Forum   |   Links    


Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

Sprint-O Specification

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 14 June 2006, 2:38 PM  
This is for discussion of the specification and issues of applying it in NZ as it comes into use.

We've had some excellent sprint races recently - thinking of Massey (at Palmerston) and Massey (at Albany). Urban terrain of interesting complexity is often going to be about barriers and gaps, so it is important that everyone knows that the MAPPING SPECIFICATION contains rules about what may or may not be crossed. For example cliffs, walls and lakes that in middle and long events might be attempted by those with special skills, bravery, or foolhardiness, are specifically prohibited in sprints. Wisely so, remember Cassie Trewin's accident?

But at Albany I heard a number of people say they didn't know about this. Hardly surprising, reading the mapping specification is not often done. Even by mappers:-))Organisers are going to have to point this out until the knowledge becomes widespread. I would have thought that the Technical Committee would have taken the lead in this.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 14 June 2006, 2:54 PM  
not only impassable objects but the olive being forbidden as well. More often than not this is to not upset the landowners, so that we may use their area again.

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 22 June 2006, 6:16 AM  
For those who have seen the Orienteering Today magazine that arrived around Queens Bday - what do you think of the two comparisons of sprint maps? One using the latest ISSOM & the other a Czech version of sprint specification.

Which is more legible? Does either improve readability or navigation?

I have a few thoughts but lets here what everyone else thinks.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 22 June 2006, 10:35 AM  
You might need to share the maps somehow, I dont think there are many copies of OT that come into NZ

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 22 June 2006, 7:34 PM  
There's no one answer, don't we need to consider each difference? Lets start by listing the differences (which will take a while to discover unless the we can find the Czech specification somewhere, in English:-))Here's a few:

1. Urban small paths. Czech dashed lines like rural. ISSOM chocolate sandwich
2. Shade of brown for paved areas. Czech related to traffic volume I think I read somewhere. ISSOM two shades, different for rural and urban
3. Crossable wall. Czech black line with dots like ordinary map. ISSOM I think its a very thin line but the example shows a grey line.




Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions