Discussion: Does color matter ?

I got mp on Friday's sprint course and only learned about it when I went to download. I missed #10 control and didn't know I did until I saw the splits, I simply didn't notice it on the map and just run by it. I am not blaming anyone for what I did, but I think I have a legitimate question to ask Oer's how they feel about the quality of colors that courses get printed with these days.

I personally had trouble locating the start triangle when I first picked the map, not to mention skipping #10. I found the color, that the course was printed with, very vague and hard to follow. Although I was glad to learn that on the following two days this wasn't an issue. Just click on the link to get a more clear idea on what I mean.

Thus I want to ask are there any standards out there that tell the color, size, width of lines and etc. or is just up to an individual judgment?

Sergei,

I didn't run on Friday, but just looking at that particular map under good light in the hotel room, I completely understand your feelings. I thought that the over printing, while in the correct color, seemed a bit thinner than usual - in other words, the lines, circles, and numbers had less emphasis than I'm used to. I also thought that the contour colors were a bit different and hard to see when in dark green. But that is often a common affliction of laser-printed maps which I'm guessing that map was.

However, the printing on Saturday and Sunday was great and I thought the maps themselves (Friday included), the courses, and everything else was super.

Sergei,

Actually, I think your scanned image, in some ways, looks better than what I recollect. The paper map seemed to have a waxy glossiness that I felt made it harder to read under the light. But, I suppose that wasn't an issue in the competition since you had a nice soft, diffuse light from the rainy skies :)

There is a specification for course markings in ISOM2000. Without having the actual map in hand, I can't tell whether it meets the specification. But I certainly agree that there have been courses where I felt that the color or thickness of the course marking was not appropriate. Particularly when using an unusual scale, it's important to check that things haven't gotten whacked out in 0CAD.

I wasn't there for this meet, but have been flummoxed by thin purple lines for course printing in the past. I have trouble picking up purple, and especially thin and faint purple lines. I greatly prefer thick red ones. I gather some folks can't see red lines, so there may not be one solution that pleases all. Thin lines of any color seem not to be desirable.

It took me awhile to find a start triangle too (leg 1 split is 19 sec.). I managed to locate finish circle first and then somehow see start triangle and first control which I knew was just in front of me.

When I finished, my wife asked me what I thought of the island control. I asked, "What island control?" I went from #6 to #10 skipping 7, 8, and 9. In my case, the line from 6 to 7 almost passed through #10. I might have caught it if I was using my control description sheet, but it was a squished up wad of paper that I couldn't shove into my holder in time. *Or* I could have paid attention.

On the printer I used for the Sunday maps, the Condes default of purple overprinting was too dark---You couldn't read the detail under the course. On page 6 of the ISOM 2000 (J-J's link), it recommends 100% Magenta instead of Pantone Purple for CMYK printing. The color I actually used for Sunday's 1:15000 maps is defined like this: Red 255, Green 0, Blue 255, and then it also says: Hue 200, Sat: 240, Lum 120. I don't know if that is "100% Magenta" or not, but it shows the underlying map detail a whole lot better than the Condes default. (Anyone who can interpret the Hue, Sat, and Lum settings---Please do so. It looks more red than magenta.)
(To see those color numbers in Condes, it's "Course Overprinting, Settings, Select color, then "Define custom colors". The color I mentioned above is the second row, far-right color block.)
Just to be clear, to print entire maps with courses, you have to use the "Course Overprinting" menu item in condes, even though Condes prints everything---map and course.
I just pulled out some old offset-printed maps to which I overprinted courses from Condes (that is, to which I printed only the course lines, circles, and numbers), and I'm not really satisfied with them. The underlying detail is obscured---you can't see anything underneath except black and 100% green. I'll definitely try Magenta next time I have to do that. This might be an issue with my printer. I'm a big believer in trying a lot of different print settings to improve the product.

My 1:47 split for leg 2 was mostly because I could not find the start triangle. I punched #1 (15s) because it was right in front of me and matched the description and code but then stood there for 25-30s unable to find where I was on the map. Located the finish circles and traced the course backwards until I reached #1. In the indifferent lighting there and even now in my office at work I have trouble distinguishing quickly between the color of the course and the contours. On the course I had to concentrate each time I looked at the map in order to pick out the course lines. Luckily they usually went straight across the contours so were somewhat noticable.

