Now the Swedes have a false sense of security!
The contours look like they need re-drafting, they are not smooth enough at all.
Eheh, will try to sting like a bee when it matters!
Yeah, agree. Look the contours in the ring of 6th control. Hard to interpret a hill with an intermediate contour (at 1/10.000 scale) there.
I was actually thinking more about the problem that even the straight, easy-to-read contours are not smooth. Eg the ones east of the line from 1 to 2. I think physiologically, the eye/brain is really good at deciphering smooth curves, not so good when they are rough or pixelated.
Everything is so much cleaner in the map sample here
, for example.
PS Soignes-toi bien !
It is not just smoothing issue. The fact is the physical size of land forms being actually mapped (not just taken straight from lidar) is not at par with the symbol sizes used for mapping them. Think about U depression close to #1, do you think that symbol is well balanced with the size of land features mapped with contours? Or all those reentrants and spurs smaller than the dot knoll symbol (or contour line width) and for example that L shaped form line knoll inside ring #6, it is thinner than the diameter of a dot knoll. And seriously, what is the point in drawing a reentrant way smaller than the width of contour used to draw it? For this level for details mapper has selected he/she also have had to use several form line levels between full contours to make it more consistent, otherwise plenty of similar sized land forms would have been left out for falling between contours. So I'd say it is not about smoothing, it is over mapping and mapping in general not being at par with the symbol set and symbol sizes. This generalization level would do for 2.5m or 2 m contours with form lines and 1:5000 scale and ISSOM symbols. ISOM has quite clear rules how sharp a bend in contour can be and how many (one that is) form lines are are allowed and so on, all of that is just ignored here. But if you ask the mapper he thinks he has done great job for sure. They are just that ute och cyclar. But I probably should not write this because I think already have done my share of mapper bashing for this decade. So sorry about this, feel free to remove this comment...
Won't remove good comments with arguments I share, even though we all agree mapping will always be a difficult task and requires experience.
I don't know if the situation is different in Sweden and Finland but here in North America there is essentially no training for what is a very complex and difficult task to get right.
I don't understand how we can expect self-taught mappers to be good mappers. All the things that Jagge mentions are very true but things like the relative prominence on the map vs the terrain is an advanced concept that mappers (again at least in NA) have to come to essentially on their own.
The IOF and or National Federations need to provide ongoing teaching about how to interprent and apply the mapping standards. I don't understand why this doesn't exist. In my mind there needs to be an extended course (6 months?) or apprenticeship type of system paired with certification of mappers. We then need to pay certified mappers professions rates and the result would not only be better maps but also more mappers (I imagine anyway...)
@ndobbs Note that there are several places on that map which have 2 form lines between the solid contours. Most of the form lines could be eliminated on this map. In many cases they simply follow the solid line below them, and in the places they deviate, the feature could probably be left off as it would be barely noticeable for navigation, and redundant for control placement.
Would be much easier to read without them, IMHO and old eyes.
Will be interesting to see the "Norwegian version" of this map, as they will use the same terrain for their test race in July but with another mapmaker update.
I don't disagree. But even with the same mapping, better drafting would make a big difference.
And seriously, what is the point in drawing a reentrant way smaller than the width of contour used to draw it? I don't think such re-entrants were *mapped*. I reckon they were computer-lidar-generated and should have been removed in the drafting process.
Partly maybe. East of #8 there is raw lidar contours. There is elsewhere tiny zigzag that doesn't quite look like those raw ones and index contours is sometimes turned into normal one to make those tiny turns more visible. I am not convinced all those are just lidar artifacts, some of those may be actual mapping.
@Canadian, lack of experience may be an issue in NA, but here this is something else. More likely it is the opposite, old experienced mappers think they know better than young athletes or IOF and they see themselves as pioneers showing the way of the future, doing mapping as they think it should be or will be, instead of doing it by the book thinking rules and guidelines are for those beginners who does know better. Athletes don't complain much, because those who complain are seen as bad losers and also sign of a winner is ability to adapt. The problem is at one point deviation from standard is too big, so big athletes really should not need to be prepared for or ability to adapt to such a deviation should not be decisive. See, these maps can be seen as playing football with 2x too big goal frame. Same for everybody and sort of fair, but not quite the same sport really for skills needed to do well are not balanced the normal way.
what is the point in drawing a reentrant way smaller than the width of contour used to draw it?
Assuming the normal situation: there are many small "reentrants", too small to use as features, and many of them don't fall on the contour...
... mapping them tells you that the hillside is rough, and if you try to contour around it will be slow compared with a smooth hillside.
We get this a lot in Scotland - I'm don't know if the extra information is worth the loss of clarity - personally, I think not, but it would be nice if ISOM would tell us instead of leaving us to use our old prejudices. Practice makes permanent...
graeme, can you link example map(s)? When I browsed O maps of Scotland before the woc I got an impression of mapping being pretty reasonable (as least) and thought mappers must still have plenty of common sense left. I suspect the thing you described it is magnitudes bigger and not entirely pointless. But I know you know better.
This discussion thread is closed.