Discussion: Mapping

Any thoughts upon the debate over mapping simplification after running in the terrain?

Not really prepared to make a call after one run - on the one hand I had great difficulty in relating the big features on the ground (steep slopes, ~5m cliffs) to what stood out on the map in the rockier areas, but on the other hand I'm not sure how much of that was the map and how much of it was my less than competent navigation. In the slightly less rocky areas (controls 1-6, which was also more representative of the long final) I felt pretty comfortable with the interpretations. In any case most of the discussions were over the 1:15000 map used for the long distance.

Do you consider tracks a big feature...? :)
(And what is the French medical certificate requirement, then?)

Tracks are a big feature, but perhaps not so big when they're underneath a layer of autumn leaves (although you could still work out where most of them were).

It's a legal requirement (counter-productive in my opinion; I think we've discussed this here before?) in France that anyone participating in an organised sporting event has a medical clearance (for French members this is part of their membership renewal). This makes it difficult for people who aren't members of a French club to run in French events. Not sure the extent to which this would have been enforced at a smallish local event.

The mind boggles since med. clearances are only really current for when they're issued and not for any other time. I think legally (here in Aus) they can be valid for 3 or 6 months depending on the organisation / insurance / risk management etc.

I managed to join a French club without my knowledge and never needed a certificate. Also didn't need to pay entry fees :)

Last time I raced in France, I made up a medical certificate myself. No-one ever questioned it.