The problem goes beyond color. Some laser output is so miserably poor that it should not be used for an A-meet (yes, I am including West Point's maps of last year).
Offset printing is the best standard. If laser output is used, the files have to be set up correctly and the print shop should be willing to jiggle around with the laser printer until is works.
I don't even use OCAD, I bring an Adobe Illustrator file to my printer and he makes a real effort to produce the output I want. As for the line thickness and the size of the circles, I adjust it until I think it is easy readable. I usually add a hint of Cyan (12%) to the 100% magenta, to make it darker and better legible for red color blind people.
Seeing the map is a basic requirement and it is hard enough to read them when the eyes get worse with age.

100% magenta in CMYK translates into 226 red and 127 blue in RGB. This is at what Photoshop tells me. But depending on the printer used, colors can look very differently, unless everything is calibrated properly.

The type of paper will also affect the color, as I found when I set a park-o race last spring.

I think I remember that glossy paper made the contours look almost red, whereas matte paper made them look darker brown.

Here at MNOC I am very happy with the ISOM 2000 color standard (in OCAD) and laser printing at our local FedEXKinkos . They calibrate their color everyday ; I also check them with a special test ocad file of my own design (using blocks of the PMS spec colors brown 471 , blue 299, green 361, purple ) once every 3 months or so.

However when printing on other machines (particularly inkjets (MNOC's Epson C84) we have had a lot of problems with magenta circles being indistinguishablle from brown contour lines. The solution is to deviate from ISOM 2000 by changing brown to magenta 37.5 (vs 56 in ISOM2000) , yellow 62 (vs 100) and black 32 (vs 18).
This gives a dark brown (rather than a red brown). This recipe (plus some other color tweaks) was suggested by Peter Golde on O map yahoo group 2/28/2004. It seems to work well . But you do need to experiment with every printer and paper combination that you use.

The color for the sprint course seems a bit dark, but I think the real problem was line thickness and symbol size. I was 26 seconds to 1 - at least 15 of those were spent trying to find the start triangle. In a sprint, that's serious time. Of course, my adventures later on made that delay pretty insignificant.

I don't know anything at all about sprint racing or the best ways to prepare and train for sprint races, but it does seem to me that in a race form where very often just a few seconds one way or the other could decide the race, some special training to quickly find the start triangle when you turn over the map--where you could easily lose a few seconds each time out, if you're really slow at finding the start triangle--might be something to think about. And it seems easy enough to do something about: just get a few old maps, put a lot of start triangles on them, number the triangles in random order, and practice flipping the map over and find, say, triangle #3 as fast as you can. You could do this kind of training pretty much anywhere: while eating breakfast, in the shower, at a stoplight, or even while fighting off attack badgers or especially aggressive cowgirls.

Or you could do nothing, and bemoan taking seconds finding the start triangle at race after race, while your opposition sails out of the start like a yachtsman on a mission from the (sprint) Commission!

Really, what kind of excuse is it to say you can't find the start triangle when you're standing still? How do you expect to find any actual controls while you're racing?? ; )

I'd stay and chat longer, but I have to go and get a few oil wells drilled before sunup.

Swampfox, I don't think you're taking this seriously enough. Line colors and start intervals rank right up there with the death of the Pope as events rating wall-to-wall coverage for days on end on all major television networks.

I agree that locating the start triangle on a map should not be a challenge, but when preview maps are available and the start is near registration, I consider orienting the fields and buildings and "locating the Start" as part of my course preparation. (Certainly previous users of the map would have this knowledge.) My surprise was seeing a control 30 m away and watching the previous starter dogleg it through the start triangle on a 'yellow' route to #2. (BTW, was straight or fields faster to #2?)

Anyway, is such use of preview maps legal, fair, and ethical? I'm surprised the issue hasn't been mentioned above or elsewhere.

