Discussion: Pig maps

I've posted the maps from the Pig, including the U.S. Sprint and Relay Champs. I'll add my routes and comments later.

First class job by the Cincinnati folks.

The leg between #3 and #4 in the relay is one of the best legs I have seen in a long time. I still don't know what the best route is. Is it possible to set up Route Gadget for just this leg? It was common for all on the red and green.

Thanks to OCIN for another great Flying Pig. This race just seems to get better each year. Mike Minium is incredible. He maps, course sets, does SI, awards.. and even was parking cars today.

I've posted my routes and a few comments (same link as above). For leg 3-4 on the relay, I think my route was ok, but I think changing the first part to go back past the start/finish, then just north of 16 and then just left of due west down the spur and across the stream, I think that would be a little better.

If you compare the first two legs for Green with the Red map, you'll see that the Green runners had a little better look at those reentrants before they got to the third control. I thought it was a little unfair to have the first two Red controls out-of-sight of the big reentrants before throwing that long leg at them. Of course, anyone who had run the sprint should have seen enough of the hills.

I saw maybe 10 people leave #3, and everyone I saw went right. I don't know how they got to the big stream, though.

I thought left past the start was better than wide right (missing the big nose), but my guess at the best (for someone not worried about the climb) was straight off the end of the circle and up the dry ditch next to the rootstock. I checked that route, and the climb was pretty easy (by East Fork standards). It's visibly less steep on the map, but that's pretty subtle. (Of course, I had more than a few hours of looking at it. I've never run it start-to-finish in one pass.)

Once you reach the stream, I have no idea what to do. Peter's route looks pretty good. (Although I almost prefer having a some 1st green during descents so you have something to hold on to.)

I checked the wide left route (after the stream), because I figured a lot of people would try to miss the climb, and it's pretty scary. As you round the trail bend, there are three contours, and you have to look for a way down. Once you get down to the stream and look up, it's really intimidating. It's big and steep. My guess is the only reasonable way up from here is in the gullies for the first half of the climb.

It was that wide left route that really made me worried about the courses. I made a bunch of changes to help line people up on reasonable climbs and descents. Of all the maps I've used at East Fork, I thought this one showed the very steep areas better than any of them, and it's still really subtle.

Are Pig results up someplace?

A route we discussed in the car on the way home was south out of #3 back through the start/finish area then west of #16 down into the river. South on the trail (climbing a few contours but on the trail). As the trail turns north run side hill on what appears to be a terrace. Then drop into the re-entrant and then up the long ridge that is due east of #4.

My route was similar to Peter, except I went closer to the line once west of the main river valley (we started out the same way).

Again - a very nice leg.

I think that there were about 3 legs on Blue, as opposed to about one on Peter's Red: 7–8, that gave a competitor a substantial advantage (over 1 min) if executed correctly. My route was identical to Peter's on Blue 10–11.

Nice run, Vlad.

I did a similiar route. One note -- on blue, with the departure control to the east, the right hand route is more obvious, I think. than on red, where the stream valley may appear more prominent.

I followed the line fairly closely out of #3 (staying to the S of the gully) until I hit the wide stream. I think that worked pretty well, although I wouldn't argue with people who said that going back through the start-finish area was superior. Once I crossed the wide stream, I followed the trail to the stream coming in from the right -- I followed that stream until I got a good angle to go up slope, hitting the trail. So far so good, but then I think I made an inferior choice, following the trail to the closest point to the control, going down, then slogging up the gully the control was in (at the time I was worried about being able to identify the right gully, that's why I went trail). Faster would probably have been to just stay close to the line, hopefully finding a place to climb up -- gully-slogging is slow.

I took a quick glance at the 3-4 leg before reading this discussion and my first impression was that going through the Start/Finish would be at worst 10-15 seconds slower than going right and maybe a lot faster. I'm pretty sure I would have gone that way. Looking at the maps, it appears to have been an excellent meet.

