Discussion: paved

I noticed the same thing on the transition from dirt to paved. maybe the boulders are a bit off too.

Ooh, I noticed that too! Luckily I had a Boris shadowing me and he didn't feel like getting hauled way off the line, so he'd make comments when I was about to go wrong...

I was wondering why that seemed weird. I have to have another look at the map.

The contours to 3 were funny, I also had to do a rethink, but at my speed it didn't slow me down...

I also flipped the contours at 3. I suppose it's unusual to see a reentrant like the cup-shaped one through which the big trail goes 100m NNE of the control. Since that formation looks like a spur, the contours end up inverted.

Must have repaved that in the last ten years. Will have to give another look, for those slackers that wander out of the woods.

Hey whatever! Route choice! =)

Interesting that so many brains flipped to 3...

Yup, I flipped 3 too! Though when I realised I was happy, because then stream route would have been really really stupid with the real contours.

Stream would not be good!

I figured it was probably a waterfall. Hence I avoided it.

Guilty of contour flipping at 3 as well.

Hey, me too on 3.

Wowzers, so did anyone not flip?

No problem....

Really do not understand the issue.....

Can I blame the fact that the circle sort of hid the top contour of that hill?

I flipped. Running on the big trail and looking ahead, I was expecting when I turned left on the small trail that I would see a reentrant going down to my right towards the control. As Ian says, the reentrant was shaped like a typical spur, and the spur like a typical reentrant. When I got there and saw the hillside, I flipped it back.

Yup, Phil's got it right. Nothing wrong with the map, the spur is just shaped more like a typical rentrant. And the stream made it look to me like there should be more downhill behind the control than there was.

I spoke with tony Muffatti last night and he flipped too.

It would help a little bit to cut the part of the control circle that obscures the index contour which, in conjunction with the nearby green and ditch, somewhat hides the fact that the contour continues around the ridge. Ditto for the form line under the control circle. This would reduce the likelihood of a quick and careless look generating the impression of descending contours down to the stream. While the onus is always on the competitor, I think there's still room for greater clarity here.

Good point, Brendan, and nicely said. I came a cropper on course printing at the Venice street-O, when the line from my #1 to #2 crossed a bridge. In the heat of competition it looked like there was no canal crossing there, so I took a long way around.

Cutting circles and lines wasn't as critical with offset printing where the purple ink didn't obscure details. But laser or inkjet printing seems to require attention to whether the circles/lines obscure navigational clues.

Green went the other direction (from Red 3 to Red 1), so it didn't bother us as much, but I would have been baffled for a bit on Red.

There is no reason to equate inkjet/laster printing with purple obscuring the features. If the files are prepped correctly, the purple can still be blended with the base map. (see SML maps). The problem is more that software doesn't make this easy.

Cutting lines is one of my pet peeves. Even with purple overprinting, having the line cut over important features, or where the course crosses itself draws your eye into those features that you may not see at first glance. If the course setter has decided to cut a line for a feature, it is generally that they think that feature could be important for your navigation to the control, or in the circle.

important for your navigation

Or just could be confusing if you see it in the terrain and it's not on the map. I'd rather have the coursesetter err on the side of cutting too much than cutting too little.

Dude, Ed, cutting lines is accepted practice, and is essential for ensuring the fairness of all possible routes. It does not mean the course setter thinks that the cut feature will necessarily be crucial, but rather that if you were to use it and the line were there, its presence would introduce ambiguity. If you think the course setter is trying to drop you hints, you're reading into it too much.

Not cutting purple in appropriate places is one of my pet peeves.

What Cristina said was what I tried to say.

I always try to make a complete once-through of every circle---In Condes it's easy, you set the zoom to about 600% and then click the first control number on the far left of the screen (say 31), and it centers on 31, then 32, and so on---And I don't cut only when the feature is important. I cut when the circle obscures a detail on the map. Occasionally they end up looking like swiss cheese, but I try to cut the absolute minimum necessary.

I see what Ed is saying, but in general, I don't cut only when it's important to the "expected route(s)". The problem with the expected route is that occasionally people miss and need to recover, and details that aren't important to the "expected route" now are important for relocation. Also, I used to be shocked at the routes people take, but now I expect people to do stuff I just did not expect. The only real fair thing is to cut when the circle obscures a detail regardless of whether the setter thinks it's necessary.