British Champs map scales

[Mrs H]

I wonder what form regional representation will take under the new style board of directors?

[RJ]

....... I am a member of British Orienteering directly. Not through a club, not through an association.

Mmmmm.... In December I sent my subscriptions directly to British Orienteering, but I definitely joined a club and a region, although the club is the member of the region not individuals.

....... I do agree with you, that the a co-ordinated association viewpoint should carry more weight, but in the unavoidable absence of that, surely some proactive efforts by individual members cannot go amiss?

Several concerns have been passed through NWOA representatives for consideration at the appropriate group/committee. It is the appropriate route.

Individuals writing to the various chairs will have some impact I'm sure, but won't have the weight that a regional or even club response would have. Half a dozen vociferous 'voices' maintaining this thread, and writing to a group chair, will be seen as exactly that.... half a dozen vociferous 'voices'.

Where these various groups are constituted with the combined wisdom of experienced orienteers in the relevant disciplines then we should trust their judgement.... shouldn't we? They may very well have it wrong in this case, and I am in agreement with the general thrust of this thread. If as is being suggested, that there are loads of people out there who would support the scale change, then get various clubs to send in their thoughts. It would only take a brief 'confab' at the next local event to assess opinions and then an email to the relevant person/chair can follow.

[LostAgain]

Surely with only 4 days to go, the meeting is on the 23rd February, very few clubs or regional meetings will be held beforehand. In this case, all concerned should make their point direct to the Chair.

[DM]

RJ
On a different subject but still related to committees/channels of communication etc, junior competitions group (Peter Palmers specifically), I did raise some issues for the last meeting through our region representative. If the minutes of the meeting posted on the BO site are accurate, which they should be as a record of what was discussed, then the issues were not even covered.

I have asked for clarification on this and (still) await an answer.

[T5]

If we're concerned that several "voices" will have insufficient clout to be heard, and that there is insufficient time to go via the recognised routes (whether these exist or not), why not create a new "group/forum/committee" - ie: we nominate someone as "the voice of Nopesport" representing xNo of people.

This entity should have the recognition of BO/BOF as a representation of like-minded proactive people with views worth listening to. Suitable threads could be paraphrased and forwarded to the relevant Chairman for discussion at the meeting

[awk]

Mmmmm.... In December I sent my subscriptions directly to British Orienteering, but I definitely joined a club and a region, although the club is the member of the region not individuals.

So did I, but our membership of BO is direct with the NGB, not through our membership of a club or region. which is why you and I both have a vote at AGMs and EGMs. If it was through club and/or association, it would be club reps or association reps who have the vote, as happens in other sports. BO deliberately took this route of being an individual based membership body not club/association.

Several concerns have been passed through NWOA representatives for consideration at the appropriate group/committee. It is the appropriate route.

I repeat: neither map group nor events committee have NWOA reps, so I'm not certain how they can ensure those items are discussed. Equally, I would be very interested to know how you are going to get your NWOA rep (which you don't have) to put the NWOA view to events committee at only a few days notice. Extraordinary meeting of NW committee?

My point RJ is that going via the association is probaby the best way, it may even be the most appropriate way, but it's pretty much impossible in this situation. Unless you can explain otherwise.

Individuals writing to the various chairs will have some impact I'm sure, but won't have the weight that a regional or even club response would have. Half a dozen vociferous 'voices' maintaining this thread, and writing to a group chair, will be seen as exactly that.... half a dozen vociferous 'voices'.

Totally agreed, but when you can't get a regional or club response together in the time, then half a dozen vociferous voices are better than no voices at all.

Where these various groups are constituted with the combined wisdom of experienced orienteers in the relevant disciplines then we should trust their judgement.... shouldn't we?

I'm a bit more skeptical/cynical than you. I prefer people to convince me they are right than simply tell me that they think better.

It would only take a brief 'confab' at the next local event to assess opinions and then an email to the relevant person/chair can follow.

Too late for many clubs - the meeting is on the 23rd. Of course, those who can, I do agree that this would be a preferred route.

[EddieH]

Barry Elkington has thanked me for my e-mail and made it clear it will be included in consideration this weekend. I suggest that like minded people send him their opinions as well.

I have had no reply from the mapping group.

