BOC 2008 maps - Stupid Decision

[Scott]

I'm quite intrigued by this "Interim Appeal Procedure": it's nowhere to be seen on the British Orienteering website, and I can't find any specific mention of it in either the Council or Management Committee minutes quoted. Would have thought it might be quite a useful thing for members to have access to, particularly when it became clear that there was trouble in the offing - and perhaps there would have been more than a single, individual "appeal" if it had been more widely known that such a thing was possible.

[greywolf]

So the appeal failed, on narrow procedural grounds, but has provided an opportunity for EC to review and withdraw (?) their decision. I think. Having read (and re-read) the document on the BOF site, it appears we've got to the right answer in the end - i think - but by the most extraordinary route, and after, as Ian D has highlighted above, some extraordinary comments, not least because:

1) Some of the strongest (noisiest?) voices in favour of 1:7,500 for oldies were from those like myself who are organising or helping in some way, who won't be competing, and definitely aren't bothered about our "flow through the controls"

2) Having used the map a lot whilst test running courses i am rather surprised at the suggestion that it has "major
deficiencies"....

[awk]

Given the criteria by which the appeals panel were allowed to judge the appeal, under the Interim Appeals Policy, then it's pretty obvious that the appeal should formally fail, although I'm mighty glad Richard did so, as a more sensible result appears to have resulted from the process (we'll find out for sure at BOC itself). Given that policy, then it's inevitable that the discussion revolved around literal interpretations of rules and procedures, as that is all the criteria seems to allow. The quality of the event should have been central to earlier discussion, and it's there I get the impression things were unnecessarily centred simply around the rules. So I don't think Appeals Panel can be criticised for that particular approach.

I think they got some comments in section 5 wrong:

tWe detected two highly-debatable arguments:
(i) a view that “my infirmity should be compensated for”;

No, many of us have had individual "infirmities" for which we have never asked for compensation. This was not about "my" infirmity. It is, however, about a universal problem that affects the majority of older competitors (and yes, I'm one of them). It is about having a sport where the results depend on a combination of physical fitness (running!) and map reading, not about the ever decreasing number at older ages who have 'young' eyesight. A basic principle of equity in sport is inclusivity: to effectively exclude the majority of competitors to my mind breaches some pretty basic tenets, and offends what should be one of our basic policies.

ii) a view that the distinctive challenge of technical/tricky-to-navigate areas should be reduced or even eliminated so that, as one writer said, “I can flow through the controls”.

Well, of the half dozen or so submissions I've seen (including my own), not one took this view. IanD sums this up nicely. This attitude that somehow the larger the map scale, the easier the orienteering, seems to permeate quite a lot of thinking, as seen in the decision that the competitor at the Six Day who asked for a larger scale map because of sight problems would have to be made non-comp because she was supposedly at an advantage. If it's an advantage, why not give the same scale to everybody? The reason is that it isn't: I used to find it much easier to read and interpret a 1:15k map on standard terrain than 1:10k map. The larger scale doesn't give an advantage, it compensates for a potential disadvantage - there is an important difference which the rule makers do not seem to have understood.

And this, I think, is the nub of the problem, one that I discussed and generally agreed with a member of map group weeks ago: the rules may have been followed, but maybe, just maybe(!) the rules are wrong. After all, if the elite need a 1:10k map (for whatever reason), then logic surely dictates that a larger scale map is needed for M/W45+, just as a 1:10k enlargement is needed from an elite 1:15k map. Certainly my experience at home and abroad reinforces that view.

Like others, I find the comments on the mapping extraordinary, particularly as the aspersions are cast, but no substance is included under the guise that "the maps are closely guarded". Sorry, but you don't start making comments like this, potentially undermining confidence in maps and mapper in a public document, without substantiating those comments. Given that these "deficiencies" might have persuaded Map Group that a change of scale was needed, I can only surmise that Jon might have been 'accused' of overmapping. He has made it perfectly clear that he feels that the level of detail required 1:10/7.5k maps. It strikes me that rather than pure deficiencies, we might be seeing differences in opinion as to what should be mapped. It'll be interesting to have a chance to form an opinion in April.

[Mrs H]

It'll be interesting to have a chance to form an opinion in April.

yes as As I've already said in response to one of the private communications i've received this evening, i predict a late rush of entries as people decide to take the chance to form their own opinion on the day. you know what they say - there's no such thing as bad publicity!

Bring it on

[Big Jon]

Entries are still open - until midnight 30th March - so the late rush can carry on along time....

Please encourage everyone possible to come to Culbin Forest and do battle with the best new area in Britain for many years. Come and see for yourself the scale issues that have been so exercising so many people recently and make up your own mind over the best scale for this superb forest.

