 robert06
|
Posted: 26 August 2011, 1:00 AM
Have there been any off-set maps printed in NZ lately? If so maybe we can get a few laser printed and put them out to review/compare at say Labour weekend and evaluate the differences? I'm can arrange a few trial prints, different quality settings, papers types/weights, scales, etc.
|
|
Paul I
|
Posted: 26 August 2011, 1:56 AM
The dury is still out. At great risk of sounding like a real noob (whatever the is, my kids call lots of dodgy people it) for being so contrary, after more consideration of the 1:15000 map in front of me I need to change my " no hessitation' status to "quite concerned". The majority of the map would cope but some of the main dune areas would be rendered unusable, which would be very dissapointing if they had to be avoided altogether. So that's a bit of a worry. Anyway thats just the mappers point of view, who will always be a bit bias.
Robert your trial printing offer sounds great, maybe we can get our people to talk to your people and do their thing.
|
|
Hamish
|
Posted: 26 August 2011, 2:14 AM
It puzzles me this fascination with 1:15000 ... I have run on it 3 or 4 times and struggled reading it ... yes I am old and my eyes aren't so great ! Surely you want a challenge and getting into the tight stuff provides this. Setting on it (nationals 2011) was a nightmare especially in detailed areas and as a result I had to 'dumb' my elite courses to the point where I was really disappointed with the outcome ... and yes we had offset printing (at an exorbitant price !).
Can someone please explain to me.
|
|
rob.g
|
Posted: 26 August 2011, 3:30 AM
Don't worry Hamish, you'll be getting 1:10,000, as I suspect will everyone. As Paul says there is too much detail in parts.
|
|
Hamish
|
Posted: 26 August 2011, 4:39 AM
That brings up another more important point ... 1:7500 for M60A/W60A and above.
|
|
Hamish
|
Posted: 26 August 2011, 4:44 AM
That brings up another important point ... 1:7500 for M60A/W60A and above.
|
|
theoman
|
Posted: 26 August 2011, 5:18 AM
What about having 1:15,000 for the majority of the courses/map which paul said could cope with 1:15,000 but then have a map insert or even a map change for the really detailed parts like they did at suiss o week this year. In my opinion having the map at 1:15,000 makes deciding long route choices easier. JWOC last year we had 1:15000 on sanddune detail, it was tough to read but made navigating that much more satisfying when I got it right.
I have heard stories that in the past RED 1 was the toughest, gruntiest course that the map would allow....Is there a general trend that we are getting soft??? Bring back the old days when just completing a long was satisfying, like woc this year.
As jaimie said a long should be long, not an extended middle. I think having 1:15,000 for the long is the only option.
|
|
Tane Cambridge
|
Posted: 28 August 2011, 9:25 AM
So if it is important to run the M60A/W60A and above at 1:7500 why is it not important to run Elite at 1:15000?
At the risk of sounding arrogant it is mainly the Elites and M/W20A that are after 1:15000 maps for long distance so why not oblige us because at the end of the day its probably only the elites and M/W20A that would be subjected to that scale?
I think the obsession with 1:15000 is because thats what we get overseas in long distance races and its frustrating not to get practise on our own home turf on 1:15000. Its a scale that you have to get used to and if you only run on it 3-4 times youre not going to like it...because you not used to it... 1:15000 is the standard overseas for long distance races and why should we not follow the majority of the world and the IOF standards? At the end of the day its not helping our elites running long distance courses when we get overseas if we run 1:10000 all the time at home.
The long distance race at WOC this year was quite happily run on a 1:15000 map. That was very detailed terrain and those who thought it necessary to read the all the detail took magnifying glasses.
I also have to agree with theoman and Jamie. A long course should be a long course and not a long middle as we seem to have more often than not in NZ.
I think a good long course has elements of detailed navigation but it is more about route choice and suffering than a middle. It doesn't necessarily need hundreds of controls. And as Jamie points out the controls should be all deliberately planned with a purpose rather than chosen because of cool control sites or zig-zaging the course all over itself so it looks cool on paper. In some ways I think Long distance orienteering is more about the leg than the control site.
By in large the course planning has got thousands of times better in NZ in the last 5 years or so. It has gone from being a loop of the forest with 30deg angle changes at every control and almost(?) too far the other way with super complicated criss-crossing everywhere to make it look exciting on paper. I believe a good course is one which simply and cleanly tests many or all or an orienteers skill set through varied terrain and a varied complexity of control sites.
At the end of the day Im not criticising anyones previous or future organising/planning/mapping, I have, by enlarge really enjoyed most of the races I have done around the country in the last 2-3 years and hence have personally invested a lot of my personal time and money into orienteering. Im just attempting to explain some of the reasons why I would like to run on a 1:15000 map in the National Long Distance....
|
|
Jamie
|
Posted: 28 August 2011, 10:35 AM
A quick comment...there is some really good discussion here.
