maptalk.co.nz News   |   Events   |   Forum   |   Photos   |   Links    

  Forum

Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  

Mapping

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 11 May 2005, 3:03 PM  
Anyone want to discuss mapping matters? There once was an email list of mappers and there's a US-based Yahoo group but both have their drawbacks. If you think this is a suitable place, join in.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 11 May 2005, 3:10 PM  
IOF has adopted the sprint specification (link on NZOF website). AFAIK we didn't participate in the consultation which led to it, so we should give it a good go, eg by using it for park maps intended for 1:4-5000 printing whether for sprints or not. One thing I'm interested in is that in sprint orienteering certain features are "do not cross" as opposed to merely being difficult or inadvisable. And some of these depend only on a difference in thickness or shade from other features.

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 11 May 2005, 4:07 PM  
maybe a thread for "technical" Michael? (too technical for me thats for sure...although it occurs that sprint distance is most likely to develop in NZ using blown up 1:10,000 maps...does this matter?

Show Profile  Svend Posted: 11 May 2005, 7:18 PM  
There is definitely a need to discuss mapping.
Many maps used for A Level events are not up to the standard required by the NZOF Rules.
Many people, who are not necessarely mappers, are involved in the
map production. The real mapper does the field survey, somone else does the cartography and a third person prepares the map for printing
and finally the controller checks it or is supposed to check it for accuracy but seldom gets the chance. It is not surprising that mistakes occur, Will it help to discuss it in open forum or should we continue sweeping it under the carpet?

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 11 May 2005, 7:53 PM  
I'm quite interested in sprint-o maps, updating the Carrington map was a hobby over the summer before Oceania. I based the map on the then-draft International Specifications for Sprint Orienteering Maps (ISSOM), which was put out in 2003.

And now that it's been finalised there'll be a few tweaks to that map, and some interesting comments to make about the experience.

The IOF has defined sprint orienteering as such:
"Sprint orienteering is a fast, visible, easy-to-understand format, allowing orienteering to be stages within areas of significant population. The sprint profile is high speed. Sprint is built on very runnable parks, streets or forests. The winning time, for both women and men, shall be 12-15 min, preferably the lower part of the interval."

This definition brings into question the suitability of parts of the Aramiro map for a WOC sprint trial, the first few controls weren't fast running (but was mapped correctly), and the winning times definitely weren't in the 12-15min bracket.

In middle and long races an object that is impassable is a warning to the competitor that it'll slow them down, whereas in sprints impassable = forbidden. This is probably the biggest difference.

In reply to Jamie's comment about maps being blown up from 1:10000, I think that this is the easy way out, and would not give sufficient credit to the sprint discipline. Afterall, 3 years has been spent makign a new symbol set. By all means, blow up appropriate 1:10000 maps, but then change the symbols to sprint symbols (very easy to do in ocad).

I'd like to highlight a few points from the new guidelines:
a) Not everythign needs to be shown on the map, only features which aid navigation and the decision of routes (eg vegetation changes). Some features don't help in navigation and shouldn't be mapped such as rubbish bins and individual lamp posts

b) Barriers (high walls, fences, rock faces) that are impassable are thick black lines and forbidden to cross.

c) Traffic - this is an interesting one, and would be very hard to comply with on soem of our park maps - "sprint orienteering shall be staged only where traffic can be kept out" (or controlled i guess) - But hey, they can stop traffic for cycle races, so if we approached the right governing bodies it'd be possible!

Thats enough from me about this right now! Mapping is something that needs to be talked about, some of our maps are superb, others are inaccurate. Talking is a step in the right direction, great initiative Michael.

Show Profile  superOman Posted: 11 May 2005, 9:22 PM  
It should be noted that the symbol set for the sprint maps can be downloaded from the ocad website

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 11 May 2005, 9:23 PM  
I'd like to see the new sprint specifications used as much as possible. A lot of clubs around NZ have park maps, I think most of these should now be up-graded to the new specifications (If the club has some juniors that might be looking for funding for overseas trips, camps etc this can be a good thing for them to do as the maps would have mainly be drawn on OCAD and only the changes and up-dates need to be made.)

As for Svens comments about map standards I couldn't agree more, tend to find that less experienced mappers seem to make up their own symbols or ways of mapping things which are not in the rules, and it might not be correct but the responsibility no longer seems the controlers main focus, this is where mistakes are leaking in.

