Presentation on theme: "CONTROLLING THE ORIENTEERING COURSE MAP. There is a need for a stricter enforcement of the rules An evaluation of IOF Event Maps found an increasing number."— Presentation transcript:
CONTROLLING THE ORIENTEERING COURSE MAP
There is a need for a stricter enforcement of the rules An evaluation of IOF Event Maps found an increasing number of map deviations ie Non standard symbols Wrong line widths Wrong colours Non-sharp lines Overly detailed maps Graphic minimum dimensions not respected Wrong map scales applied Wrong size of control circles Area symbols too small Poor generalisation Inferior quality paper Ref: IOF Map Commission
Is the map important? YES A standardized map is the basis for orienteering as an international event A map with deviations = unfair competition Ref: IOF Map Commission
Controller to ensure the Course Map complies with the rules International Specification for Orienteering Maps - Foot-O Sprint (1: ) Ski-O MTBO - Check list for controlling the map making of major IOF events IOF Control Descriptions Course marking Competition Rules for Orienteering Australia Foot Orienteering Events - Section 15. Maps - Section 17. Restricted areas and routes - Section 18. Control descriptions OA Guidelines - Digital Printing Policy - Operational Manual 6.3
Requirements of an Orienteering map The map must: give a picture of the terrain be accurate use IOF map symbols & scales be legible and be up to date
The map must give a picture of the terrain
The map must be accurate absolute and relative accuracy Absolute accuracy is out by 85-90m at control 24. Map distortions? Relative accuracy appears OK as orienteers found the control!
The map must be accurate Use a GPS to check map accuracy and correct location of controls Check magnetic north declination Check the spacing of North lines & breaks in lines
The map must use IOF map symbols & scales an international symbol set is a symbol set developed over many years no deviations = fair competition revision of ISOM 2000 to consider: –technological changes in map production –new event formats ie sprint & middle –add new, modify or delete symbols –map scale
The map must use the correct scale for the event format Long distance1:15000, 1:10000* with approval** for elites 1:10000* for M/W40 Middle distance1:15000, 1:10000* Relay1:15000, 1:10000* Sprint1: 5000 or 4000 *A 1:10000 map is a strict enlargement of a 1:15000 map **Approval is needed for M/W Elite junior & senior and M/W 17-39A in the Australian Championships to use a scale other than 1:15000
The map must be legible Legibility is dependent on: the Quality of the Mapping the Quality of the Printing the Quality of the Paper
The map must be legible the Quality of the Mapping “a few well drawn features are better than a lot of small detail that may clutter the map or disguise the shape of the landform” Eduard Imhof, Swiss cartographer
The map must be legible the Quality of the Mapping “Maps get more and more detailed. I don’t know if this is the right way to go, but it is a fact.” Thierry Gueorgiou Dec 2007
The map must be legible the Quality of the Mapping - What features to map – as per ISOM: min heights & areas - How the feature is to be drawn – as per ISOM: symbol size, line width
The map must be legible the Quality of the Mapping the Quality of the Printing (1)off-set spot colour printing - Is the only method approved for IOF Foot-O ranking events (2) other printing methods - ie 4 colour (CMYK) digital, digital offset (digital colour press), laser printers, inkjet printers, colour copiers - Laser printers now commonly used in Australia - Print quality is highly variable
The map must be legible the Quality of the Mapping the Quality of the Printing - For Level A events: digital printing is OK if there is no significant loss of line quality, legibility, colour appearance and map durability OA Digital Printing Policy Operational Manual :10000 maps more likely to be suitable for digital printing
The map must be legible the Quality of the Mapping the Quality of the Printing the Quality of the Paper Legibility factors to consider: –bright white paper (not off-white) for best colour contrast –matt finish (not glossy or shiny) Related factors –texture or ‘feel’ of the paper, ‘foldability’ –paper thickness / weight –durability of paper in all conditions –water resistance of paper, need for a plastic bag (0.10mm) –waterproof paper
An example – legibility of contours Difficult to calibrate dot size in some digital printers Cartography may need to reflect printing method and paper quality Use the same print setting for all maps used at an event
The map must be up to date Changes to the extent and density of vegetation Impact of fire, flooding & erosion Sprint maps need constant review Seasonal changes New tracks, roads, man made features ……..
Quality control tools for use by the Controller and Planner OA colour swatch OA colour purple swatch IOF Map Commission Print Tech Project ‘test sheet’
Quality control tools OA colour swatch Check colours on a map by comparing to the OA off-set spot colour swatch
Quality control tools OA colour purple swatch CMYK CMYK Now recommended
Quality control tools IOF Map Commission Print Tech Project ‘test sheet’ template Compare a digital test print with the IOF off- set spot colour ‘test sheet’ Check for: Sharp edges to lines and symbols Correct colours Even colours No stripes, holes, bubbles Resolution - clear thin lines, no moire effect, no zig zag edges Vertical & horizontal accuracy Do contour lines have the same appearance over the colour screens nb brown is often a problem over mid & dark green And more……..
Some recent map deviations in Australia Non standard symbols used for horse jumps ie elongated “H” or box - use fence symbol Colours not adjusted for printer – a common problem when using 4 colour Laser printers Fuzzy lines – use a better printer! Sprint map scale of 1: must be 1:4000 or 1:5000 Vegetation area symbols too small for legibility - leave off map or redraw with respect to minimum dimensions Map scale of 1:10000 with 1:15000 map symbols - a 1:10000 map must be a strict enlargement of a 1:15000 map Man made features when used not defined - the legend or map notes must describe the feature ie pole Can not incorporate ISOM fence symbols with Sprint maps - Sprint only have two: Passable & Impassable
Course marking considerations Circle size, line width and text may be 150% for an enlarged map - otherwise may need to change the control descriptions Do not cover important map detail - use overprinting effect or cut out line segments
Course marking considerations Can only use control features that are obvious in the field and accurately shown on the map. Dangerous objects and areas to be marked on the map and flagged in the field Controller and Course setter should use the same software –Map: OCAD –Course: OCAD, Condes, Corpse –Have a system to track updates, corrections, changes
Using map subsets Subset (and all maps) to have a –Title –Scale ratio (Bar scale highly recommended) –Contour interval –North lines –Correct spacing of N lines 1: m 1; m 1:4000 & 1: m –Legend, or if insufficient space print as a separate sheet –Date of mapping, with updates –Credits: mapper, map owner, land holder –Notes on Special symbol(s) if used
Using map subsets Some more considerations: Ensure sufficient space between the map edge and controls or likely route choices Avoid covering part of the legend with the control description Keep the number of map subsets to a minimum –easier to manage, less chance of mistakes Map subset should fit an A4 or A3 page –note: 1:15000/A4 will fit on to an 1:10000/A3
What is your decision as controller? Should a Sprint map be used for a Middle Distance event? On the Sprint map below are competitors allowed to cross the Impassable wall on leg 19 to 20? Competitor safety?