For the Pig Sprint map, I used the purple color settings left over in my OCAD from the Alabama event (Cyan 28%, Magenta 100%). Those were quite properly calibrated for the inkjet Epson C86. The printer that the Pig maps were generated on is nothing like the C86. It is probably a Xerox Fiery laser, or similar. Also, the line and circle size were reduced because the complaint in Alabama was, they were too big. I went too far in reducing those.

Unfortunately with me being in California and the maps being produced in Oxford, Ohio, there was only one shot at getting things right. I do not have a Fiery here, or anything similar, to produce test output. The course printing was not right and I apologise for it. If I were richer I would have my own printing facility like Bob Cooley does. With non-offset printing, it takes a lot of time to get the color settings, line thicknesses, and object sizes exactly right. Actually, about 2 person-days worth before the Alabama event were spent on that and on generating the map border, logos, and legend.

In the past few months I chose to put a lot of energy and personal money into organizing Team-sponsored events. I asked Bob if he would be willing to be a contractor for printing, since I don't view the time invested in tweaking with printer settings as particularly productive. Bob's answer was negative. If anyone else would like to pick up the job, please make an offer. The Team will pay up to $0.50 per letter-sized sheet, with the right to reject output we deem unsatisfactory. We prefer inkjet. You get to keep the printers and recharge the cartridges. If your laser can do a job that is as good, go ahead. The Fiery that OCIN uses has produced some particularly gnastly output in the past. Fortunately none of you have seen it, but OCIN has been billed for it.

My last word is, use offset maps with inkjet overprinting whenever possible, for the best in resolution, color consistency, and feature definition. With Team-sponsored events, we have to rely on the organizing club's resources. The prevailing sentiment among USOF clubs is against using offset printing.

I separated the discussion about using preview maps on the day of the event into a distinct thread.

There does appear to be a moderately prevalent attitude that studying the preview map while in the terrain before running is poor etiquette - I've never understood precisely why. Embargoing terrain is standard and I've heard, for sprints, of visiting the terrain being allowed provided you didn't carry a map with you. Regarding locating the start on the map, it's a required skill in all orienteering race formats I can think of. On the theory that what is not expressly forbidden is permitted, I'll look at the back of a map I'm given before starting to see whether the larger text, the magnetic north lines or, if I know the approximate shape of the mapped terrain, the mapped area can be seen through the paper in order to be able to turn the map over correctly oriented and find the start and first leg faster.

Changing the topic slightly, I'll admit the not expressly forbidden therefore permitted theory could be taken to ridiculous extremes. Would, for example, overflying embargoed terrain in a small plane, ultralight or balloon be against the rules? Studying it through binoculars from a nearby vantage point on high ground? What about going out of pocket to pay for your own photogrammetric survey and basemap of the terrain? Not that I've read the fine details of USOF or IOF rules to verify that these eventualities aren't covered.

In Australia the competition rules forbid looking at maps of the competition area unless permitted by the organizer, but to add to the schizophrenic approach, also force the organizer to display one copy of any old versions.
[snip from OA's competition rules]
15.7 If a previous orienteering map of the competition area exists, colour copies of the most recent edition must be displayed for all competitors at the competition venue.
15.8 On the day of the competition, the use of any map of the competition area by competitors or team officials is prohibited until permitted by the organiser.
[/snip]

i imagine rules about competitor flyovers would be introduced shortly after the problem arises, as would rules against setting attack-badgers on such competitors as they approach the finish chute.

i should really add something about print quality here to stay on-topic, but i really haven't anything interesting to say, not that has ever stopped me before. Oh ok... here's an excellent map with thierryG's route where the contours were arguably too faint... french 5day territory. comes recommended. am i off-topic again?

http://co.news.free.fr/archives/05/01test1-mapL.jp...

Vlad,

Thanks for the comments on this – they’re very useful.

I do have a follow-up question for you (and everyone else) which is probably answered elaborately somewhere else, but anyway…

What printers do people prefer for map and/or course printing? Anecdotally, I’ve thought that some BAOC maps, which appear to be done with an ink jet, are excellent. I’ve also seen laser output which is pretty good and other that is atrocious (even if the colors are correctly calibrated.) In DVOA, Wyatt produced some really nice (I think inkjet) results, albeit on (expensive?) photo paper. If you’re Greg you use photo paper for doodling, but I don’t know whether it is cost effective generally.

