distorted in many ways, and even mismapped in places, all to improve clarity and managability at A3. And as Mharky said in another thread, it took AGES.

This weekend's Edinburgh curiosity, the ESOC Chasing Sprint. A fun race, 60+ on the course, around the university campus with a £10 entry fee.
A4 scale map (1:4000). Only a few years ago nobody would consider even mapping the campus, let alone paying that much to race there. Interesting times.

[lakesorunner]

For the Bouth event there were three maps printed (1:10,000, 1:7,500 and 1:5,000). The main consideration for which scale went with which course was one of course length/shape - i.e. - would it fit on the paper!. If course 3 (M45/M50 etc) would have fitted on a 1:7,500, I am fairly sure that is what they would have got. Of course, you could produce an A3 map for the M45, M50's, but then would you also produce a 1:10,000 for the M21S and the JM5L...? At some point there has to be a line drawn - and this will never be right for all runners. Similarly, map colours, line thicknesses, control circle sizes (mapping!?) are never right for everyone. As they say, you can never suit all of the people all of the time!
As one of those who prints the maps, we are all continually looking at improving the prints we obtain - we all know that the maps should be read one the run. If you have a problem, don't just bitch and gripe - talk (nicely) to whoever did the printing and try to improve things with them!

[NeilC]

The line has been drawn
M/W45s and older and M/W16s and younger should get the larger scale map
If a mixture of classes are on the same course (eg W21 and M45L) then use the larger scale map for all

[marcus_weatherburn]

why not have a choice when you enter, ie, those who want 1:10,000 can have it whereas those who want 1.7500 can also have it. changing the scale of the map technically makes no difference as it is exactly the same course but changing the scale will just suit different people. this way all people will be happy and you wont have to change your course decision due to the scale. I think the rules (whatever they maye be) need changing on this one. at the end of the day why cant people on the same course run using different scale maps.

I am m18 at the moment so dont need to worry about it (hopefully for along time) but I can see where people are coming from.

Using M18L at the British Champs 2007 (meant to be the best event of the year in out country). I got to one section of the course and actually couldnt read the area at all - it was the most complex of areas with hundreads of boulders, crags, paths, walls and countours all in an area on the map not much bigger that an inch squared. this slowed me down quite alot. I found the control after visiting 3 other controls all of which werent mine by what i would say was pure luck. this was 1.15,000 but still, organisers should check before printing that all areas (if on a scale like 1:15000) on the map can be cleaqrly identified.

[graeme]

Why not indeed? and before organisers complain about the extra hassle, note that you *could* simply print each course at the scale most people want, as indicated by entry.

In fact, if you read the rules, the expected answer is implicitly there: where courses are printed at two scales it warns against "Unscrupulous competitors taking 1:10,000 maps", but not "Unscrupulous competitors taking 1:15,000 maps".

The main downside is that moving to ever-larger scales will just exacerbate overmapping.

[marcus_weatherburn]

why not when entering, state the map scale, then when you pick up your map at the start (provided the organisers have put them in the correct order) you should have the scale you want.

[Scott]

(provided the organisers have put them in the correct order)

That way lies madness - remember the confusion with the butterfly loops at Warwick? All it takes is for one person to DNS, and the whole system falls apart.

Having a separate map box for each scale would be a safer bet, but one objection that springs to mind is the need to double the redundancy required when printing - increased cost for the organising club, and bad for the environment too.

[Paul T]

And the problem isn't scale, its cartography, overmapping and print quality.

How can we address these fundamental issues? This might be more difficult than making things ever more complicated for volunteer officials, but must be more sustainable
Even assuming that technology will gradually improve print quality, we are left with the other two factors which don't seem to have any control mechanism.

As an illustration, Martin Dean has posted yesterdays map along with a 1975 map of part of the area http://odean-deano.blogspot.com/. Of course there are huge differences in style, but are we really now saying that a recent map by one of most highly respected mappers in the country is somehow not suitable for racing on? or do we just have to adjust our styles?