Martin I believe the sprint at Aramiro was to try and be inline with this years WOC sprint which is ment to be the last WOC sprint entirely in forest

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 11 May 2005, 9:59 PM  
The sprint specifications can be found here:
http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/specs/issom2005.pdf

A version of the ocad 8 sprint symbol set:
http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/specs/issom-2005-english-ocad8.ocd

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 11 May 2005, 10:12 PM  
Yes I started this in the wrong Maptalk forum, will see if it continues before changing it over. Greg's point about mapping being a source of income is a good one, I've always felt that it is excellent technical training as well. I wouldn't expect clubs to come beating to your door, they are used to small maps being made for free, you'll have to put a proposal up to them.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 14 May 2005, 12:30 AM  
Svend wrote...
...finally the controller checks it or is supposed to check it for accuracy but seldom gets the chance.

But the buck stops with the controller. If (s)he didn't get the chance then its a failure on the part of the controller. There used to be a peer review process for A-level event controllers whereby other controllers made their comments to the TC, which then moderated them and published a report. You could reactivate that by sending in your specific comments.

But are you talking about cartographic specifications here Svend or places the map doesn't represent the terrain very well?

Show Profile  Svend Posted: 14 May 2005, 8:17 AM  
I'm talking about cartographic specifications, The map in question,
used for an A Level event, was a perfect map except for incorrect line thickness. The north lines were less than half the thickness required for the scale and the contour line thickness should have been 0.21 but were less than 0.14 and it affected the older competitors especially.

At a recent B Level event where three different scales were used
(15000, 10000 and 7500) the line thickness was the same (15000)
for all three maps.

In both cases the controllers were unaware that the maps did not comply with the specifications.

I have sent a report to the technical committee regarding this and
other anomalies encountered at a multi-day A Level event.

This message was edited by Svend on 14 May 2005, 10:26 AM

This message was edited by Svend on 14 May 2005, 10:30 AM

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 14 May 2005, 11:07 AM  
The odd departure can be forgiven but I have the stong feeling that a lot of maps are not drawn "as if for 1:15,000", which is the requirement for the middle and long distance. If they are to be printed at 1:10,000 the symbols should be 50% larger as Svend says, 10,000 should not be used to cram more stuff in. There are two easy ways to get the larger symbols but I think most people know how, its just that they can't bear to generalise appropriately.


This message was edited by Michael on 14 May 2005, 12:08 PM

Show Profile  addison Posted: 14 May 2005, 12:00 PM  
One thing that I have some trouble understanding on mapping, is when you have a building with likea boucony that is on running level, and a bit in below it which also needs to be mapped. Like when actual ground level is halfway between the two of them. What would you do in this circumstance, map the below bit or what.

Hard to explain what I mean, but Martin knows what I mean (prime example with that bit on Carrington up in top part of map).

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 14 May 2005, 1:34 PM  
I still have no idea how it should be mapped! thats why we avoided it for the event

Its too hard to describe whats happening in that place and would require quite a bit of simplification, its hard to know what to show and what size.

On a sprint map, should a footpath be mapped when it ajoins a road? How much clutter is necessary?!

Show Profile  Svend Posted: 14 May 2005, 3:30 PM  
The maps referred to were not an "odd departure" as both maps have been used before on numerous occations with the correct symbol sizes
except for the first mentioned map which had the same problem in 2002.
This was pointed out to the people involved in the planning and it is therefore surprising to see the same thing repeated at a top level event in 2005.

It is obvious that the person who prepared the map file for this particular event deliberately turned off the OCAD default setting
"increase/reduce symbols" otherwise the map would have been printed with the correct symbol size.

Are such mistakes acceptable for an A Level event?



Show Profile  Michael Posted: 15 May 2005, 9:50 PM  
Simon and Martin discussed multiple levels for sprint maps. I think the most imprtant things is that if its hard (when standing still mapping or planning) to map something then don't map it. It will be even harder for someone else to interpret at running speed.

My reading of the paragraph in the specification on multilevel structures is that it is discouraging them except for the straightforward cases of tunnels and bridges, where you would use the canopy symbol for the underneath running surface ie light grey.

Footpaths: "Features that are not important for a competitor taking part in a sprint orienteering event shall not be mapped." I would include footpaths alongside roads in this category. There's a quote from a famous cartographer in the paragraph about map legibility.



1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  


Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions maptalk.co.nz