Look forward to welcoming you on 19th and 20th April.

[Gnitworp]

As far as 'governing bodies' having absolute rights to dictate to organising clubs to whom they apparently 'delegate' rather than 'franchise' the opportunity is concerned, isn't it a case of this particular totally voluntary worm might turn if you push your luck and lay down the law with it? and then you haven't got a British Championships!

Shouldn't there be mutual respect, cooperation and flexibility of attitude? which, in the end, is what we seem to have achieved.

At the end of the day, all events in orienteering are simply about the 'punters' giving themselves what they want, and they shouldn't prevent themselves, with their 'procedures', from doing so!

[RJ]

Gnitworp, agree in part.... but there has to be a standard to which we all work. In general we have little trouble in working to the guidelines, and the end product is good. But there has to be development as well, there has to be the opportunity to make changes, have the rules altered etc, so that the end product is improved and gives us all a better 'run' and experience.

It is worrying though, the calculation of the time taken, 50 hours, that that may just have to be paid for by the appellant in future! If you make the appeal procedure that expensive then no one is going to take the risk of using the procedure. Why, oh why, does the 11 pages of judgement have to be that long!

If the map scale issue had stayed at 1:10000 for all, would a significant number of people not have entered? Or would many of us have just been disgruntled and less likely to get involved in volunteering ourselves? Would it have created a 'bad taste' in the sport and been counter-productive? Would it have created a greater them and us gulf?

Rules and guidelines are good. But we need to be sure we can make sensible changes in good time in the future.

[awk]

Why, oh why, does the 11 pages of judgement have to be that long!

Because John Morris wrote it
(I don't know for sure, but the writing is certainly his style!).

[Mrs H]

there speaks nopesport's authority on all things brief and concise

[awk]

Too true - takes one to know one after all!

[distracted]

Looks like the final decision on the matter has been made:

A final decision has been taken on map scales - maps at 1:10,000 AND 1:7,500 enlargements for some courses will be used, all litho-printed (no laser printing). Full list of course details

In essence, 18-40 on 1:10000, 45+ and 16- have 1:7500. Nice to see litho printing too - still much clearer to read than laser printed maps.

[Gnitworp]

Nice to see litho printing too - still much clearer to read than laser printed maps.

Still the best, given quality control of registration, and can be exactly to IOF colour specifications.

[LostAgain]

[/quote]
In essence, 18-40 on 1:10000, 45+ and 16- have 1:7500. Nice to see litho printing too - still much clearer to read than laser printed maps.[/quote]

A victory for common sense.

If the powers that be think that this was just a "noisy 20" they really need to get out more. This was really the tip of the ice berg.

Right decision, albeit slowly arrived.

[Wayward-O]

I've just had a look at the minutes of the last Rules Group meeting, published on the Brit-O website today, where there was some discussion on this issue.

BOC 2008 map scales:
... it was agreed that Rules Group would ask Map Group to produce a clear explanation of what map scales are expected for the different types of event - Long, Middle, Sprint, Relay - and, more importantly, what size lines and symbols should be used on these maps.
Rules Group interpretation of the current IOF Rules is quite clear in that a map with lines, line screens and symbol dimensions 50% greater than the ISOM specifications is recommended for older age groups (age classes 45 and above) where reading fine lines and small symbols may cause problems, and therefore request that such maps are provided at this year's British Championships.

So Rules Group would appear to be driving force behind the decision. Hopefully this interpretation will be written into the guidelines so that the issue will not arise in future.

[Big Jon]

Hi
re map scale appeal report - the two event controllers have produced the following note that will be in the programme and on the web site:

BOC2008: a message for competitors from the controllers
Thank you for supporting BOC2008.
Some of you will have seen the reports on the British Orienteering website which refer disparagingly to the map. We would like to reassure you that the comments attributed to us are wrong. From using the map in the terrain, we believe that it is a very good representation of a delightful area. Jon Musgrave is to be congratulated on a mammoth effort. The planning is good and the quality of competition, we believe, will be second to none.

We are pleased that British Orienteering has now allowed us freedom to determine the most sensible map scales to use. Although many younger and older competitors would have coped with the 10000 scale maps, the line sizes are substantially less than on a normal 10000 enlargement. We feel that it is fairest to those who struggle to read fine detail – of which there is plenty – to provide a bigger scale for those classes who would normally have enlarged maps. This does mean that some of the longer veteran and junior courses will have rather large maps, but you will be able to read them.

We hope you enjoy Culbin as much as we have.

Brian Bullen (Relay Controller)
Tony Thornley (Individual Controller)
20th March 2008