One quarrel I would have is that the sprint area should have been a true sprint map (it appears to be just the 1:10 map printed at 200%). I think for a championship event using the ISSOM set with 2.5m contour would be appropirate.

Agree with Eric on the scale and symbol set used for the sprint map. It was the only drawback for the whole meet. I am glad that organizers didn't sqeeze map drawn for 1:10000 scale to 1:15000 map for the classic course Sunday. It is also bad practice as makes the map almost unreadable (especially for us old folks). If map is drawn by fieldchecker for 1:10000 scale it should be presented as such.

Thanks Clem. I think the secret to success in Pig-land is to attack the rose just right. If you are too angry and combative, it'll bite you back and you'll bleed to death before you ever get to the finish. Go too peace-loving on it, thought, and you'll be fine, pretty skin and all, just about 0.5 min/km slower than otherwise. Eight years of practice taught me to run with one arm outstretched in front, pushing the briars out of my way.

Not sure if this is a grand metaphor for anything.

I won't dispute the bit about sprint maps being different (although I'm not sure that even at the international elite level they're all 2.5 m contours), but I'll disagree about the 1:10000/1:15000 part. If the fieldwork isn't suitable for 1:15000, then it isn't suitable for 1:10000 either.

Strongly agree on that last point. The ISOM spec states that going to 1:10 is only done for readability (something that's beginning to matter to me as my eyes don't change focal length as easily as before), not to cram more detail onto the map. The symbol size is scaled, so the level of generalization should remain the same.

Probably 1:15000 would have made the routechoices on the Sunday's long legs more manageable but there would have been more problems with the short legs in the beginning.

Last night I used Condes to get the leg lengths of representative variations for the relay courses, and entered the leg lengths into Attackpoint. Vladimir recommended that I only input one variation for each course. The "main forks" for 4pt and 8pt advanced courses start at 167 and finish at 174.

What is necessary to import into Attackpoint a splits output from the SportIdent software?

Fieldchecker while working on map have in mind the intended scale so puts more details or generalizes more. So if fieldcheck was done for 1:10000 scale the map should be printed for such. Sometimes I see crowded maps that are unreadable in places while running high speed.

Sergey, I think you're missing the point. According to the ISOM there should never be such a thing as field checking for an intended scale of 1:10000.

From IOF ISOM 2000: "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"

Therefore Sprint maps are not orienteering maps?

Or is it OK to use terrains best represented by 1:4000/5000 and 1:15,000, but not in between?

Was not one of the big lessons from the Japan WOC that some traditional ISOM symbols are more appropriate for Sprint maps than the ISSOM symbols in non-urban terrain?

At some point our principles and realities need to be reconciled.

No, obviously sprint maps are also orienteering maps, but they follow a different standard, as I'm sure you know. ISOM 2000 was completed at a time when sprint was just starting to be introduced. The way I interpret the quote above is that it only applies to "traditional" orienteering maps, the kind that ISOM has covered for decades.

The development of traditional ISOM maps in the last several years is that they have become increasingly more detailed. This is mostly good, we all want detailed and accurate maps! The question is, where do you draw the line between details and legibility? At some point the map is useless, no matter how accurate it is, because you can't read it when you're running through the woods...

The IOF wants to preserve 1:15000 scale maps as the main scale used for elite (non-sprint) orienteering. Is this a good thing? I'm not sure, it can probably be debated forever, but personally I think I agree, at least for the long distance. Given that the goal is to preserve the existance of the 1:15000 scale maps, I think the rule in ISOM makes sense. If the terrain is so detailed that it is impossible to generalize it so that you can read the map at 1:15000, then you shouldn't map the area for orienteering!

