Discussion: Irrelevance

So... I'm not entirely sure about that. If he's looking at the map 6 times in 30s, he isn't looking at it for very long.

So he's getting information in very brief glances. This is important.

That, I think, means he can see the map without slowing down. Which I, at present, am completely incapable of doing.

I am curious to know more about the physics of his map-reading.

PS I don't expect to ever be doing 10 glances per minute at the map in a race, but I do hope I can train my eyes to focus faster and process more information.

What is "a glance" and how they are calculated? Take a look at this video clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSjY85fUErg
When he starts form the starts, he has map at level and he peeks at it about 5 times in some seconds, before exiting the screen. Is that one or 5 glanses?

What I mean here what is missing is how this map reading and compass peeking is controlled. I am quite sure it is not just about being able to keep constant one map peek per 10 sec and one compass peek per 20 sec. No way. It is driven and contolled by an other process and frequency is just a side effect. He(we) need to know all the time where we are going (target objects) and direction we should run versus the direction we are running at. To keep this information up-to-date we need to get information from somewhere (map and compass that is). If we focus on having this information up to date (doing the normal navigation), we end up reading map and compass often enough. So, if one doesnt look at compass often enoug, the problem is how this key thinking process is executed/learned, not the actual frequency. Trying to increase the side effect / symptom is not the cure, better if we fix the actual problem.

If one eyes are not as good as Thierrys (like all 40+ orienteers) they can't read map just like that in full speed. No matter how oten you peek at it, if you can't see it you just can't see it. Same with Thirry, if map is poor and isn't legible he for sure stops and reads the map, right? The key is you got to have the information, so you slow down or stop to read the map if needed. And if you need to stop constantly, you better read it properly so you will not have to stop every 10 seconds. Optimum is not same far all, but for everyone it is optimal to to know where you are going - what is the direction, how accurate you need to be to hit it, and how far it is approximately.

that's why I think these frequensies are moslty irrelevant, they may tell something about ones technique or vision, but for elite atheletes it might be more intesting to learn techniques (like simplifying or lookign ahead to keep direction) to decrease frequenzies needed to keep the information up to date, because thet gives time to spot micro route choices around trees and bushes. So not quite irrelevant, but the as I can see these analysis never seem get there.

I sort of described my O technique some years ago:
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_954/pe...

So I have different types of map readings / glances. Route choice ones, rading ahead ones (to pick intermediate targets) and terrain to map type ones. Some of them are essential, some are just to speed up (avoid some meters or climb). Frequency measurements doesn't tell anything what type of reading I do. One can't say anything about my plan, what I am supposed to do there. If my plan is to simplify and not read details and I alredy know my target, why would I read map there? Same with compass, sometimes I loko at compass to figure out the right direction to turn there, sometimes I just check am I runing at the direction I am supposed to run or think I am running to speed up, (save some meters). sometimes my plan is to hit sometihng accurately, sometimes it doesn't matter that much, like hitting a road. So the key is how it all is driven and controlled. Counting hits is irrelevant unless this main thing is good and works well, then you can start optimizing it and it becomes somehow relevant.

Re compass use, he was sometimes using baseplate at least up to a couple of years ago. I'm not sure how relevant that is.

So yes, I agree completely it's about the information extracted. But how to best extract the information can be trained and improved, whether one is 40+ or not. What I was playing with, running home, was seeing if many extremely brief glances could provide information. A longer look at the map usually entails some slowing down (for me) because of footing/stability. Whereas brief glance may not. But a brief glance on its own tells you next to nothing. One hope with brief glance is that the image from the previous glance hasn't quite faded from memory, so next glance can use that to focus faster or to superimpose the info or to zoom better to the point of interest, or something.

Judging by the video, I wouldn't say he's doing that. But I think it's an interesting idea.

The ideal situation (?) would be for a person to have a total "photographic" memory and remember the map of the leg in question after only one glance... Can´t that actually be trained to a certain point?

Then the talk about many glances at the map is totally irrelevant.