Register | Login
Attackpoint - performance and training tools for orienteering athletes

Discussion: mapped boulders 1m

in: bl; bl > 2018-10-14

Oct 15, 2018 3:54 PM # 
Interesting observation.
My initial thought was "well, of course Bob is implying that those shouldn't be in the map, or was he?" which morphed to:
- How much less than 1m were they?
- Were they over 1 m on one side, but not another?
- Was this consistent across the map?
- Were they distinct and significant/material in that part of the map?

I know I'm guilty of (utilize mapper's prerogative) map boulders that are less that 1m in height on every side, with some thought going into the decision on adding every individual sub-standard rock.
Oct 15, 2018 10:52 PM # 
Should have taken a photo-). I'd guess some were maybe 2'-2'4". The ones I have in mind were about that on every side. Certainly the thought going into the decision is paramount. And no boulders in the immediate area leads to the greater possibility of being included, perhaps. The last few (6 boulders in center) that probably precipitated the comment, here. Approaching, I expected more. They are also in a "tight" area between path and wall, crowding the symbol(s).

I like TSF - next visit maybe to try the last BG ('16?) for which I got the map from Ernst, I'll take a measure.
Oct 17, 2018 12:47 PM # 
Always a problem mapping in the northeast. I am especially careful about mapping boulders which are over 1m. on the downhill side, but much less uphill.
Oct 18, 2018 2:04 AM # 
Some of those become a toss-up between being a boulder or a rock face on the downhill side.
Some of the decision is based on what it looks like approaching from the uphill sides - is there enough sticking up that someone coming in from that direction looking for a boulder would recognize it as such?
Oct 19, 2018 1:16 AM # 
Getting it right is in the eye of the beholder. When mapper and runner see eye to eye on the mapper's choice, it's a good outcome.

Please login to add a message.