The 1:10000 can still be used. ISOM recommends it for junior and master age categories, BUT as JJ and Buckley are saying, the symbol sizes has to be scaled! It's supposed to be a straight enlargement to help people who does not have perfect vision, which mostly is the group that don't run 16 km long courses anyway. Now, the "problem" is that many mappers these days are so feature horny that they actually use the 1:15000 size symbol set on a 1:10000 map to be able to cram in ever more detail. These maps are often useless at 1:15000. I think it is this kind of mapping that JJ, Buckley and myself are opposed to.

In my mind, this discussion is completely separate from any issues with the ISSOM sprint standard.

Relay results are now posted at ocin.org Results from all days and splits from the sprint are up. We're still working on making the splits from the other courses easily readable. Sprint maps are posted, as are several hundred photos.

Regarding the map scales: We considered printing Sunday red & blue courses (or at least M-21+ and F-21+ at 1:15,000, but decided against it for this year. The complexity in the early short legs, plus the fact that the course still fit well within an 11 x17 print were reasons. We know that a true classic should be on 1:15,000, but we also know that many older red runners (M35+, M40+, M45+ also share red) prefer 1:10,000. So, we went with 1:10,000 for this year and this area.

On the Sprint map, Eric, what would you have us change to ISSOM instead of ISOM? This area was more forested and less urban than many sprints. A few sprint-specific changes were made to the map, but there really weren't many changes that could have been made. The most obvious would be the lighter pavement color for roads. Since there were no large or wide paved areas, we felt that leaving the road fill normal ISOM was equal to changing it. I don't see any strong reasons either to change or not to. The buildings were mentioned in the course notes: there are no overhangs or pass-throughs. You can't map what's not there. The trail used by Course 1 white/yellow) did have some steps, and in retrospect, I should have shown those with the step symbol. But, I doubt that anyone other than white and yellow runners saw these. As far as using a 2.5 meter contour, I'm not sure what it would have addded. There is already a form line (presumably 2.5 m) in the flatter areas, and 2.5 m would only have made the very steep slopes very brown & rather cluttered. Looking back, I should also have added a form line to the reentrant/gully 100 m southeast of course 3 #10 en route to #11, since it is steeper & deeper than the map makes it look, but I didn't think of that in time. What other changes do you suggest? The campground area was certainly very finely detailed as far as small copses, thickets, single trees, etc.

Oh, and there was a model area map in everybody's packets, which included the parking area for the sprint, so no excuses about not knowing exactly what to expect. Course notes also mentioned that the map would be straight ISOM, 1:5000, 5 m and made mention of the pavement color & buildung symvbols, plus the special symbol used for the water sources & disposals.

Another point for discussion. Now that the Pig is over, how did everyone feel about the sprint and the relay in the same day. Did that work out OK or was it too much? We had nearly 200 runners in the sprint and 37 full teams plus some partial ones in the relay. So, a large majority of Pig attendees did both events. But, given the choice, is that a good combination? Would a sprint and middle also work on the same day?

Mike

"Feature horny"?

Mike, I really liked the course setting for the sprint (and the middle and relay) for that matter. I thought the sprint mapping was very intuitive, with seemingly a helpful symbol set. I've had issues with non-ISSOM sprint maps in the past, but those expressed themselves in the context of symbols with slightly different meanings between the two standards.

As for the two events in one day? I don't have a problem with it as a competitor, especially if one of those is a sprint and the other a middle or equivalent. But, I am concerned that the additional logistical challenges may imperil the quality of one or both events. That didn't appear to be a problem here, but it takes a really good organizing team to pull it off. I'm not sure that it is worth it in some cases.

Regarding 1:15000/1:10000, the IOF has this fix on long distance orienteering being not too technical - the main challenge should be physical according to _them_.

Orienteers' orienteers believe the greater the technical challenge the better, for long or short courses. The more technical the terrain the better. Some terrain is too tough to map at 1:15000. This doesn't mean that it isn't suitable for top-level competition. It's just against IOF rules.

This debate will raise its head again come WC France in October, where we will have a Long&Technical race. Lava flows should not be mapped at 1:15!!!


ps Many areas are of course not complex enough to justify 1:10 mapping...

