Discussion: Maps 1982 versus Maps 2012
in: Orienteering; General;
I am looking for examples of maps made in the 80s (after 1982) and their most recent version. (Necessary to prove or not,
evolution of cartography in time, due to technical means)
You can send them to firstname.lastname@example.org.
that's a good 3 decades difference. will try to find 1 or 2
Here's an example of years 1992 vs. 2011http://www.jukola.com/jukola/kartat/j1992_ju_1.jpghttp://routegadget.jukola.com/cgi-bin/reitti.cgi?a...
I'll see if i can find some examples from my own archive of that time span you are asking for.
An example of change in cartography, and also of orienteering formats (the original version of this map was a b&w photocopy from about 1979)
University of Newcastle 2012
(1:4000 ISSOM, used for Australian WOC Selection Trial last weekend, OCAD, digital print)
University of Newcastle (1985)
(1:10000, club events only, colour separation on film, offset print, with about 100 copies left from last print run of 1000 in 1995)
The oldest O map I could find. Luukki 1983 and 2009 (area re-mapped completely for the Nordic Meeting 2003).
I guess the clip is enough, just parts of big A3 maps. Old mapd was 1:15 000, new one is 1:10 000.
An interesting change in map is Sognsvann between 1979 and 2011. Seems like it was a lot nicer forest back in the day. Two maps dont completely overlap, so 1979 map overlaps south of the drawn in blue line. Comparibly the 2011 Sognsvann map has some extra bits in the south, but you'll figure it out.
Do you think the change is entirely in the forest, or do you think the criteria for what is green has changed? Either way, I'd like to run on the 1979 version.
What has changed is that 30 years ago green ink used to be very expensive, and so it was used as little as possible. Regardless of what the terrain was like.
Well, maybe that wasn't the reason, but I sure remember a lot of "white" Scandinavian forest that was pretty awful to run through. I'd guess the criteria has changed a lot more than the forest.
back in the day, local events usually had 14-16km courses, and not shorter than that, as to avoid unfairness that some may be lucky to only go through white and vice versa. This way it would always even out in the end.
Maybe that's what West Point should do for courses set on Turkey Mtn.
I read this article on map greenness from another AP thread awhile back.http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/article/owgreen.htm
Having been on the Songsvann map on multiple occaisionss in 1978, I can say that it was certainly not modern white forest, but more like a complete tossed salad of vegetation, a mix of rough open, rough semi open, overlapping with both vertical greens, light and middle green, and some white if you got lucky.
In other words, rather much like the 2011 map.
Having run on the map many times in 2011, I am of the opinion that the 2011 map is a fair representation of what's there now. :-) Doesn't sound like it has changed much.
However, there's so much green on the map that it's not like people run even usually have the option of running around the light stuff. It would be more readable if we accepted a rougher white woods.
if you want to see an interesting development in mapping styles see if you can track through the various mapping styles of Craig 'a Barns in Scotland. I can remember an amazing Graham Relf map from the late 70s which was regarded as revolutionary at the time for the amount of detail/information on the map - styles have changed a lot since then!
As I see it mapping style hasn't changed that much at all. If you look at the maps I posted there isn't that much changes. In recent map stone mapping is more generalized, bare rock more strict and green used a bit more. And CAD makes it look cleaner, that's about that.
Of course if one take a poor map from 80's, something based on 60's/70's map, and newest map is a decent one (or over detailed against ISOM) map you will see lots of differences. But if 80's map was made well and as it was supposed to do back then and the recent map made is also made it is supposed to do today (ISOM that is, meaning no stacked form lines of cliff symbols shorter than big stones diameter and such crap), there really isn't much differences. At least that's how things are here, plenty of examples like the one I posted.
Thanks for the maps.
Someone has examples of Czech Republic, Russia, Switzerland or Sweden? (Or others)
I found this link, but it can be considered by certain persons as irrelevant. Because is the "French style" ...http://tero1.free.fr/news/php/example1.php?subacti...
Map of Jagge think that is a good example for maps worked well, with proper documents work: aging well: "Oldies but goldies". Instead, I can see that almost all maps are switched to 10 000 and are more detailed.
Can you tell what documents and methods used to make maps? (old and new)
Does anyone know how many classic races run on 10 000? (Approximately)
Does anyone know if running the 10 000 race speed is less than 15 000?
Does anyone know if any study was made about it?
So, well .... I did not find any study, article, or comment to confirm that running on an enlargement of 15,000 (10,000 for example) long race would run more slowly or be deformed. Similarly, even though magnifying glass is more and more used, the same, no survey, study or article demonstrating that athletes prefer to use a magnifying glass and not a more visible map.
Why with all that in 1982 10 000 scale was used consistently for many international racing classic, fiercely refusing every time there's a world championship?
Who and why he is afraid to use 10 000 for cases in which the land required?
Map from Nordic Championships 1980.
Contours were excellent for the time. Representation of vegetation was still a bit lacking though.
More recent version of a part of the same map.
The small changes in contours that has been made is mostly for legibility + more consistent use of elongated knolls. Some changes in the vegetation in the last 30 years as you can see. The map is by no means perfect, but perfectly adequate for 2012 and a good example of what you can do with an old high-quality map. (The map says 1:10000 but with offset-printing I think it would still work at 1:15000.)
The reason for 1:15000 has supposedly been that for a Long event, the length of a good long leg would be too large at 1:10000 to properly evaluate route choices, it would simply take up too much space on the paper, and unfolding the map to figure out what to do would be awkward. The real reason may be that 1:10000 has been considered a scale for children and old people, and not worthy for elite competition. Basically, stubborn tradition. I'm pretty sure that the first time a 1:10000 map was used in a WOC was 1993, for the Short events, and it was a long difficult argument with the controllers before they finally agreed to let us do that.
Lars Palmqvist (a Swedish orienteering rockstar from the 1980s) has an amazing online archive with maps from all his races from 1971 to present: http://www.domarstigen.se/doma/
I am sure you can find many examples where he has run in the same area several times during this period.
Thank you all again for all materials submitted.
mata is sent, is a goldmine for any passionate mapping. I'll look very carefully all these examples.
Looking for another good reason why it won 15,000 more stubbornly, just for race long, and that irrespective of the complexity of land.
However it seems unrealistic that there is no study, article or document on the report, map magnifying glass, or the adverse effects on athletes, the scale of 10 000 for the long race.
For pretensions Olympic sport, I think it is incomprehensible
Maybe you can do a study.
My recollection is that they brought in the 1:15,000 rule at a time when 1:20,000 was a popular scale for important long distance events in some quarters. It was felt that features seen on the run were best seen and interpreted at the 1:15k scale, and they wanted to standardize. The argument about excessive paper size in relation to 1:10,000 would have seemed a clincher in relation to making 1:15,000 the standard.
However, nowadays with electronic punching and the ability to use smaller areas as a result, I don't think the paper size argument carries sufficient weight to exclude 1:10,000 for major event long distance competition.
I think the scale choice should be one based on the particular type of terrain, bearing in mind the dangers of putting too much detail on the map and turning events into a walking competition.
in rules ISOM, scale 10 000 is only an increase of 150% of scale 1: 15,000. NOTHING MORE. So if they meet the rules ISOM, 10000 is identical to, 15 000, only difference is that is 150% more visible. 10,000 A3 paper format allows a surface of 7-8 square kilometers. Surface more than enough to organize a race long. Folded map: a section of 2 km (generally a long maximum) to 15 000 is 13.33 and at 10 000 cm, 20 cm: only a difference of 6.7 cm ... I belive he can run with a map folded to 20 cm ... But I do not understand is why not allow athletes to choose the scale at which they want to run. Regulation does not prohibit to run and zoom the scale of 15 000. Magnifying glass, I think is the zoom function. Why it is allowed, and not using an appropriate scale? Mystery ...
You're absolutely right and very good example Eriol. But it seems that head stuck in the map, you can not analyze the map in running ....
you confused veterans maps with regular
There is no confusion.
ISOM rules it refers only to scale 1: 15,000 for classic racing.
10 000 is only a 150% zoom.
For international long distance races, only the scale of 15 000, is accepted
However, since 1980 (and perhaps more time) scale of 10 000 was used at several international competitions, except for the senior world championships.
Or I think is very important to respect the rules ISOM by everyone, all races, in all countries.
ISOM rules are not made just for the senior world championships.
