The map has been reduced in size by about a factor of 10%. Sharon said it was done by the printer, and they didn't notice until it was too late to get the printer to do them again. Don't think they used WW W Perth. So basically all the symbols are smaller. I didn't think it would have made that much difference, but apparently it has. At least it proves that draft ISSOM 201X is correct to drop the 1:5000 scale.
If a crossing is compulsory, then a) the route through it should be marked with a dashed line, and b) the organisers are supposed to give competitors advance notice - in the event info and at the start.
In a quick search I can't find any reference anywhere to putting a bend in a line between controls, except that Purple Pen allows you to do it and I've certainly seen it before at not a few events, although mostly it has been to avoid having a line going through another control.
In PurplePen you can have mandatory or optional crossing points. If mandatory, the line goes through it. Given the line out of #17 also had several bends to take you out to the road, I naturally assumed both were mandatory routes to avoid going over the fence.
Regarding the impassable boundaries, the impassable wall and fence symbols are both different thicknesses so something else is going on there. It's not just that the scale was reduced by 10%.
Some interesting splits and figures in AP. I'm shown as an error for CP 1 on the medium course despite running straight to it from the start triangle. One can only deduce that Eckhart ran straight to it minus the start triangle given his 26 second split versus the second fastest at 39 seconds.
Simon is showing as Disq. I know his result had issues given his split printout didn't have control sequence numbers on it like all mine did. I attempted to fix it but a certain computer operator wouldn't hand over the reigns and I couldn't be bothered watching her fumble about with menus so I left her to it. I don't think Simon was disqualified unless he DQed himself later but he made no indication that this had happened at the time.
On the long course would it even be possible to run from 8-9 in 1:00 if you went via a legal route? Next fastest is 1:15.
How will these issues affect the SOL scoring?
Simon DQ'd himself (as did Mike H) for crossing the uncrossable
(but dry on the day) watercourse. Maybe a perusal of splits might unearth others?
I don't think SOL scoring will be affected by any of these issues. From what I can see here
, no SOL points have been awarded since 2015.
Okay Simon hadn't mentioned that to us when we were trying to determine why his split printout was off yesterday. I know of at least one other person who went into the 'pink' OOB (he made this claim at the finish) but didn't DQ himself although his result is very near the bottom anyway.
There were most definitely SOL points in existence last year! They must have disappeared off the internet along with TBT's functionality. I'd like to think Sten would get top SOL points after he dominated the run but I've seen some strange happenings in the past after handicaps have been applied.
The SOL tables are calculated direct from Eventor and most likely the recent upgrade to Eventor has broken something.
Hopefully it can be restored soon.
I think 8-9 is possible in 1:00, and given the split after Hadrien may have been pushing the pace during that part of the course. Sten mentioned stopping short for that leg. It does look suspect but could be done.......................
Sten's GPS has him going straight to the control (eastern route) although yeah he does slow down a bit just before it, 23 seconds though? Maybe the western route was faster. I did consider it and wish I'd gone that way after my debacle in finding the bridge.
Sten also did similar to me from 9-10 looking for the tree that was meant to be right next to the track but wasn't. I think the mapped tree is no longer there and the CP was on the next one over (also mapped).
Map has been checked, and is compliant, and it was the scaling that was the problem (printed at 1:4300). Must be an optical illusion that makes the fence look thinner than the wall.
The solid fence symbol looks heaps thinner than the broken fence symbol if you look where they are next to each other.
Have a look in the legend or if that's not good enough, at the features west of CP 133. The impassable wall and fence symbols are totally different thicknesses.
Noel assures me that the map update provided by Rob has both wall and fence 0.4. Are you suggesting that Rob changed the fence thickness on the original map provided by Noel for the event, then changed it back before sending his update to Noel?
I don't think either of us is suggesting anything of the sort but you only have to look at the bloody event map to see the different thicknesses. However if it makes you feel better then yes I think that Rob sabotaged the event and I think that all the results should be voided in the interests of fairness.
I'll try to remember to bring my map on the weekend and you be the judge. Both Craig and I agree the fences are about half the thickness of walls and broken fences.
Are you all seriously wasting time talking about line thickness?
The OCAD map is ISSOM compliant. In the west (west of control 133) the impassable cliff symbol was used (0.5mm) rather than impassable wall (0.4mm) hence the visible discrepancy there. Talk to the mapper.
In the printing process the map was resized to 1:4300, and the printer driver has had some problems with the symbols, hence the broken fence is looking thicker than unbroken fence. The source file is fine, and guidelines to printing have been updated. All maps need to be printed through our preferred printer to avoid these issues. Not an OCAD or PPEN issue.
Surely we can end this thread now.
We're still talking about it because Simmo assured us it was all fine and it was just our imagination, when the print on the map obviously wasn't fine. I was surprised by several fences early in the course because I couldn't see them on the map even after double checking my map. I could see them as fences after I had finished my course and looked at the map really carefully. If you're actually sure you know how to make sure it does not happen again then yes, I'm happy to stop talking about it.
Sorry Rachel, I never said the competition map was fine. I said the original map was compliant, but the reduction in the printed scale distorted the features.
Making sure it doesn't happen again is up to each event team to ensure they follow all the guidelines, including those relating to mapping and printing.
It's all well and good saying the source file is fine but we didn't all run with the course file; we ran with the paper map. There is a clear discrepancy in line thicknesses and visibility of those on the map - just look at items 2 (wall), 3 (fence) and 4 (cliff, which should be ever so slightly thicker) in the 'These features must not be crossed' legend (on the paper map) to see for yourself. Like Rachel, I could not see the passable fences on the map whilst running and it made it difficult to navigate when I kept encountering fences that I did not expect to see.
Dunno why the cliff symbol would have been used to indicate what were clearly walls on the map unless you are indicating the area bordering the OOB along the road rather than the actual walls.
Also since it's my log, I'll talk about it as long as I like. Intermittent AP commenters are not permitted to tell me when to end a discussion :P
Incidentally it's ironic that the 'fairplay' picture in the top left had all the symbols at the correct size!
Can't guarantee it won't happen again, but will do my best
Bye from me - over to you Ricky - go for it
I'm interested again. You all made good observations about issues with the SVAC print which are really useful which hopefully helps to prevent them in the future. Thanks!
Just seems weird that the print didn't look like what was on the computer especially since the specs for some of those features would have been the same. Mind you I'm no print expert...
Our printer is very tempermental. Still haven't worked out how to print double sided on it!!
In other news, the SOL points are up and working now. Thank god for that, because they're just about the only thing in life that make you happy about getting older.
Yeah that's the only way I could have beaten both Oliver and Hadrien with the shit run I had.
Our printer is very tempermental. Still haven't worked out how to print double sided on it!!
Just tried again after finally figuring out how to get it working wirelessly from the laptop. There are two locations where you can select 'print on both sides of the paper (manually) - flip on long edge' and I checked both of these but all it managed to do was to print only on one side but flip each alternating page to be upside down. It is the dumbest printer ever. I still cannot print directly from the 'net as I couldn't do on my old Acer either although your laptop seems to have no issues with this.
I've got a reasonably sophisticated printer, but to do both sides it still wants a human to insert the printed pages back in the paper tray so that it can print the other side..
Tassie orienteering bought their own commercial printer for O maps, but I think it's easier, and ultimately cheaper, to leave event maps to the professionals. We've enough to worry about!
….. except for SVAC event!
Simmo, same with ours but no matter how many times we tick 'Print on both sides (manually)', it still disregards this and prints it all on one side. It sometimes prints every second page then we reinsert the whole lot to print on the other side but those instances seem few and far between.
Please login to add a message.