I believe that the statement regarding 1:10 mapping in the ISOM spec is a direct challenge to the trend towards creating more feature-rich maps. I feel that more and more I'm seeing areas being, in my view, overmapped. Half-meter boulders, tiny pits that can't be seen from more than 5m away, clumps of green vegetation only a few meters across, and a huge increase in the use of form lines.

I don't think that the addition of such things makes the orienteering more technically challenging, it just makes the map harder to read at speed. Good navigators simplify away all these details anyway, so if the feature isn't prominent enough to host a control, I'd just as soon have it left off.

I've also noticed a practice (not a trend, I've seen it for as long as I've been orienteering) of course setters wanting to make the controls really hard to find. I think these two mindsets are similar and I think they come from looking at the terrain at walking pace and saying, "gee that's easy." Well, sure it is. I can hit controls with a blank piece of paper at walking pace (we have to do it all the time in Adventure Racing). Try it at 6:00/K.

Of course, there are some areas that really do have a very high concentration of significant detail. I think these are rare enough that IOF felt comfortable putting the blanket statement in there, knowing that mappers for WC events are fully able to make their own judgements.

I agree completely!

"I feel that more and more I'm seeing areas being, in my view, overmapped. Half-meter boulders, tiny pits that can't be seen from more than 5m away, clumps of green vegetation only a few meters across, and a huge increase in the use of form lines."

JJ, this is the definition of feature horny!

Oh, I understood what you meant, I just found it to be an interesting phrase!

I thought the sprint map was fine. Following the sprint standards would have been fine, too. Having the model map to warm up on made it quite easy to adapt to the scale and to learn to recognize the blue circles (which were the only unusual feature that I recall).

I didn't have trouble with both races on the same day. I know that a few people took it easy on the sprint to save a bit for the relay.

I'm not saying some places aren't overmapped. Feature selection is a huge part of the mapper's skill requirements. There are, however, many interesting areas with lots of LARGE features where even after removing unnecessary detail a lot remains.
The sprint map in Cervara de Roma was cluttered at 1:4000 and 12.5m contours and is a paradigm of sprint orienteering.

WC mappers have made their own judgments, backed by the best orienteers and the organising federations, and have had them overruled by the IOF.

To sum up:
Overmapping areas is bad.
Not mapping interesting areas because there is too much detail is bad.
Undermapping very technical areas due to IOF intransigency is bad.

Having two short courses same day is fine for elites who train regularly. It is more demanding for juniors and seniors who are not prepared to run intensly that much same day. Although, I think, it is accepted by all groups to some degree.

Locally and internationally at elite competitions I see the trend of 1:10000 maps for middle and 1:15000 for long. I can only be happy about this as at my age the bigger the symbols the better is for me :) I especially like sprint maps :)

One of the worth practices I see is when symbols are not being scaled properly. Bad, bad, bad!

It is all coming to the sense and judgement of the meet organizers. I think Flying Pig organizers always make the right choice with maps. And they don't try to save money with cheap map bags :) Map bags are so nicely sealed that it takes determination to unseal them to draw routes :)

Two courses in one day is fine with me (age 56).

First, it is easy to opt out of one or the other when there's still a total of 3 courses. Second, I'm not running Sprint with the intensity of elite runners. My over 3 minute 800m pace doesn't allow it; I do slow to read the map; and can't run most of the uphills. So 18:44, not 15:00, unintentionally saves a lot of energy for the Relay (but did I mention, not 6.1K?)

There is a difference between 2 courses and 2 championships. If you opt out of one race, you are opting out of a championship. Conceptually, I think that is a problem; in reality less of a problem, with USOF having so many championships you can't go to a meet without without stumbling over a handful of them :-)

That said, I think you can get away with a middle and a sprint championship on the same day, tho that would not be my first choice. I think it is really bad to have another championship with the relay, as you are also forcing an opt out of team vs individual.