I’m asking because I’m thinking of doing this myself (again) at a local meet in a couple weeks. I’m not a fan of the laser output I have at work (Xerox) – the colors are good but the resolution seems fuzzy.

Vlad and Greg actually had the privilege of running on one of my earliest attempts at this, back in early 2000. As I recall, despite my Herculean efforts, the colors were particularly psychedelic. And I think that Vlad rightfully took particular note of that.

Clem,

What did you think about the maps we used at Norristown? Those were printed directly from OCAD on Kinko's laser. Colors had to be adjusted though. let me know if you want specifics.

For others interested in seeing what they looked like, you can find them on PG's Sprint Page under DVOA's Norristown Sprints.

Those maps were great. Just based on recollections, I thought they were inkjetted but then Eric pointed out they were laser - I'll need to go home and look at them up close. But, in the things I look for: sharpness, color, and gloss (or lack of) I thought they were right on target.

Whatever inkjet printer Bob Cooley is using is quite impressive. I know it's an Epson, but I'm not certain of the model number. In addition to producing impressively sharp output, the ink is also waterproof (and I've tested it, so I can vouch for that). The resulting maps aren't cheap -- I forget the exact numbers, but Bob has figured out how much he spends on ink and paper. But with BAOC maps, there does tend to be greater ink coverage (yellow and green) than in many other areas.

I don't know how to predict laser success. In Alberta they bought an expensive printer, and got great results, but there were weeks when the technician had to show up every day to twaek things (along with the printer, you also pay for a service contract with high-end equipment. But maybe the best laser output I ever saw was cheap photocopies that Jeff Saeger had done at the local copy shop. Go figure.

Inkjet courses over offset maps is definitely a workable approach, which can produce good results, provided you have an inkjet big enough for your maps. And if the printer isn't an appropriate Epson, you do need to be concerned about the course being water-soluble. (The Billygoat next weekend will use this technique, with HP ink, so discarding the map case is inadvisable). The absolute best course printing is offset, but that's generally cost-prohibitive. Don't forget the old standard stamp-pad, which produces excellent courses in the hands of a skilled operator (many of whom can be found in DVOA land). And there's always hand-drawing, if a limited number of maps is needed.

The Alabama maps were produced, with Bob Cooley's consulting, on an Epson C86. The average cost for a legal-size sheet (216×356 mm) was $0.49.

I purchased 2 Epson C86 for my epunch setup because of the DuraBrite ink being waterproof. I was tired of the results smearing on moist days. The added benefit was - even at "good" quality - it printed more than acceptable maps when we ran out at a very popular local event.

We have been using imagers.com for the past several years for all events (local and A meets) at areas without an inventory of printed maps from the previous days of off-set printing. They laser print with good quality on good paper with 2 to 3 day turn-around. An 8.5 x 11 works out to be $.39 per. Minimum order is $15 including shipping. Send of the file Sunday or Monday and get a box of maps Thursday or so. So far we have not had problems, nor any complaints of map quality. So this is an opportunity to do so.

well, we had the opposite problem at the coc short 2003... the lines were too thick (maybe about 2-3 millimeters) anyway it looked funny and was kind of distracting, but at least we had no problems seeing them!

Color and size matter.

I definitely found the course difficult to read on the Sprint day (not that I think it affected my race or the results in any significant way however). Even when doing the White course afterward with Rachel, it was more difficult to locate controls on the map than normal. Comparing the Sprint maps to the Middle/Classic maps, I see that the control symbols are exactly the same size, yet the controls are much less visible on the Sprint map. Color adjustment for different printers is a pain, but it appears to be essential for getting good results.

Another issue is size. For our race at Telemark, I used 6.5 mm circles for the Classic and 8.2 mm circles for the Sprint. With a map blown up to 1:5,000, I think it is quite reasonable to blow up the control circles as well. IOF has specifications on all of this of course. For Telemark, I used the WOC maps as a guide to ensure I was getting appropriate sized symbols and appropriate colors. I was surprised how big the circles were the first time I looked at my WOC maps.