If a 1:10,000 map is 150% more visible than a 1:15,000 map, does that mean a 1:10,000 map is 100% more visible than a 1:10,000 map?
100% = 100/100 = 1/1 .... I think ...
Could I ask a favor? Could people please stop nit-picking the grammar of someone who appears to not have English as a first language? Despite the technicalities, I think we can in general understand the points that Marian is trying to make (whether we agree with those points or not).
The purpose of this thread has evolved over the last 30 years.
Not so much .... Do not be misunderstood: maps Commission did a fantastic job over the years. But still remained ambiguous and contradictory situations. I think it's the duty of all to try to report them.
Why 1982? This is the World Championship map from 1979. Very good, but 1:20,000. Was it 1982 that 1:15,000 became mandatory?
This would be one of the reasons
Even 1:20 000 scales can continue to be used on simpler terrains. Therefore, it is correct to adapt the scale to the terrain and not the other way around. It would be stupid to impose a 1:10 000 scale to simple terrains, poor in details (such as in Belgium, for example, where 1:20 000 scale can be used without any inconvenience). On the same level, it would be inappropriate to impose a 1:15 000 scale for WOC 2011 type of terrains.
Not once I saw magnificent terrains for orienteering, where 1:15 000 scale is insufficient. There are orienteering terrains where the density of significant objects or contours details is even bigger than the density of objects in the downtown area of a metropolitan agglomeration. To exclude such terrains form organizing international orienteering competitions is a big mistake.
After WOC 2011, I had the opportunity to talk to several competitors. The World Champion regularly used the lens during the WOC 2011 long final, as well as the majority of other runner (more than 60%, in his opinion). Who did not use the lens, did regret it.
I point out once more, I am not the supporter of 1:10 000 map but the supporter of adapting the map scale to the field and not the contrary.
The terrain, as the competitors, should be respected. Orienteering has already become a rather difficult sport. To be forced to use the lens during the race just because someone from the top federation decides that 1:15000 scale should not be changed, is close to sadism. Statements such as “the competitors will understand” are to be blamed.
The maps are more and more complete and precise. This is a fact (it is not only me saying this, but more and more orienteering people, competitors, and among them, a 10 times world champion http://news.worldofo.com/page/13/?s=norwegian
" - Maps get more and more detailed. I don’t know if this is the right way to go, but it is a fact. My new orienteering technique had to account for this. Also, there are different mapping styles. Different mappers give very different maps. And there is a large range of different terrain types. I had to try to find a general method anyway "
The scale map of 1:10 000 has gain more and more terrain in the last decade. A lot of maps were changed from 1:15 000 to 1:10 000 by various national federation. I don’t know if this is good or bad.
However, all requests of changing the scale map from 1:15 000 to 1:10 000 received by IOF are systematically rejected.
The result is that several organizers don’t ask anymore derogation and they map directly at 1:10 000 scales. There are cases where even scale map of 1:7500 was used for classic race. This fact is not to be appreciated.
Zero tolerance does not bring anything positive, ever. It is as bad as anarchy.
The terrains are different, this is a fact. Let’s respect them and, in this way, we also respect the competitors.https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8uXzU3Q8IThLUV0RD...
it is a way to use a magnifying glass very useful. But in the forest, and running, is a little different ....
"Not once I saw magnificent terrains for orienteering, where 1:15 000 scale is insufficient."
"To be forced to use the lens during the race just because someone from the top federation decides that 1:15000 scale should not be changed, is close to sadism."
Nice contradiction you made there... Besides, off -topic, your definition of anarchy is very wrong.
Ahhh the nuances of the English language! My interpretation, in context, was: "Not once, but many times, I saw magnificent terrains where 1:15,000 is insufficient."
Ditto. I read it as "Not just once...".
(I am wondering if Marian is using translation software for these posts.)
I apologize for the errors of expressing. Indeed, Google's ...
I hope however it clear what I want to say...
As Anarchy, I did not give any definition, I only said it, as bad as tolerance 0 (in my opinion)
And this, rules must be made so that they can be respected.
In our case, ISOM rules.
I think it's time for the 10 000 to have the same rights and place like 15 000 in ISOM rules.
Because a map of the 10 000 is the same as one of 15 000. The only difference is that is much more visible.
We used to have a lot more 1:15000 maps in our local 'elite' classes but they've trended towards 1:10000 of late. I don't know which I prefer since I seem to consistently miss all the races.
Perect agree, tRicky
but let's recap.:
10 000 was introduced as an exception to the middle and over. This exception became the rule for them. I do not remember a relay or the middle to run to 15,000 in recent years.
Other 10000 is used by other groups, less than elite that constantly uses only IOF competition. (With some exceptions, of course ..)
So we found that globally 10 000 is used in most cases.
So why not for elite constantly? Because it is the same map.
So it would be a constant for all races: Long, Middle and Relay.
You can easily find if speed is the fastest race on 15000 or 10000
I bet the 10000, because what is visible is more easily understood.
Both the field and on the map.
Sorry if I repeat
The result is that several organizers don’t ask anymore
... and the Council is ready to show teeth. Actually, has just shown. This is from the Council Meeting No. 160 minutes (if someone knows where the minutes are on the official IOF site, please post a link):
11.2 Sanctions for breaches of IOF rules
BP (one of the two candidates for IOF President—T/D) stated that the IOF does not have any appropriate sanctions, nor any standard procedure for how to retroactively deal with cases where event organisers have not adhered to the IOF rules. As a specific example, he mentioned that a map with the scale 1:7500 had recently been used for a World Ranking Event in Spain without the organiser having filed any request for rule deviation. This was clearly a breach of the IOF Rules and should be subject to appropriate sanctions.
The Council agreed that a retroactive withdrawal of the WRE status would not be fair on the competitors. According to the rules, the Event Adviser is responsible for ensuring that the organiser adheres to the IOF rules and had thus failed to fulfil this duty. The Council therefore decided that the Event Adviser’s license be withdrawn for a period of two years and that the Spanish federation be informed of the decision.
This incident was enough of a reminder for me to send in a non-renewal notice of my Advisor license to Orienteering USA. I'm not sure I want to be in a position to argue something (an extra map scale) to event organizers on behalf of the IOF that doesn't make financial nor logistic sense to them, is likely to introduce errors when the map is redrafted, is likely to tax the time of a (most likely) unpaid event volunteer, and is likely to drive a wedge between the "elites" who require commitment of a vastly disproportionate share of event resources, and the rest of the event attendees and organizers. There were other reasons for non-renewal, but this was one of them.
(Not that I think 1:7,500 is ever appropriate, and I was on the side that made sure this scale didn't happen at one of the recent WREs. But since the proper procedure for using the 1:10,000 for a Long WRE is to apply for a deviation to the Council/Map Commission, and the deviations are never granted, and there is an enforcement precedent, every Adviser should read the writing on the wall.)
The whole WRE rules don't have appropriate vision and goals for quite some time. I don't think that competitors really worry about how much WRE points they have in general. WRE points have lost importance in other IOF rules in last 5 years. To use sanctions in system, where many more important things don't work is really bad idea.
I'm not sure I want to be in a position to argue something (an extra map scale) to event organizers on behalf of the IOF that doesn't make financial nor logistic sense to them...
Exactly. As we already have accustomed; don't expect that IOF people will see this bridge between making money and providing sufficient support for WRE organizers. We will probably see even more prominent Orienteering events without WRE status in the future.
In my knowledge every competitive sport and series (WRE events still are) needs Event advisers and controllers to be fair and to be seen as competitive sport. Should WRE organizers have right to ask IOF how they define competitive sport and what they have done in last 5 years to raise the profile of WREs?
Am I the ony one who think the IOF is taking the exactly right decisions? WRE-status is supposed to be a quality stamp which elite orienteers can use to decide what events to take part in. Elite orienteers want competitions that are fair and use the same rules as the international championships they are preparing for. If local clubs and federations lack resources such as good ISOM/ISSOM maps and experienced personell they shouldn't even think about applying for WRE-status.
Use money and resources to send athletes and coaches to remote WRE races instead. They will then come back with the knowledge about what to do with local events to improve them enough to reach WRE-level. Or they can come back and say that this "elite-orienteering"-thing is just too much work and not very much fun and that we should just keep on organising the same old recreational events where we don't care at all about IOF-rules...