But Clem proved it was possible to win both on the same day. For me, I ran the sprint at a much lower intensity than the relay.

I think what this is saying is that people aren't viewing the sprint as a race worthy of its own day, even if it is a championship. I guess that can be debated, and I guess that is probably what is at the heart of the question.

For this past weekend, I would have preferred sprint friday, relay saturday, and long (not "classic") sunday. I think that package would have been more enjoyable for me personally.

I see we are mixing two good threads, but back to the scale topic.

I think ndobbs has perfectly summed some very important points that the IOF principles, and principals, and loyalists, refuse to recognize. I happen to strongly agree that preservation of the Classic/long is very important. To this goal, the Japan WOC classic course was a great opportunity squandered. Where were the IOF course people supporting this Classic/Long O principle when it mattered most, when presented with one of the best ever route choice terrains, which got used up with mediocre, train-expanding short legs.

But even this worthy objective of preserving 1:15 000 orienteering does not justify the narrow minded rational for not properly mapping and using other interesting areas. Granted, detail-rich areas with strong features are not plentiful, but I think it is fair to say they they are universally considered exceptionally interesting and valuable.

back to the IOF- The Japan WOC sprint mapping story sounds like a travesty. (Thank you Rob Plowright, and thank goodness the sprint terrain wasn't detailed) Here we apparently had some IOF people more concerned with their own authority, than in getting it right, even with the ISSOM rules, which are clearly a work in progress. This, along with the TV/micro-O process demonstrates the need for vigilance, broader involvement, and some checks and balances at our highest levels.

All this coming out of the "Pig maps"!?

For this past weekend, I would have preferred sprint friday, relay saturday, and long (not "classic") sunday. I think that package would have been more enjoyable for me personally.

Then I assume we'll be seeing you at Team Trials as the middle distance course is not too much different than a relay leg.

I think we hashed this out a few threads back, but it seems that the demand for the 3-day sprint/middle/long (or sprint/relay/long) is definitely there. Perhaps stronger than the demand for the week-long meets. I hope more meet directors pick up on this because I've always loved the idea.

me changing topic - i find when i run a sprint all out i'm wa more drained than after middle/long. perhaps that means i don't push hard enough in middle/long.

One note to elite competitors:
If you can not run sprint and middle (or second sprint) same day full speed - you are not training enough! WOC sprint quals and finals are usually done same day and I didn't hear any complains about that :)

Yes we are not training enough. But I don't agree. IF one runs flat out in the first race then in the second one one will be less fresh and run less well.

Ever wonder why the top competitors don't automatically qualify for finals without runing? One doesn't complain because it is fair.

The goal is to be good enough to qualify easily...

Again Sergey (this point has been brought up before), a qual/final on the same day together constitute *one* race. ALL competitors must run both the qual and the final to get a final result. Thus the no complaints. That is very different from two separate championships on the same day.

Canada is following suit by having both our Middle and Short Championship races on the same day. This is the first year Canada has seperate distances champs and I'm hoping having them on the same day won't continue into the future.

I repeat again :)

If you can not run 2 miles and 5 miles (or another 2 miles) orienteering race same day separated by adequate rest time - you are not training enough to be an international elite athlete.

To do it you need to have an average 10 hours of relevant training per week at least (500-600hrs per year). Only a handful here on AP log this kind of training, moslty Canadians and some Europeans. Canadian results this past weekend support this statement.

It has nothing to do with the total distance. The point is even the top marathoner in the world will be more tired after running 10 miles than he will after running 0 miles. If two equal world-champ marathoners start a race together and one has just run 10 miles at top effort, he will be at a disadvantage to the other runner.

3 hours is not adequate rest time between races. 24 probably is, depending on the race lengths.

If you can not run 2 miles and 5 miles (or another 2 miles) orienteering race same day separated by adequate rest time - you are not training enough to be an international elite athlete.


And USOF championships are not conducted only for "international elites", which is a vast minority of the age classes. Recovery time takes longer as you get older.

