 addison
|
Posted: 14 January 2009, 1:02 AM
I've just had a quick look at the Oceanias maps, they look brilliant (well for the main competitions).
However, for the Sprint I must point something out. You CANNOT have an indistinctive boundary on the map to olive green. There MUST be some distinctive boundary to make something olive green, otherwise use the pink out of bounds symbol.
I saw one of the cricket ovals as olive green. Any competitor would have been well within their rights to run straight through this as it didn't have a distinctive boundary on the map, even though I hear it had a tape around it. It should have been pink out of bounds not green.
|
|
Tane Cambridge
|
Posted: 14 January 2009, 1:28 AM
The original notes for field work for the Naseby map have been lost from the OCAD map file (or maybe never put into it) I was going to mention on the map the original map work but I couldnt remember the name. The only place I knew where to find it (in a hurry!) was on an original map somewhere in the pile of YODA maps that is I think somewhere in the pile of papers in my brothers room!
Significant areas of used of the map had been largely updated by Carsten for the Otago Champs (middle and sprint) last year.
|
|
Bryan
|
Posted: 14 January 2009, 1:31 AM
What would one regard as a distinctive boundary? On an urban map I'm doing at the moment I've used olive green for many parts of the map.
Two examples:
- flower bed/shrubs which is adjacent to forest but no real definite boundary
- property boundaries - I know from the legal cadastral maps that areas are owned by private residential owners but as the properties are next to bush there sometimes is no fence and the boundary is murky.
|
|
svendp
|
Posted: 14 January 2009, 12:57 PM
Re sprint map and olive green it appears that the mapper has mapped everything exactly to the Sprint Mapping Specification. However, that is not to say that I agree with it.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 15 January 2009, 12:37 PM
There would seem to be no guarantee that the edge of a forbidden area has to align with some feature visible on the ground - whether in a sprint or any other discipline.
The purple OOB symbol includes a bounding line if the boundary is marked, but not if there is no marking on the ground. Which indicates that it is OK to have no marking on the ground. The settlement symbol definition doesn't say anything about boundaries that I can see - in either the main or the sprint specification.
We are reliant on the good sense of planners and controllers not to put competitors in a situation where a measuring tape would be necessary to ensure compliance. And on mappers to show forbidden areas clearly, perhaps by exaggeration. A tiny gap in a forbidden area would be unfair.
Is this a reasonable view of the situation?
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 15 January 2009, 1:28 PM
If there isn't anything distinctive then one cannot enforce the out-of-bounds then? This is particularly important for flower beds etc. You can't all of a sudden half-way along a flower bed go from some area symbol defining the runability, to olive green without there being some distinctive cultivation boundary.
If there was taped used to define the area for the event, then a fence should have been marked on the map or something similar. I am getting at the point of enforcement here.
|
|
Martin
|
Posted: 17 January 2009, 3:24 PM
Competitors must have some way of interpreting, on the ground, where out of bounds areas are. placing olive in the middle of nowhere doesn't achieve this unless there is some form of marking on the ground, if it's on the ground then put it on the map! if we rely on map reading then individual interpretations of the map will occur and parts of the out of bounds areas could be crossed.
there will often be a distinctive cultivation boundary - the boundary between gardens/shrubs/trees and grass is the prime example and one which most frequently occurs on our sprint maps.
one of the main emphases of ISSOM2007 is legibility, olive green needs to stand out to competitors that this area is out of bounds and having a border around olive green does makes it more legible.
looking ahead to the Massey Uni sprint map to be used at waitangi weekend... it can be very hard to distinguish between olive green and yellow.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 23 January 2009, 11:46 AM
Another interesting feature of the Oceania maps was the use (at Craigieburn) of brown for areas of bare earth. These were well worth mapping (one could always query the minimum size to be shown) and they were used for a lot of control sites. Those who have been on the Kaweka Challenge will recognise the "clay pans" that are a feature of the Mackintosh Plateau and elsewhere.
They stood out quite well even though a light enough shade of brown that the contours could be read through them. But the question has to be asked, why not bright yellow? It's smooth open land after all.
This should in no way detract from a brilliant mapping job from (as I understand it) 20m topo contours helped by a good photo.
|
|
Jenni
|
Posted: 24 January 2009, 12:20 AM
The reasons for bare earth being brown on the map were:
1. This was what had already been done on another map in the region (Acheron)
2. The bright yellow was much harder to pick out against the rough open or scattered trees screen.
3. It was decided the features were quite distinct from normal open land clearings so worthy of a different symbol.
It could easily be changed if there was a feeling the map would be better with the bare earths mapped as yellow. I doubt that when it was used for OY events this would be popular in the Canterbury region given 1 and 2 listed above.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 24 January 2009, 7:12 AM
I think we should debate a departure from the spec on its merits, rather than simply what's been done before. I have a problem distinguishing round or oval bits of bare earth on spurs from knolls.
|
|
Jenni
|
Posted: 24 January 2009, 8:57 AM
Agreed. I just expect that we would either change Acheron as well or change back for club only type events as that is what the local convention is and it would confuse people if it changed between maps.
But I epxect you would have much more trouble just seeing the bare earths on the map if they were yellow. What I think we do plan to do is experiment with the brown used and bring it down somewhat closer to the asphalt screen. We did start with this but it was decided it was too hard to see and that was why the brown was upped but probably we went too far.
BTW the same arguments could be put that bare rock could be marked as yellow as they are also smooth open land. And in some countries they are and in some countries they're marked as gray and in some countries not mapped at all. I personally perfer it when they're gray as I like to know if it's bare rock rather than a normal clearing.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 24 January 2009, 11:55 AM
Hmm, treating the bare earth as "bare rock" has a certain logic to it. Absence of vegetation, very fast travel. I wonder how gray would stand out in a background of rough open. Or (a more severe test) in a background of rough-with-scattered-trees.
|
|
Casser
|
Posted: 27 January 2009, 1:57 PM
Does anybody have experience with using OCAD8 with the Windows Vista operating system? Does it work or?
|
|
Alistair
|
Posted: 27 January 2009, 4:24 PM
Works for me Carsten, but I only use it for course planning.
|
|
The Map Guy
|
Posted: 28 January 2009, 10:55 AM
OCAD versions 8,9 and 10 (beta) work OK with Vista.
|
© Ruffneck Productions