Discussion: Two mapping tips
in: Orienteering; Training & Technique
Nov 15, 2005 12:25 AM
#
Further to the discussion about the boulder vs. man-made object - I took a mapping clinic from Robin Harvey way back when - and the two things I remember most are:
1) When figuring out how to interpret something (and if it should even be on the map) - always make a very quick decision, based on your first impression (while trying to think like an elite orienteer). Note though - making such a decision quickly is different from being careless. The point is that you want to replicate the elite orienteer's experience, upon first entering the area and seeing the features. So decide what it will be quickly, then maybe it takes you a few hours to plot it all correctly.
2) This is a neat one - the difference between boulders and dot knolls. We have probably all experienced terrain where it is kind of a grey area between what's a rock and what's a dot knoll, as they can sometimes be interpreted as either. What Robin said was basically to ignore its shape, colour, covering (moss, or even small shrubs) etc. and to think - if it looks more like it has been 'thrust up' from beneath the earth's surface (sort of poking through) - it's a knoll, whereas if it looks more like it has been placed on the surface of the earth - it's a boulder. I guess that is kind of common sense, but I have often referred to this 'rule' when trying to make such decisions as a mapper.
1) When figuring out how to interpret something (and if it should even be on the map) - always make a very quick decision, based on your first impression (while trying to think like an elite orienteer). Note though - making such a decision quickly is different from being careless. The point is that you want to replicate the elite orienteer's experience, upon first entering the area and seeing the features. So decide what it will be quickly, then maybe it takes you a few hours to plot it all correctly.
2) This is a neat one - the difference between boulders and dot knolls. We have probably all experienced terrain where it is kind of a grey area between what's a rock and what's a dot knoll, as they can sometimes be interpreted as either. What Robin said was basically to ignore its shape, colour, covering (moss, or even small shrubs) etc. and to think - if it looks more like it has been 'thrust up' from beneath the earth's surface (sort of poking through) - it's a knoll, whereas if it looks more like it has been placed on the surface of the earth - it's a boulder. I guess that is kind of common sense, but I have often referred to this 'rule' when trying to make such decisions as a mapper.
This discussion thread is closed.