Also, apples to oranges are being compared by using the qual/final example to seem the same as two separate races. You are necessarily motivated to start and place well in both starts of the qual/final, but that is not necessarily true of the 2 different race senerio.

Finally, the argument from training is bogus, and can be taken to logical extremes, such as claiming everyone should be fit enough to handle all of USOF's championships on the same day with 10 minutes of recovery between each :-) No one has shown evidence that the particular 3-4 hour wait between the particular race formats at the Pig are ideal, optimal, or is outside this logical adsurdum window.

It may be, but the the thread originated by asking attendess how they felt about the Pig's format, and my claim, as a non-elite attendee, is that it is too compressed (for me) to give 100% at each race, and I don't think that is the best way to determine champions.

It seems like this doesn't stress the right point. If everyone runs their respective classes in the morning and afternoon, would everyone be (relatively) as tired? Sure, an M50 might be more tired than an M20, but assuming they are running against the same population, shouldn't this wash?

In my opinion, the real problem is if some competitors skip the first to be fresh for the second, or kill themselves on the first and dog the second. In each case, deliberately not competing in one race to excel in the other. That could happen but I don't know whether it is a big problem or not.

Would you have considered the Pig schedule more or less appealing/fair if they had offered:
US Sprint Friday
US Relay Sat
Classic Sun; and no Middle?

j-man rightfully pointed to real problem of having two championship events same day. It is all coming to the same issue of fairness :) One can skip first event in favor of being "fresh" for the second. However, there is more than ample support on saying that most likely the winners of the first events would dominate in the second even in this case :) Having all to run first and second events mitigates the roots of this rhetoric.

As mentioned, the COF has changed the COC format to Sprint/Middle/Long, starting this year. The schedule for next year's COCs has not been finalized, but Saskatchewan is currently contemplating one event per day. (Night Champs (new championship) Thursday, Sprint Friday, Middle Saturday, Long Sunday.)

Perhaps the Pig could have swapped a couple of races so the two U.S. Champs weren't on the same day, but as someone who spent 18 hours on the road to attend the event, I'm happy they offered four great races and not just three.

Sorry for not contributing earlier. When I finished my anchor relay leg I yelled out that north lines should be black. I still think that north lines should be black, but the time has allowed some reflection on other map issues of the day.

I made a few costly (extra contour) errors on my relay leg. At the time I finished I could only attribute the orientation errors to the north lines camouflaged amongst streams and other high cyan usage features (green areas).

My outlook the next morning before the classic event was that I was running extra hard during the relay and not catching subtle map errors I normally do, such as my red 8 pt leg 5. On a straight compass bearing on the flats I see that I will go over the end of the reentrant coming in from the east. I make a mid leg adjustment because close features should be mapped relatively more accurate than features further away, and I wind up on the spur NW of my target spur. That error was not too bad, but I had three other larger errors.

During my classic event run I took time to evaluate map features as a mapper. Here I found the more insidious problem with the map, the one that caused most of my big errors and the one that is harder for OCIN to fix. My post classic event discussion with our relay course setter confirmed my evaluation. The reentrant contours are out of position.

We all know how deep and steep the hillsides are, and the contours are there; but Vladimir Zherdev used a large minimum spacing between adjacent contours. So when crossing what you think was the big reentrant was not. It was one of the large side reentrants off of the big reentrant.

The revelation came to me when I arrived at a reentrant that was at least three if not four contours deep from where I was standing to the bottom, but my map showed only two contours. By position, the other contours on the map were behind me. In the field, behind me I had just started to descend off the plateau at most a half contour.

Why Zherdev used such a large minimum contour spacing I don't know, but it misrepresents the terrain.

He has done other mapping work for our club that does not show this anomaly, albeit that map doesn't have the steep reentrants present at East Fork.

ISOM does not list a minimum contour spacing. I agree with ISOM here. Contour spacing should accurately represent the terrain.