As for the whole scale-debate, I think it would be an eye-opener for a lot of people to visit terrain like this for a map-walk: http://www.runoway.se/runoway.php?competitionId=15...
The map is perfectly readable in 1:15000 and the terrain a lot more detailed than middle-european "detailed" areas. Generalisation is possible almost everywhere!
I don't have a strong opinion on the 1:15 vs 1:10 issue, but the first thing I noticed about the map you posted is that it is very white. A map with lots of green and (even more) black can get quite difficult to read, and maybe that should be a consideration as for what is an appropriate scale.
for a map-walk
Eriol, I broadly agree with you, but sometimes the terrain demands otherwise, and sometimes it's just more fun to be able to read the map while running than to have to stop or use a magnifier.
Even on your map, the mapper considered it reasonable to use stacked form-lines (not something I especially disagree with), but ISOM apparently dislikes that, and some bits are less legible: From the right end of the scale bar, go north to the north line, then north past a big boulder, then two cliffs up the tags are pointing in all directions.
And part of the issue is that in Sweden vegetation isn't that big a deal, and it doesn't change every five or ten metres. Somewhere like here
you want to be able to run (at high speed) around the little blobs of green, and you want the little blobs of green to be visible, and correctly drawn wrt the big cliffs and boulders. There's no real point running in terrain like this at 1:15000, because you'd need to generalise all the fun out of it and avoid the intricate areas.
@Cristina, I think IOF disapproves of maps with more than 30% green, or something like that, for serious competitions... ;)
WRE-status is supposed to be a quality stamp which elite orienteers can use to decide what events to take part in.
If that is the purpose of providing WRE status then it has failed. Elite orienteers clearly stated last year leading up to WOC that they would rather run on a 1:10000 map of that particular terrain then on the 1:15000 insisted on by the IOF. Since it appears 1:15000 is mandatory for WOC long and WRE long events as far as the IOF is concerned but since that's not always what the athletes want why should we put stock in the WRE stamp?
I realise that map scale is only one aspect of being labelled a WRE event and I'm not sure what all of the others are but I think everyone needs to realise that every situation / race / terrain is unique and may demand a deviation from the rules. I think as long as all deviations from the standard rules (whatever they may be) are clearly stated and explained in advance and where necessary a model map / event be provided to demonstrate then there's no reason to avoid these deviations to stick with the rules.
Lastly I'd like to state that I've never taken WRE status into account when deciding whether or not to attend a race. I've only once really thought about it and that was because I otherwise knew next to nothing about the event. I almost certainly would have ended up going anyway. Much more important is the reputation the event and event organizers have among athletes whose opinions I regard highly.
local clubs and federations lack resources such as good ISOM/ISSOM maps and experienced personell they shouldn't even think about applying for WRE-status
It's an issue of keeping peace in the family, mostly a financial and logistic one. A club may have a superb ISOM map and lots of experienced personnel, but does not see a benefit in remapping (or at least redrafting) the area at 1:15,000—the extra 10 or so people who would attend if the race were a WRE (median North American numbers) won't pay for the >100 hours of mapper/drafter work.
Coti keeps bringing up the point that ISOM says that a 1:10 and a 1:15 map should be the same map, just blown up. In practice that is not what really happens. I can generally look at a map that was drafted for 1:15 and printed at 1:10 and tell the difference between that one and a map drafted for 1:10. If we took the Fells or Lynn Woods maps here in Boston and tried to print them at 1:15, it would be a disaster.
Everyone seems to want much more detailed maps, especially for middles. That just doesn't work on a 1:15 map, and no one around here wants to spend the massive additional time to draft and maintain a map at 1:10 and 1:15.
Elite orienteers want competitions that are fair and use the same rules as the international championships they are preparing for.
I would be very pleased if Rules and FootO commission enforce WRE Rules for all WRE events in the same way as Map commission enforced their rules about map scale for local WRE events - 100%. But that was not the case. Now IOF want to sanction only particular organizers who break map scale rule but not the others. Also FOC made deviations a few times without any explanation why they didn't respect their own rules but nobody really care about that.
We would probably have seen more protest about start list, points, WRE calculations, etc in case of more competitive WRE Rankings. WRE stamp is maybe good for competition in Bolivia but organizers with some reputation and experiences can provide high standard event without official stamp. WRE stamp should be mainly a stamp for Ranking and competitiveness and organizational standards are applicable only when you can provide first part of equation.
But Coti is correct, according to ISOM there is no such thing as "drafting for 1:15" or "drafting for 1:10". When you say that you can "tell the difference", why is that? Has the mapper gone to 1:10 and then shrunk the symbols back down to the sizes specified for 1:15?
I can tell the difference because the mapping style is different. The mapper has intended for it to be used at 1:10, or 1:15. If the map is only ever going to be used at 1:10, then they have chosen a style that is appropriate for that scale and shown much more detail.
That is technically incorrect according to the standard, but I think is commonly done.
I don't know. From what I have seen, the problem is not that mappers "map directly for 1:10" (though it drives me crazy that people use this term when it shouldn't exist), but rather that mappers blatantly cheat and shrink symbols.
If a mapper sticks to the defined symbols sizes and minimum distances the map should be readable at 1:15 (with high print quality). That's why we have a standard in the first place.
We've got at least one (and I think several) maps in the bay area that have been specifically mapped like pi described (shrunken symbols on a 1:10,000 map). But that is rare. I can think of many many maps where the proper symbol set was used, but minimum feature sizes, gaps, and bend radius were not respected.
I've been guilty of this myself, but it can be annoying. Mappers are cramming so much detail into their 1:15,000 maps, knowing that it will probably be printed at 1:10,000, that it's not uncommon for people to request 1:7,500 blow-ups.
It only seems to getting worse with the advent of lidar, which gives mappers easy access to 2.5m contours with 1.25m form lines. Always so tempting to add the extra detail, even if it's completely irrelevant to navigation.
I realise I should have answered this a long time ago, but I've been quite busy the last week.
Cristina: Yes the map isn't very green. But it also doesn't map every area with lower visibility as light green. I think you would notice the difference from norwegian maps in that aspect. As for the black, if the french standard was applied here all of the hillsides would be peppered with tiny cliff symbols. This map was originally made in a time when the Swedish map standard set minimum measures for a cliff to 2 m in height and 4 m in length. And only completely vertical cliffs made it to the map.
ndobbs: I have been to Le Caylar a few years ago. The map you posted actually looks like one of the better ones from the area, it seems almost ISOM and even uses the "scattered vegetation" symbol to generalise a bit instead of drawing every single bush. But it still makes it very hard for the orienteer to simplify in any way. The reason you need to read and interpret every little tiny green blob on the map is because the map does a terrible job with making the major features stand out. For instance, there is no way to tell which hill on the map is the highest one. All the black "rock pillars" effectively obscure the contours. As far as I remember some of the black stuff was also quite easy to cross, and sometimes there were multiple levels with cliffs all generalised to one big black blob.
In general these Le Caylar maps all have a very two dimensional appearance. On this small clip you can even find several places where contours are interrupted to draw other contours! To me this is a sign the mapper either doesn't understand contours at all or they just are too scared to change anything that is on the basemap. To generalise the map I would suggest these measures first: Remove cliffs that aren't at least 1 x 4 meters and vertical. Up the minimum requirement to 1.5 m for small boulders and 3 m for large boulders and rock pillars. Realise that the 202 symbol is meant to be used for "unusual features" not all cliffs. Use the symbol for "Rough open land with scattered trees" even more. Don't draw knolls and formline hills that are lower than 2 m unless they are very distinct. If it's still impossible to print the map at 1:15000 maybe the area isn't suitable for elite orienteering...
Canadian: Yes, it's correct that some elite orienteers were so certain that the french WOC organisers wouldn't be able to provide a map readable at 1:15000 over an area they had never been to that they demanded a different scale. The problem was that all the training events leading up to WOC used maps that weren't readable at 1:15000, making them assume that would also be the case at WOC. So if you want to enforce IOF rules, where should you start?