[graeme]

I prefer people to convince me they are right than simply tell me that they think better.

Generally true, of course. But here we're dealing with a new map, of a new area, which we have never seen, and which we
should not see until April when the man says "Go". We have to rely on the better judgement of others. Maybe the old folks'
courses don't get to the bit where the elites need 1:10000 ? Clearer printing might mean we can read
a smaller scale than at the 6-day. Maybe the legibility advantages are outweighed by a ridiculous size of paper?
- Culbin forest is 10km long, and a 1:7500 map of that is bigger than some of the competitors!
We don't, and shouldn't, know how much of it is on the map.

Maybe a convincing argument cannot be made without compromising the event. All we can do is trust the people who
have the facts and have a record of getting it right.

[SJC]

All we can do is trust the people who have the facts and have a record of getting it right.

But aren't these the same people who gave us the maps for BOC 2007 ?

[EddieH]

Maybe I am misinterpreting his tact, but Big Jon knows, and my inference from his input is that he wants 1:7500, and I know who I would trust between a local guy like him and a committee that are not based here.

[Scott]

But aren't these the same people who gave us the maps for BOC 2007 ?

Well, yes, but I'd be wary about hold that against them too much - it's not inconceivable that they might learn from their mistakes (though then again, they may not).

[RJ]

I am still troubled by the route that is being taken to air our views.

Writing to the chair of whichever group, what is that I am going to say..... "Please consider the question of the scale carefully"..... "In my opinion the scale should be 1:7500 for the older competitors".... " I am no longer capable of reading these detailed maps while running and need it to be 1:7500"..... "Apparently the mapper is recommending an enlarged scale for the older competitors because the area is so detailed, 1:7500 apparently"

As Graeme says, we haven't seen the map and don't even know if it is similar to the Culbin we ran on at the 6 Day. We have to rely on the appropriate committee to make the decision. The mapper (although I am not suggesting it in this case!!) is not always the best person to make the decision on race map scale.

No doubt the question will be debated at the meeting on Saturday, and a proper decision made. We will have to accept it. We might complain at BOC08 when we pick up the map, but.........

[RichT]

I've used the email addresses on this page to contact both Colin Spears and Barry Elkington, with my concerns over my short-sightedness and my colour-blindness (and provision for my guide-dog ).

I believe my mail was then forwarded to Map Group and I've had a reply from Barry and Bruce Bryant (of Map Group ?).

Fingers crossed for 1:7500.

[graeme]

If you read FOCUS, its clear that map group(MG) do recognise the need to learn from the problems at BOC2007.
I don't think there's anyone here from that group, so I'll try to put the arguments.

The MG view, expressed in FOCUS, consistent with IOF, and repeated in reply to my email, is that the problem
lies primarily not in map scales per se, but in overmapping of small detail, general symbol clutter such as
rocky ground and formlines from the PG plot. MG have a point: look out some old 1:15000 maps and see how legible they are.

While others assumed the map is a given, and the only solution to print larger, what MG took from BOC2007 is the need
to improve cartography.

It's unfortunate that MGs stand against clutter coincides with BOC on a sanddune area, which
really does have exceptional detail. I can completely understand the fear that if they lose the BOC2008
scale argument, we'll be stuck with BOC2007-style overmapping forever.

I know who I would trust between a local guy ... and a committee that are not based here.

In general, I'm with the national committee.

... like him ...

But in this case, BigJon from 100km away has the kind of international standing and record to get my vote.

[awk]

Fair points Graeme, particularly about the danger of the scale issue being lost, and I do understand where map group are coming from, particularly after that conversation I reported earlier in the thread. Without the benefit of sight of the map etc etc, we're obviously not in a position to say exactly, but as I said in that post, I don't think the British is the event to effectively experiment*: I still reckon that they'd be better using 1:7.5k and reviewing afterwards. If they go down 1:7.5k, and are wrong, then it's something to be learned from, and recognised that it could (and in future should) be done, but I don't think the vets will generally be too put out. If they do go down the 1:10k route, they'd better be right, because there will be a lot of very put out vets if they're not! Personally, I'd still find the 1:7.5k more legible.

Incidentally, I still have not had a reply from the chairman of map group.

*I know it shouldn't be an 'experiment', but in effect, in this country, it is, given the history.