One another thing for East Fork re-entrants is that they were often very steep at the bottom and contour lines did not reflect this. We were warned about this anomaly in course setter notes and it was expected. I just wonder if somehow showing this steepness would change some route choices. May be using form lines? At places I had to almost use my teeth to pull up :) Although, the one have to compromise between making map unreadable and showing all the essentual information. Otherwise, I found the map more or less accurate. I liked the space between the contour lines that Zherdev used as it represented more accurately expected depth of the re-entrants. Too often I see that contour lines get abused. Two lines represent 10 m depth and this is three story house! Quality of the basemap is major source of the discrepancies with final maps that we see.

I didn't see any problems with Zherdev maps other than the contour line placement mentioned by Sergey and the map notes. I went over my routes and altimeter data extensively during last week. I did not see errors in the map relative to altimeter data that were greater than 3.0 meters. So, I think King of Pain's comments are slightly misplaced. I will publish my data later today or tomorrow.

Zherdev's vegetation mapping, in particular, was highly reliable, intuitively interpretable, and the map printing allowed one to easily distinguish between the three shades of green without having to refer to the legend or an area on the map that would have all three. The quality of green colors is a plague of laser-based printing processes, and contours going through the green are its particular instance. Mike Minium did a very nice job in adjusting the colors as close as possible to PMS colors.

The recent Buckeye Trail addition (not Zherdev) could have been more accurate, but what was on the map was highly usable.

I agree with the King about the N–S lines. I used blue on the Florida maps for obvious reasons: the map was heavy on straight-ish black features, while being quite short on blue. Blue also seemed an appropriate choice for NEOC maps to an even greater extent: many straight black linear features: stone walls.

Just to be clear, the ISOM2000 spec stipulates either blue or black for north lines. It's the mapper's call. Blue may have been the wrong call for this map, but the statement "North lines should be black" is false.

I agree that Tundra/Desert's altimeter data will show all contours are present. The altimeter data will have to be combined with horizontal position data to reveal the contour spacing issue. That is the contours should have been pushed into the reentrants to more accurately represent the terrain. Will it affect route choice? Probably not. But it will affect terrain interpretation. That is the issue. So when you get to a reentrant where you have to use everything including teeth to get out of it, you know you're in the right place.

No change. North lines should still be black. I know ISOM allows blue, but clarity should be the overriding factor. It is a rare instance when blue north lines are more clear on a map than black. I hate looking at the text on the map border to determine which way the north lines point.

A related issue is the line thickness for not only north lines but all lines. The map we used *may* have some non standard line thickness. It's very close and one would have to look at the map file to verify this. 1:10,000 maps should be enlargements of 1:15,000 maps. The symbol set should not be scaled and modified to fit a 1:10,000 map. Draft the map at 1:15,000 and print it at 1:10,000.

Many cartographers liberally throw out the ISOM line symbol standards and define their own set. A clear example of this is Zherdev's dry ditch. It's dot density is larger than standard. This may improve clarity for short dry ditches, but the wholesale use of it affects map readability.

Zherdev's vegetation mapping is without equal. He can map vegetation for our club anytime - and has.

It is a rare instance when blue north lines are more clear on a map than black.

Maybe in Ohio, where green and brown are the predominant colors, but I wouldn't say it's rare in general. The north lines on the sprint map for Team Trials will be blue and are quite visible. Black lines would be a disaster due to the N/S orientation of many manmade features.

As mentioned before, areas with lots of rock also benefit from blue lines. Zoran used blue for Hawn and that map has played to rave reviews. Fear not though, you'll get one map with black lines for Team Trials: S-F needs black because of all the tiny streams.

Separate position and altitude data from Pig X Race 4 (Classic). Note that the altimeter has a 5–15-second time constant (1–3 samples), so when you go in and out of a deep reentrant, it will fail to notice the bottom-most 2–4 meters or so, but most likely won't be off by 10 m.