Tundra/Desert: If a map isn't readable when printed at 1:15000 it's not a superb ISOM map. It might be a superb map and it might even be an ISOM map but definitely not both.
edwarddes: I actually ran at Middlesex Fells and I must really say that the terrain isn't extremely detailed there. With quite small measures it could have been printed at 1:15000. Remove all the non-ISOM miniature cliffs (some of which seems to be floating in space), it's not necessary to map every small and non-vertical piece of bare rock that is showing in the terrain. Remove the tiny green dots in the forest (single bushes?). Move stony ground dots a bit further apart. Maybe generalise grey and yellow a bit. I think that's about it. The printing used for the US champs was definitely good enough for 1:15000, but unfortunately some of the grey seems to have been put on top of the contours.
pi & blegg: One of the reasons for the use of smaller symbols is that there have been a lot of "standard" OCAD symbol-sets that include illegally shrunken symbols, making mappers believe it's okay to use these instead of fixing their drawing the hard way. As for the rules about feature sizes, gaps and so on, I'm definitely guilty too. At least I'm aware of the problem and try to fix it when I notice it.
And please don't use 2.5 m contours just because you can! There are very few places where a 2.5 meter interval is the correct choice and there is nothing more annoying than trying to make three dimensional routechoices on a map with non-standard contours.
Eriol, I think you should also see other areas before making such statements.
By the way, since you have not used a 15 000? Sorry, your age allows you to use 10 000 .... others, to hell ....
Woc 2011 was made for 15 000. (field work in 7500 to 15 000. We proposed and field work from 10 000 to 15 000 but nobody took me seriously.
I thought it my duty to announce that a problem with legibility. I will not go into details that followed.
Instead, say that athletes who ran did not use a magnifying glass just to support measures taken by the MC is at least cynical and proves lack of respect for athletes.
I do not think and do not know any official IOF asked whether or not to use a magnifying glass. I,I did.
IOF can say it was a success.. As long over 50% of athletes have used a magnifying glass, I think it was a failure.
A question: how many of those who decide and militate for 15,000, regardless of the complexity of land use it?
For those involved in woc 2011 I see anybody.
Eriol, let's take an extreme example - mediaeval village in Italy, Cervara di Roma, say. It is legible, just, at 1:4,000. 1:15000, it would be a mess, regardless of the generalisation. So, there are terrains where it is fun and challenging to orienteer for which 1:15,000 is not appropriate.
I believe the same holds for non-urban terrain. The Caylar/Larzac areas in France fall into this category. There is intricate orienteering to be done along the routes, running around green patches and finding passages through the veg. Generalisation would lead to much less fairness, as the green is *really* green, so passages are important.
On the other hand, for much of Nordic terrain, all that is really necessary for navigation is the contours, and most of the time 1:15000 is enough, although 1:10 would still be preferable in some areas. The domination of Nordic viewpoint leads to some backwards (a stronger word than I want, no offense intended) thinking.
"And please don't use 2.5 m contours just because you can! There are very few places where a 2.5 meter interval is the correct choice and there is nothing more annoying than trying to make three dimensional routechoices on a map with non-standard contours."http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/me...
Eriol, in another post of yours justify the use of two or three curves inermediare between two normal curves. (Nonconforming solution with ISOM rules) So, when you are frankly? then or now?
Old summary from 2002
Five points from H. Tveite
1) This shift occured around 1970, and the result of this was the 1:15000 map scale that was thought to be a good compromise between map reading and route choice.
2)For classic orienteering the map scale of 1:15000 still seems to be a good compromise between the conflicting requirements of map reading during fine navigation and for route choice.
3) ISOM2000 says that the format of a competition map should not be larger than A3.
4)ISOM2000 says that terrain which cannot legibly be represented at 1:15000 scale is not suitable for international orienteering.
5) In my opinion, the rationale behind the choice of 1:15000 as the best map scale for classic orienteering is still valid.
What was the reasons behind AUS decision back in 2006
to use 1:10:000 for long distance for the elite?
Enough contradictions in his speech Mr. Tveite H.
I think ISOM rules must be the same for all maps, for all competitions.
Where do I get if we made different maps for classic, medium or relay?
You can not talk of standardization, when global 10 000 is used by most, and rules is for 15 000.
Map Maker must make a map to correspond better with the terrain
Mr. Tveite H omits the choice land is essential to choose the format of the race.
You can not change the morphology of land, but you can choose the ideal terrain for each race format.
And that is the same, the job organizers of and course setters.
For points 1,2 and 5 there is no research, test or whatever to prove that running with 15,000 run faster, and read the map better than the 10000. Just an opinion and some statements. Nothing more.
For point 3, A3 is more than enough to organize a classic. With current technology has proven that classic can be put on a A4 10 000
For point 4 were many cases where even if they complied with ISOM and specifications for 15 000, map remains difficult to read due to terrain morphology.
To exclude these trains and to forbid any international competition, is an error.
And finally, most importantly:
" The ISOM2000 says that maps in 1:10000 are enlargements of maps in 1:15000.
No more objects
Same level of generalisation
The majority of screens retain 1:15000 specifications"
On this principle, and after experience WCup Annecy 2010, WOC 2011 organizers have asked twice to be exempted for the classic 15 000.
MC considered that the map is sufficiently legible to 15,000, and refused 10 000
Then rushed to declare that the map-making was a success.
At the risk of repeating myself: She asked somebody of the IOF, if athletes had to use magnifying glass?
Apparently not, because .... just was a success ....
But it seems that almost 60% of athletes used the magnifying glass in classic final
Great success, really ....
Oh dear, I'm a bit afraid to enter this debate. I'm one of the athletes who used a magnifier during the long final.
I don't think the fact that athletes were using magnifiers is enough to say the map was bad. I started using my magnifier to prepare for WOC 2011 but now I run with it during almost every race. It has the potential to be quite helpful while costing very little to carry. So I agree the map should be legible without the magnifier but I don't agree that the athletes carrying a magnifier during a race that had been hyped up to be a hard to read map means that the map was actually illegible.
For myself, I don't remember the map being especially hard to read. I certainly used my magnifier to look ahead the control circles but I don't remember being overly reliant on it. Maybe you'd have to look at how the 40-50% who didn't carry a magnifier did in the results to see if it was actually necessary.
I think asking whether athletes carried around a lightweight tool that had the potential to be very helpful is the wrong question. You should be asking how they actually used it and if it was necessary. Remember, we hadn't seen the map when we decided to run with a magnifier.
cjross,thanks for your message. I'm glad that even if you used a magnifying glass, you appreciated good map. This means that mapmakers and organizers did a good job. Area of race was changed three times and tracks at least 20 times to ensure readability. Only was missing an exception to the 15 000 for a better readability. We have had the opportunity to speak with some athletes who did not use a magnifying glass. I understand there were times when they regretted ...
The organizers have asked nothing more than printing the same maps :
("No more objects
Same level of generalisation
The majority of screens retain 1:15000 specifications ")
to 10 000 to prevent using magnifier.
I'm sure is more comfortable without a magnifying glass.
ndobbs: Well, maybe the Le Caylar area is only suitable for sprints then. What irks me most is that nobody ever tried to map it for 1:15000. The Czech mappers who came there first just decided 1:7500 is what they wanted and then put every single bush on the map. And I think part of the problem is that every mapper and orienteer thinks "their" terrain is the most detailed in the world and needs a bigger scale than everywhere else when it's clearly not the truth. Recent example: http://jog-orienteering.fr/Doma/show_map.php?user=...
This was described as "Lot of small contour details and a presence of a large number of stones and rocks." when the truth is probably more like "Bland area without much detail. Where there are pebbles on the ground we have used the stony ground symbol to fill out some space. All boulders over 0.5 meters have been mapped."
coti: Formlines are used to show landforms that cannot be represented by contours. The smallest landform you are allowed to draw on the map is 1 meter regardless of contour interval, not 2.5 meters or 1.25 meters. Formlines is not what you use to make routechoice decisions, but they can be confusing if they are drawn in places where they are not needed (Finnish style). My point was that 2.5 meter contour intervals should never be used when the terrain has any kind of topography that impacts routechoice.
As for the mapsize issue, I don't think I have ever run a good M21 long distance course on a 1:10000 A4-map. And I have seen some spectacular fails. I'm sure one of the reasons many people fight hard to keep the 1:15000 scale is that they fear the loss of a distinct long distance race format. It's not supposed to be two middle distances back to back...
IMHO 2.5m contour interval could be used lot more. Especially for flat areas (< 100m hills) with lots of land form details. Less need for form lines, and that makes map more legible and makes making route choices more fair because there is no that much variable amounts of form lines affecting "brownness" of different route choices options. And 2.5 m interval is ISOM standard, so if somebody has difficulties understanding or making route choices with it, that's is just lack of skills and he/she should just practice more.