One of the best orienteering challenges created by the 1:15000 scale is the need to be a little more selective with what you read on the map, rather than just reading everything as we normally do in NZ.
The skills this develops to be able to simplify difficult legs and make bomber plans for a leg which you can run fast and risk free are necessary ones for orienteering competitively at an elite level in Europe.
The consequence is sometimes you don't run straight because it is too technically hard/difficult to read.
|
|
Hamish
|
Posted: 28 August 2011, 11:09 AM
Thanks Tane. So honestly - the long I set at Nationals was it OK even though I wasn't so happy with it ? I was frustrated with the fact that I couldn't use many rock features as the circle (90 metres across) contained too many to safely describe them well. If I was setting on gully spur forest with not too much detail there wouldn't be a problem.
In answer to your first question it's actually easier to set on a 1:7500 than a 1:15000 (purely from a setters point of view). The circle is 45 metres across and therefore less in it. The main reason for 1:7500 is so that it's a test of who's the best orienteer and not who's got the best eyesight.
I agree a long should be long ... and hard physically as well as mentally.
|
|
theoman
|
Posted: 28 August 2011, 11:19 AM
With sand-dune maps, detail becomes a feature to avoid at 1;15,000. With 1:10,000 you can typically read all the way through the detail without too many problems, so by having 1:15,000 you can have route choice around the detail so going around would actually be comparable. After Queens Birthday and a few trainings in Sand-dune detail, it always seems that the best route is dead straight. My motto in woodhill is now 'off the line and your losing time'. This is not what orienteering is about in my opinion, compass is only a small component, and especially in a long, route choice is most important.
As Tane said its not about the control locations, its more about the route choice and the planning that takes you there. Entry into control, do I avoid the climb, do I slow down and read through the detail e.t.c it is the middle distance where you find the really nice, tight control sites.
|
|
Bryan
|
Posted: 29 August 2011, 1:20 AM
Difficult decision to print at 1:15000 and 1:10000 for elites. We had same problem in 1994 for APOC - we eventually went with the IOF stipulation and thankfully the offset printing was clear enough to show all the detail even at 1:15000 and courses were not compromised.
However, we had plenty of people competing to cover the cost. Nowadays, just doing a small offset print run for the small number of elites in New Zealand is not economical. If you were going to print at 1:15000, I suggest that more courses are printed at 1:15000
and that you charge more for these courses (eg extra $20 per map)
At APOC we did test prints to confirm that printing at 1:15000 was ok.
Both the 1:15000 and 1:10000 APOC offset printed maps have been scanned for omaps (NZOF archive of maps site) if you want to check out the differences.
1:15000
http://www.omaps.co.nz/OM/ShowMap.asp?Map=894&
1:10000
http://www.omaps.co.nz/OM/ShowMap.asp?Map=895&
This message was edited by Bryan on 29 August 2011, 9:26 AM
|
|
PhillipH
|
Posted: 29 August 2011, 2:23 AM
Same debate took place for this years WOC
http://www.ultimate-orienteering.com/?p=3722
|
|
Jymbo
|
Posted: 29 August 2011, 5:21 AM
We re going through a similar problem over here. Oceania Middle is going to be at Yackandandah on one of the best gold/sluice mining areas there is. Offset printing for IOF/elite course @ 10,000 and hopefully 7,500 for everyone else, but it seems like we have met resistant from OA - who is a stickler for IOF rules - on this last issue
|
|
The Map Guy
|
Posted: 29 August 2011, 5:26 AM
Offset printed maps using the traditional Spot PMS colours should always be sharp, assuming accurate registration. If there is a problem with clarity it will most likely be caused by the cartographer. Modern digital cartography produce lines of uniform thickness unlike the variable lines generated using pen and ink, so there should be no excuse for not making legible maps.
Spot colours are premixed whereas with CMYK printing the colours are blended during the platemaking/printing process. CMYK colours do not accurately correspond to Spot colours and hence accurate registration is crucial if CMYK offset printing is used.
I have been involved with printing MANY offset printed maps using both Spot colours and CMYK processes. Whilst the majority of the CMYK maps are not orienteering maps, they do have coloured text and photographs which require the same exacting registration which is necessary for printing contours.
The modern digital printing process generates precisely registrated plates - far more accurate than what could be generated using pen and ink. There is no excuse for a printer not to produce a clear, accurately registered map, but they are only as good as the cartographer - garbage in: garbage out.
If in doubt, cover yourself in writing by specifying "accurate registration in printing is required". I have never had any problems and would have no hesitation in rejecting inaccurate printing.
If you can't draw the contours without it looking like spaghetti, chances are you either have too much detail (fieldworker should have simplified more), or you are drawing at the wrong scale.
|
|
© Ruffneck Productions