Not many people stand taller than 2.5m, so I think such features should be visible when running. Its just as ridiculous to say no 2.5m contour as it is to say no 1:10,000.
scales - intervals - form lines - level of generalization - navigation challenge type - disciplines - long/middle/sprint differentiation...
Today's maps there is not necessarily penalty for navigating badly/loosing map contact/not planning ahead. if you loose map contact you can keep on running and when you hit a knoll that looks like a pear with a small cliff and a 1m stone, you can just look at your map and find that pear drawn there, with that cliff and stone. Then you notice there is Apple logo looking knoll next to it and then see that too, and you got away. With generalized maps the individual character of each knoll is not mapped, so to do well you need to know in advance what knoll you'll hit - aka you need to navigate better. Current detailed maps leave big empty space (in generalization scale) between out maps and maps used for AR/rogaining. And that generalization level maps not used/produced can be very challenging, fair and fun to run with.
So, I believe it should first be decided what kind of orienteering/navigation challenge we actually want, and make maps and mapping standards for that purpose. We have sprint-middle-long, do we want to have similar kind of challenge for middle and long, and is same map OK for both or is need for having the other discipline holding both of them back.
I like to see community to consider differentiating middle and long more. Middle could continue current direction, mapping lots of details and navigating challenge would be about being able to handle all those details and simplify. And controls hidden about the way we do now. Long would be more about route choice but also being able to navigate with generalized map, control flags not as hidden but instead well visible (to erase luck factor). And splitting ISOM in half, for middle(relay?) 1:5000 ... 1:10 000 map, 2.5m or 2m interval, no form lines. And for long 1:10 000 ... 1:20 000, 5m contour interval, no form lines, no small navigation only objects that had no effect on running speed (like small stone/cliffs etc) - so more space/ink could be used for mapping runnability, trails etc. If maps/disciplines are differentiated enough that would kind of double our terrains because we could have too maps of the same area, middle's short legs could be entirely inside long maps one map object, so terrain would be different even if it's the same. And mapping would become cheaper, big maps for long need less work to produce and middle maps doesn't need to be all that big. This approach would provide kind of better use of our resources, both mapping resources and terrain resources. Note, long would not be going back to dark ages of bad maps, with current lidar and gps mapping tools maps would be accurate and correct, just generalized.
By spitting ISOM in half both athletes and mappers should understand better what is expected, so when doing long map mappers would not be so tempted to put all those details in - the challenge is supposed to be about navigating without those. And the detail mapping task is still there, in middle map making. Also athletes would know what to except and can't blame map/mapper for missing this or that tiny detail missing.
I know it's most likely just me who thinks like this. I am just too fond of running with old generalized but good and accurate maps from 80's and the challenge to actually need to use compass/bearing. I have been told no-one thinks this way and everyone rather like the mechanical detail reading challenge than actually like to learn how to navigate with maps of different levels of generalization.
I have been told no-one thinks this way and everyone rather like the mechanical detail reading challenge than actually like to learn how to navigate with maps of different levels of generalization.
I like it too, but I suppose that this difference in generalization would not be so extreme as it is in our case of 1:15 orienteering map vs. 1:25 national topographic map which use totaly different set of symbols. This map is normally used for other purposes and it is standard map for hiking, treking and for mountaineering&scouts orienteering but we also use it once per year for O-marathon. Mappers normally make some corrections (veg, trails) so it is good enough for the race. It is still very difficult to navigate through terrain because map has very few objects and use 20-25m contours but CPs are very clear and in most cases they are very easy so it is more or less how to make good route choice decisions. Orienteering, as we knew 60 years ago.
If I understood you correctly you suggest that each terrain should be first classified if it meets the minimal requirements for middle, long or both and in case terrain is good for both than mappers should know how to draw terrain and all objects base on two different set of rules. So you basically suggest to split it on ISOM 10 and ISOM 15. Like it, but this could result in an even higher barrier for beginners. Too technical, too much information to learn.
But I think that small orienteering countries don't have this privilege to go in this direction although it could be really nice development. For our development is still better to make one good middle map / with lots of details and use 1:10 for middle and long rather 1:15 with less details (to maintenance costs down). Learning orienteering skills and micro orienteering is first priority and not only route choice decisions. Sometimes long really looks like long middle but normally this depend more on course setter. I don't see a problem to have a good long course with 2-4 long legs and few tricky controls on 1:10 map. I also don't see that task to fold the map on the long leg should be really a big problem. All runners would have same problems to see good route choices and that could be even more challenging.
Interesting thoughts jagge and kofols. A couple of ideas.
Rogaining began with topo maps "off-the-shelf". Although they are enlarging and adding detail these days, they are much more generalised than orienteering maps, and a good course planner can work within the limitations of the map. They certainly don't have every tiny reentrant but teams are still able to find control points.
Adventure racers can also find points on a topo map, often of dubious quality. There may be problems from time to time but I think that is the fault of the course planner, lack of an independant check, and not recognising the map limitations.
And lets look at tourist maps and city maps produced for the general public. Some of them don't even have every road and street on them. And yet the "man in the street" can use them to find an art gallery or an embassy in a strange city, or an attraction in a national park.
Now how come orienteers aren't as good at navigation as adventure racers and members of the general public?
We can surely define types of competition that use maps with more, or less, detail. There's nothing right or wrong with any of them, just choices that we will make. As orienteering goes down the path of greater detail towards ultra-sprint or orient-show, then rogaining will follow on behind to occupy the place where orienteering once was. And adventure racing will follow on behind to occupy the space where rogaining once was. I wonder what will follow on behind AR?
I think the trend toward increasing detail is driven by a desire for "fairness". This is most obvious in a case like a rogaine map, which might be missing useful trails, or not show areas of impassible vegetation. Some competitors will get lucky and find the trail, others will go through an area that the map indicates is fine, and get stuck in the brambles. So you add important details, and they complain about more subtle details, and they still complain, and where does that process end? Eventually you have the organizers supplying a map where the disgruntled competitors can't complain that the map was missing crucial information, but it can't be read by the naked eye.
Tourists don't complain about map defects, they just take whatever they get.
So, there are terrains where it is fun and challenging to orienteer for which 1:15,000 is not appropriate.
ndobbs is right. Is there any IOF rule or recommendation about level of generalization for 1:15? How many objects on terrain mapper is allowed to generalize (to what level) that final map can still be considered good for Elite orienteering?
When you live in a country where a lot of maps looks like this
you have only one option - To use 1:10.000 as a standard or in some cases also 1:7.500. Should we make maps for these type of terrains in 1:15 (with what kind of generalization?) to be able to host long WRE event or any kind of other IOF elite orienteering event? Are we condemned Elite orienteering to run only on terrains where speed is 6 min/km and above?
I can understand comment from @pi when we speak about terrains with small density of details and you could produce very good map like this for 1:15
and make also 1:10
out of it.
But in general I don't understand comment
if a mapper sticks to the defined symbols sizes and minimum distances the map should be readable at 1:15 (with high print quality). That's why we have a standard in the first place.
because I am very disappointed when somebody want to enforce map standardization to standardize only one type of terrain suitable for elite orienteering.
Indeed, interesting Kofols Jagge's positions. as that of a Swedish colleague who proposed a new size of the landmarks punctual for complex fields.(Eriol ou Peo y think...)
For Jagge 100% agree with a scale that varies depending on the complexity of land (10,000 to 20,000)
Instead, says Kofols, not all nations of orienteering can not pay the mapping same area in many ways.
In addition, I think it would cost more and would be more difficult to manage.
There would be an intermediate solution, where all the landmarks that would help routing to be highlighted, increasing by 25-50% for example (roads, trails, rivers, marshes, etc.) and all landmarks point to be reduced by 20 -25%. However, taking up too much space on the map to the information they provides.
3D relief is a vital information and would need highlighted.
Therefore, rethinking the form contour, is indispensable. One solution would be to print them as continuous curve but 50% thinner, or, for example 50% brown
Shades of green and yellow could be redesigned as well.
Like 402,404 407,409 symbols, very hard to follow.
I would emphasize that if all that is vital for navigation and would diminish what is a secondary role, many problems would be solved .... especially generalization and readability.
But not least, adapt scale to the field
Kofols, I don't understand what you don't understand ;)
All I mean is that it's a problem when mappers shrink the symbols and disrespect minimum distances. I think you agree with this too, no? Or do you actually propose that it should be allowed to use 1:10000 scale with 1:15000 size symbols, or perhaps even smaller? How would that help? It just means that the future 1:10000 scale map will be as hard to read as the 1:15000 is today.
I'm actually confused what this debate is about. What exactly is it that you want? Do you want to change ISOM to allow smaller symbols at 1:10000? Or do you just want IOF to allow Long distance on 1:10000?
In my opinion ISOM is a mature and well defined standard. If you follow the rules, the map will be possible to read. I hope with all my heart that any future ISOM will not have smaller symbols sizes than today.
In general terms at least, I also support IOF's decision to enforce 1:15000 for Long. To maintain the character of the Long. To avoid courses that are over 1.5 meter long on the printed map. To maintain the skill to generalize in the mapping community.
Kofols, I don't agree that it's only one type of terrain that can be mapped with ISOM. I think the map you link to (Novi Svet) can be mapped with ISOM today without shrinking the symbols. In fact, is this not the case already? Or does the Novi Svet map have shrunk symbols (it's not easy to see from the scan)?
Finally I should say that I have run on crazy detailed maps in Slovenia and France etc at 1:7500 or 1:5000 scale. As a "recreational elite" runner I had a lot of fun! Amazing stuff for a tourist type event, but I don't think those areas are suitable for an IOF sanctioned Long. Perhaps an IOF sanctioned Sprint (mapped to ISSOM), but not a Long. Do you truly think that the IOF should hold a WOC Long on those type of maps?
Really, this whole debate is strange to me. If your area has very detailed terrain, map it at 1:7500 (but don't shrink the symbols!). Use the map to develop local orienteering programs, host local races and international multi-day "tourist events". The only thing you can't do is an IOF sanctioned Long, is that such a big problem? Please explain...
Pi, as I started this debate, allow me to respond Kofols place. :
A. Not to be no confusion between 10,000 and 15,000.
At the present moment, according to ISOM, is simply the same map, if they meet specifications book 15 000. The only difference is greater readability.
B. no longer interpret rules at will. If someone wants to remove 30-40% of the objects on a map, and 50% of intermediate curves in a single click just because they believe that miracles software.
C. As everyone do their job.
at the present moment, to believe and expect too much as a mapmaker to solve all problems.
Choosing land for a race format, is crucial.
Course setters work is as important as the map maker.
All's an ensemble for a successful race.
I go back to what happened to Woc 2011.
If the organizers had made no comment whatever was asked by IOF since October 2010, would have been a disaster.
For as similar abuses do not happen again, is this debate.
I could go on but I will stop here. At the moment.
These are my reasons. On Kofols's do not know, but I understand.
Everything needs a review at a time.
It seems like ISOM will be reviewed. After 30 years it's time.
I hope that MC will not be an elephant will give birth to a mouse.
Something like curve passing 0.13 mm to 0.14.
You're right to reinforce the rules, but not blindly. Not in a sport where all land is different.
I am just explaining the situation. I hope that international mappers and officials can find a good sulutions for all extreme situations without excluding some type of terrains to host international orienteering events. In general I like Coti's ideas how to solve some situations.
To be honest I agree with you; 1:15 should be a first choice. Rules are rules but if ISOM standard in reality doesn't work for some detailed terrains you have a problem. If ISOM standard let say include 90% of all type of terrains worldwide this is not the case for us because we have disproportionate more complex terrains than simple terrains. I would say only approx. 30-40% of terrains can be mapped according to the rules and use 1:15. Of course we could map all terrains at 1:15 but fairness would be compromised.
So last 1:15.000 map in Slovenia was produced in 2003 and all the latest Long WRE events were on 1:10.000 map (2004, 2007, 2008). So IOF already approved that but not officially I suppose. Can you comment this example from 2007 -
Is this map and course againts character of the Long distance?
After that development goes in direction as you said. International multi-day "tourist events" with detailed maps. I can't tell you if the symbols were shrinked but all this crazy maps (crazy terrains not maps) don't have 1:15 twins brother.
To maintain the character of the Long. To avoid courses that are over 1.5 meter long on the printed map.
A3 format is 297×420mm and this is not possible. Have a look at Coti's explanation.
Do you truly think that the IOF should hold a WOC Long on those type of maps?
Yes. Did WOC 2011 was the last one of this kind? What are the main concerns against it?
coti and kofols, I'm sorry but I think we misunderstand each other.
I understand completely that under ISOM, 1:15 and 1:10 is the same. There is only one standard and 1:10 is 150% enlargement. You don't need to explain this to me.
I ask again. What exactly do you want? Do you want the symbol sizes to shrink on the printed paper map? In that case I strongly disagree with you. If you want some other change to ISOM, then what is it?
Kofols, ISOM already works perfectly fine for detailed terrain! You can map your most detailed karst terrain and still follow ISOM. ISOM allows you to map at 1:7500 or 1:5000 at 150% symbol size enlargement. At 1:5000 you can fit enormous amount of detail and still keep the ISOM symbols sizes. The only thing you cannot do is organize an IOF sanctioned Long on such a map.
Kofols, you say that 30% of your terrain can be mapped to ISOM and printed at 1:15000 scale. That's a lot! You have many places you can organize a IOF sanctioned Long! I still don't understand at all what your problem is?
Hey, I ran on Crni graben in 2007 at the OOCup! Good memories! No, this course is not good character Long. 29 controls on 9 km? That's an extended Middle. Lot's of fun, no question, but not a WOC style Long.
WOC2011 was on an ISOM map, unusual amount of detail, but the symbol sizes were all correct size. Map printing was offset and very good quality. Perhaps on the border line of what you can map with ISOM (without going to 1:7500)? Course planning was pretty good. 31 controls on 16 km was still a bit too much. Personally I would have tried to use only 25 or so.
OK, so I see now that coti makes some proposals.
"There would be an intermediate solution, where all the landmarks that would help routing to be highlighted, increasing by 25-50% for example (roads, trails, rivers, marshes, etc.)"
These are the symbols that are already the easiest to read! I don't think many orienteers have trouble to read these symbols at 1:15000 today?
"all landmarks point to be reduced by 20 -25%. However, taking up too much space on the map to the information they provides."
What? These are already the symbols that are difficult to see in the current ISOM. Now you want to make them even smaller?
"Therefore, rethinking the form contour, is indispensable. One solution would be to print them as continuous curve but 50% thinner, or, for example 50% brown"
Ok, perhaps an idea to evaluate... but again, how is the map easier to read when you make the symbols even smaller?
"Shades of green and yellow could be redesigned as well.
Like 402,404 407,409 symbols, very hard to follow."
Ok, perhaps some tuning of the colors could help a little bit, but that is not a fundamental change to map smaller details.
Jagge - you are not alone with your fondness for for accurate, but generalized maps. One of the toughest weeks of orienteering I ever did was in eastern finland (Kuhmo). http://omaps.worldofo.com/index.php?id=1679
If you look at the map, it looks simplistic. Almost trivial. But actually executing a route was extremely difficult! Lose map contact for an instant, and you're in deep trouble. But I may be in the minority here.
There is another reason I appreciate the IOF's stand on 1:15,000 maps for the long distance. I feel that "growing markets" that are terrain rich and resource-poor should fight to preserve a version of orienteering that doesn't require hyper detailed maps.
More map details = more field checking time.
More map details = shorter shelf life, harder to keep the map updated.
More map details = wider performance gap between beginners and experts. (experts get safer navigation, while beginners are overwhelmed by excess detail)
None of those things are useful for a country that is trying to expand participation with minimal resources.
I will try to answer to your question. Could you also make an answer to my question: What are the main concerns against it?
Or do you just want IOF to allow Long distance on 1:10000?
Yes, this is the main wish because ISOM rules and IOF competition rules should be harmonized. ISOM must be a standard not just for maps but all ISOM map scales should have clear definition in competition rules. If not than it is better to have recommendation for non standardized maps which are not suitable for international level and this includes WREs.
As I said IOF already has approved 1:10 for Long WRE events and IOF should say clearly if this is suitable also for WOC level and write this in rules. Athletes, mappers, organizers and federations should know that because approval was a signal that IOF support this development.
In practice in my opinion this is more a question about terrains and not about maps. Do we want to use only some type of terrains for international level, only terrains which allow pre-defined map scale, appropriate running speed or we want to use all terrains where orienteers can experience true nature of orienteering. Our destiny is that we are all loosing proper long distance terrains. Long distance on 1:15 map where orienteers could spend more than 50% of the course on trails and roads is not something that I would like to see on WOC level. In my opinion maps/terrains with very dense network of trails are not suitable for long as map reading skills became less and less important compare to running.
Orienteers like challenges and in the past this was long distance. Now with so many trails in the forest middle distance is true challenge. Trend towards 1:10 is evident and more and more middle distances are organized. If we like it or not more 1:10 maps will be produced in the future than in the past.
IOF rules says: “The unique character of orienteering is to find and follow the best route through unknown terrain against the clock.”
So even if we like long distance in most cases we can’t make a proper long distance anymore at least not without compromises. Is 1:10 much more worse compromise than all what we have seen in the last years? Should we start to search for new terrains if they exist? Are we able to organize long events on those terrains far away from the cities?
IOF rules says: “Long distance orienteering tests all orienteering techniques as well as speed and physical endurance. The format emphasises route choices and navigation in rough, demanding terrain, preferably hilly. The Long distance may in parts include elements characteristic of the Middle distance with the course suddenly breaking the pattern of route choice orienteering to introduce a section with more technically demanding legs.”
We are accustomed to see long distance on 15-17km long course with speed around 6min/km. In karst terrains speed drops to 10min/km so it is normal that course can’t be that long. Diversity of WOC terrains goes down because of too much detailed rules about course planning, mapping and organizing elite events. So preserving long distance is not just a question of ISOM rules and map scale but it is more about proper terrains and organization of WOC. Are we good at that? I think 1:10 should be treated equally as 1:15 if terrain allows good “old fashioned” long legs. From my point of view this is reasonable and justified.
You have many places you can organize a IOF sanctioned Long!
Yes we have them but WRE by itself doesn't bring 1000 orienteers. You probably also wouldn’t come to Slovenia to race at WRE on 1:15 simple terrain or similar to yours. Orienteers just like new challenges and special terrains. I am not a fan of this competition standardization where recreational orienteers can race on much more challenging terrains than elite.
Pi,I'm happy for you to know that 10 000 is identical to 15000 (this only when follow rules). I need to emphasize, because it seems that not all MC members know this. Otherwise explain decisions that WOC 2001 or 2011. (And maybe more of this type.)
"Håvard Tveite, IOF mapping committee
Map scales for orientering maps have been discussed frequently, and during the last years there seems to have been an increase in this activity.
"The WOC in Finland 2001 has been heavily critizised for the very poor legibility of the competition maps, particularly the maps for the classic distances. As a result of this, many voices have been raised critizising the use of 1:15000 as the standard scale for classic orienteering. The ICOM at WOC2001 instead critizised the WOC maps for insufficient generalisation during surveying (in particular the excessive use of form lines). The WOC2001 practice is not in accordance with the current ISOM. It seems that the international controllers were not able to get this message through to the map makers, and the Finnish organisers seems to have been less than willing to persuade the WOC map makers into generalising to a level appropriate for classic orienteering (as specified in ISOM2000)."
Of course, always the fault map makers
Mr. Tveite omits to say that BEFORE woc 2001 (Finland) were heated debates about scale. Even discuss the possibility of using in parallel, to 10,000, with 15,000. (Solution is not prohibited by any regulation)
Mr. Tveite the same, omits to say that every event under the banner of IOF, IOF their consent to field .....
this explains stubbornness can not accept that "shit happens" .....
Because , of course, IOF can not do wrong.
Such omissions can be considered manipulation.
To oblige athletes to run in these conditions just to defend a principle, I think that cynicism, and not fair.
I am glad that many have realized that in most cases,the problem is about terrain.
These AP discussion tend to go on and on in circles without slow progress... ;)
What I want to say is:
1 - ISOM is pretty good. Symbol sizes are already about as small as the human eye can read while running. It allows for extremely detailed maps to be made (by going to 1:7500 scale, 1:5000 can be mapped with ISSOM). I'm very very strongly against shrinking the symbol sizes in ISOM!
2 - competition rule to enforce 1:15 for IOF sanctioned Long, in my opinion is a generally good idea. My feelings about this is not as strong, but to summarize what I already wrote. To maintain the character of the Long and to maintain the skill to generalize in the mapping community, my main concern against allowing 1:10 is loss of Long course character and a further inflation in map detail as mappers lose the skill to generalize and instead start to shrink the symbol sizes.
Where is is said it is allowed to use maps of scale 1:7500 in IOF events? Last time I checked not in ISOM and not in WRE guidelines either. If it's not changed maps should be made to be legible at 1:15000 and 1:10 000 is just enlargement. And as I can see that doesn't leave much room for making those extremely detailed maps pi suggests. And using 1:5000 and ISSOM is not allowed to be used for middle either.
But for the love of mankind, read what I'm writing!
Of course you can't hold an IOF sanctioned event on 1:7500. I have never said that. But you can map your extremely detailed terrain at that scale if you have to/need to. ISOM rules say that if you go to smaller scale than 1:10000, the symbol sizes stay that same as on 1:10, so there is more space to fit more details. You can do everything on this map, except WRE, World Cup or JWOC/WOC. Is that such a big problem?
I repeat for the last time. ISOM allows to map very detailed maps by using smaller scale. The symbol sizes are already as small as a person can read while running. Don't shrink the symbols.
If you want to debate the competition rules that don't allow 1:10000 for Long, that's a different discussion. I have stated my humble opinion several times now already.
I only corrected your mistake, just to make it clear. It allows for extremely detailed maps to be made. No, it does not allow that. Not at all If you map like you write the map will not mapped as ISOM allows and it's not ISOM map, just a map that uses some ISOM style symbols.
And yes, it is a problem if IOF events end up using different maps that rest of the events around the world. And for most of the events there is no mapping standard because the only mapping standard there is is made for slightly different sport than the one people are competing at in practice. Those 1:10 000 maps kofols posted are not mapped as ISOM because those maps should be legible even if printed at 1:15000 scale. And I believe those are not. Same with lot's of 1:10 000 maps, even some recent WOC middle maps. So, all of them mapped wrong or is there something we could improve in our standard o make it meet the reality. Or both? The topic of the discussion as I can see it, ,read it again for the love of mankind if you haven't figured out that yet!
pi - the way I read your posts you have the position round the wrong way. As far as I read the debate, people are saying why can't you enlarge, not reduce, the symbols by printing a 1:15,000 map at 1:10,000 so as to make it more readable. And that decision would come down to the particular kind of terrain and would be the exception rather than the rule.
Yes, the debate should be the IOF rule for WOC and particularly WRE Long distance (1:15,000 only) which is applied rigorously by most Event Advisers and Associations (but not all). It is a rule that imposes a large extra impost on organisers to produce that extra map for the few elites, when in fact in some cases the mappers, course setters and elites would prefer the 1:10,000 version.
"Those 1:10 000 maps kofols posted are not mapped as ISOM because those maps should be legible even if printed at 1:15000 scale. And I believe those are not."
It is true and I explained why mappers our terrains map directly on 1:10. I think mappers in most cases use appropriate symbol sizes, draw more objects (not as inflation but to show the actual situation) and make different generalization as in case they would draw 1:15 map. They draw more objects: To show all visible features that are easily identifiable and useful for the competitors. Generalization is still needed, maybe even to a greater extent than at those(1:15) terrains with less objects. It is better like this than to have ISOM 1:15 map as we could eventually end up with many bad maps with very poor generalization which could compromise fairness and what it is more important - whole development.
When you have great number of different land forms as pits, sinkholes, etc on small area it is almost impossible to generalize at 1:15. If you can generalize vegetation, marshes, boulders, stony erea, etc it is a way more difficult to generalize sinkholes? You can't draw just one and leave other two out or use some kind of new local ISOM symbol for let say field of sinkholes? You just need more space to draw them all and this in not inflation of objects. I think most mappers and organizers adopt these solutions as small deviation from ISOM rules. But we are not alone as almost each country has areas where they have faced with same problems how to make legible and readable ISOM map.
Definition of middle distance in competition rules also favors rich and more tehnical terrains. Maybe it is time at least for middle to get separate standard (more objects, different level of generalization) so detail rich terrains can be used in a more appropriate way also for IOF events and not just enlargement of 1:15. To maintain ISOM standard as it is now it will just result in even greater number of maps which will be out of any standard without any official discussion about local sulutions.
I was looking but didn't find any official evaluation of maps from IOF events (WOC, WC,... WRE). What would be interesting to know is how many IOF sanctioned middle events were organized based on 150% enlargment of 1:15 maps and how many on maps produced directly on 1:10?
You can't draw just one and leave other two out or use some kind of new local ISOM symbol for let say field of sinkholes?
117 Broken ground
An area of pits or knolls which is too intricate to be shown in detail.
jj - did you actually take a look at the map kofols posted (Crni Graben). Do you seriously think that you could 'generalise' those sinkholes with the broken ground symbol? It would be a ridiculous solution and a map unusable for orienteering, middle or long.
I'm just saying that there's already a symbol for "too many pits". If it came to that, it wouldn't be a new local symbol. Surely there's some level of bumpiness at which point you can't capture it in a useful way with contours. I'm not saying that Crni Graben is that point.
Hehe, another useless AP thread where people want to misunderstand on purpose...
Jagge, ISOM says:
"The scale for an orienteering map is 1:15 000. Terrain that cannot be fieldworked at a scale of 1:7 500 and legibly presented at a scale of 1:15 000, is not suitable for international foot-orienteering."
BUT, then it also says:
"In education there is usually a progression of scales from 1:2 500 to 1:5 000 to 1:10 000. Maps at very large scales such as 1:2 500 will clearly contain additional detail such as playground equipment. Line dimensions for these maps should also be enlarged by 50%. Other scales may be produced for other forms of orienteering."
So you can map any detail really, just go to a scale that allows you to fit any amount of detail. You just can't hold an IOF sanctioned race on it. How many times have I written that in this thread?
No, O-ing, I don't have it backwards. What people are saying when they are "mapping directly for 1:10", is that the map is at 1:10, but the symbol sizes are 1:15. They want to get rid of the enlargement requirement in ISOM for 1:10 so they can fit more details on the map. So now you end up with a 1:10 map that looks exactly like a 1:15 map in terms of the symbols sizes and the readability. Some even want to shrink the symbol sizes even further, for example a 0.4 mm diameter dot knoll on a 1:10 map (it should be 0.5 mm at 1:15 and 0.75 mm at 1:10).
I have seen ocad files from professional mappers that blatantly uses symbols that says "IOF -25%", "IOF -50%", etc. On the Swedish map I ran on last week, there were two different size dot knolls. The mapper had conveniently shrunk the dot knoll symbol where there was a lot of detail to fit it in. More and more mappers are taking the easy way out, don't want to deal with the very difficult task of generalization and instead shrink the symbols. I see this all the time in all countries. I'm very concerned about this because we are making maps that are 1:10, but are as hard (or sometimes harder) to read than 1:15 maps. Where is it going to end? Before you know it someone is going to say that they demand 0.5 mm dot knolls on 1:7500 maps, "otherwise we can't map it".
Therefore I see some merit in the competition rule that enforces 1:15 for IOF sanctioned Long (you can still hold a Long that's not a WRE on it). It's the only way IOF can try to keep the mapping community educated and maintain the skill to generalize. And some other reasons mentioned in this thread already.
This is my last post on this topic. Have fun! ;)
So I largely agree with pi, but have some issues with :
"The scale for an orienteering map is 1:15 000. Terrain that cannot be fieldworked at a scale of 1:7 500 and legibly presented at a scale of 1:15 000, is not suitable for international foot-orienteering."
Most terrain does fall into that category, but it does rule out some amazing terrain, very suitable for international orienteering, from international orienteering.
pi, anyone who says This is my last post on this topic. never posts fewer than three more comments.
Just to clarify:
Maps at very large scales such as 1:2500 will clearly contain additional detail such as playground equipment. Line dimensions for these maps should also be enlarged by 50%. Other scales may be produced for other forms of orienteering."
That's 50% larger than how it would be printed on a 1:15000, right?
So basically, the size of a dot knoll printed at 1:10000 would be the same as a dot knoll printed at 1:4000, 1:2000, 1:5000, etc. And all of those printed dot knolls would be 50% bigger than what's printed on 1:15000.
You can make those maps for educational use like school maps. But no way you would get here permission to use anything other than 1:10 000 of 1:15 000 for national or even district level races. Not to mention IOF events. Talking about ISOM allowing those highly detailed race maps at 1:7500 is simply nonsense.
As far as I can see, generalized maps are bad for the business. If mapper makes overly detailed maps, customer gets more details for the money. Map looks challenging, teaser web clips attracts more competitors. And after the race customer (O club) has lots of control points to be used for trainings and future races. Customer is happy and most athletes are relatively happy too.
If mapper makes properly generalized map of the same terrain, customer gets less details for the money, teaser clips makes terrain look somewhat dull, easy and simple even if it isn't. Attracts less competitors, less income for the club. And next time the club may order map from an other mapper who makes far more detailed maps, uses lots of form lines to do it and so on.
So, arguing 1:15 should be there to keep the mapping community educated and maintain the skill to generalize is nonsense. The mapping business simply doesn't work that way. Also, having 1:15 to get generalized map is the wrong way round. It is just asking for pushing it to the limit and end up having too much details and not that legible maps. It should be the other way round, we should use 1:15 scale because maps are so generalized, not 1:15 scale to make maps generalized.
That is why I believe splitting ISOM would be good. If customer orders 1:15 standard map it is expected to be more generalized, so mapper can actually do it that way without having to worry about future orders. And athletes know it's the 1:15 map clips they are seeing and racing with, so they expect there is lots of unmapped details. And if it's multi day even, there is days and maps and teaser clips made according to the more detailed standard. So there should be no unwanted side effects (maps not looking attractive > less competitors > less income).
Pi is not advocating using 1:7500 for national or international level events. He has made that quite clear many, many times. His point is, rather:
1. Not all terrain can be mapped legibly at 1:10000 or 1:15000.
2. Such terrain is, therefore, not suitable for an IOF sanctioned race.
3. Such terrain is still interesting and fun, but you need a smaller scale, such as 1:7500 or 1:5000.
Once again, the claim is that suitable terrain for an IOF event can be mapped at 1:10000 or 1:15000 using ISOM. No need to develop a new standard. Terrain which cannot be mapped at that scale should not be used for major events, but is fine for more, shall we say, experimental events, at a scale of 1:7500 or 1:5000.
The final point is that ISOM provides a useable framework for mapping at 1:7500 or 1:5000. This is not to imply that there is a line in ISOM that permits IOF events to be run at 1:7500 or 1:5000. That is not the case, obviously. Rather, the point is that if you take the ISOM set of symbols and use them with an appropriate scaling to your map, you can sufficiently map any area legibly.
Please, stop asserting that Pi has been advocating IOF events be run on 1:7500 or that ISOM permits IOF events to be run on 1:7500.
Thanks for all your comments
I will try to conclude:
1-land is different: it is a fact
2 - Mapping have different perceptions on the same terrain (especially in difficult terrain) is a fact
3 In the past 30 years, 10 000 won more ground to 15 000: is a fact
4 We have rules that fall 15 000, and most of the competitions are 10 000: is a fact
5 Even when applied 100% Isomat rules are times when maps are hardly legible to 15 000: is a fact
6 Little by little, technology, marks the evolution of everything around us, in our case maps (just a personal opinion)
MC makes a fantastic job of updating the rules ISOM
I hope that MC essential to put their questions about the future maps, and not lost in unnecessary details like a bad cartographer
It is not easy for them and large companies that did not want to put their questions that bother, at the right time (in our case the evolution of technology) have disappeared (large publishers, Kodak ...)
For moment, 10,000 topics, or adapting the scale, to terrain, are taboo.
Personally, I tired of being the bad boy with a big ego.
Even on AP I don't think I have ever witnessed so much arguing about almost nonexistant disagreements.
Many horses are now dead, please stop the beating.
In an attempt to steer the debate in a different direction I dug up this little gem from the local newspaper:
- (Use google translate to read this in your preferred language.)
Our favorite Swiss mapper is now apparently in trouble for having drawn a WOC map that is "obviously wrong" for the middle qualifier. Swedish runner Johan Runesson also described the map as "difficult to read and inconsistent". Has anyone heard anything more about this? Who was the map controller this time?
Please login to add a message.