in: Orienteering; Training & Technique;
| # Posted 2008-04-26 06:19:44 | |
| simon: | I have been pointed to the Map Commission website and in particular to the 12th ICOM page (Intl Conf. on Orienteering Mapping)
http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/12icom/12icom.htm I found the following presentation very interesting. It deals with the mapping standards, in particular minimum size of feature in relation with their size as map symbols. Good illustrations of what should/should not be on a map, and how to generalize them when there are too many features. 1.30-12.00 Generalization: introduction (Erik Peckett), A Swedish view of generalization (Christer Carlsson) 12.10-13.10 Generalization (Erik Peckett): Part 1 (1.6 MB) , Part 2 (4.5 MB), Part 3 (2.5 MB) I found this kind of things very useful even as a simple competitor : I always have a hard time, in some terrain (especially broken), to figure what spur/reentrant/knoll shoul or should not be on the map. On the little things side, I particurlaly like the rounded corner black line for passable small cliffs. |
| # Posted 2008-04-26 10:06:59 | |
| blegg: | Thanks Simon. That was a useful read. |
| # Posted 2008-04-28 13:56:21 | |
| _________: | Interesting question raised by the comparison of maps through time. I want to run on the most recent versions... ie with greater complexity. I would be disappointed to run on a new map and find it was like the 1980s versions shown in the powerpoints. A relatively recent granite map in Australia was mapped with a reversion to an earlier level of generalisation. My response, and that of others, was a degree of disappointemnt on seeing the map and comparing it with the terrain. Of course, that costs more to produce. But I don't think greater complexity necessarily means too little generalisation. If the 'market' of paying punters is prepared to pay for complexity, then I see nothing to be concerned about if the detail is not at the expense of legibility. |
| # Posted 2008-04-28 20:03:18 | |
| simon: | I think the point of the presentation is not about the evolution of mapping and generalization vs details, but rather on the principle of generalization in mapping.
That's all about it : not at the expense of legibility You can put small features when there is scarce details but when there is many small features in the same area, neither of which can be used as a control, generalize. This reminds me as rule of thumb I try to use in the rare case I do mapmaking. I try to classify features on map in two kinds: - feature useful for navigation (area, linear, passable or not, distinct feature...) - feature which qualifies as a potential control If neither of which applies, it probably shouldn't be on the map, at least not as a point symbol. |
| # Posted 2008-04-30 00:31:35 | |
| Charlie: | A very interesting presentation. Looking at the examples of professional maps from 2004, they all look inferior to me as compared to the earlier product. Perhaps most of it is my deteriorating eyesight. For the elite, and for those with good close vision, perhaps the additional detail makes for a more interesting experience. For the rest of us, illegibility is a big barrier to enjoyment. No reasonable amount of magnification would allow me to navigate well on some of these maps. Conversely, the middle maps in those exhibits are all legible to me at normal magnification (in my case 3.5X). |
| # Posted 2008-04-30 05:09:44 | |
| simmo: | I agree the newer maps are too detailed. They are also too green - there is another article about this on the IOF Map Commission website http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/ . Look under Articles, Runnablity, The Green Map Problem by Bjorn Persson. He argues that elites generally ignore light green and green stripes and run straight through it, and mappers are generally classifying the green colours one degree too green. |
| # Posted 2008-04-30 07:58:09 | |
| fossil: | That reminds me of a conversation I once had with a world-class Swedish female orienteer back in the early 90's, in Norway I think. She was telling me about a time a few years earlier when she had run in the US [maybe it was a world cup race?]. Her biggest memory of that event navigationally seemed to be "You couldn't run through the green!". While nowhere near her level either experience-wise or O-skill-wise, this struck me at the time as a very odd thing for her to have taken home as a memory of the US. |
| # Posted 2008-04-30 08:23:10 | |
| jjcote: | Sounds to me like she had had her first encounter with mountain laurel. |
| # Posted 2008-05-01 16:12:25 | |
| EricW: | Because elite runners tend to run through light green means that they are ignoring it? And if elite runners ignore light green means that it is overmapped? I think there are a bunch of loose and missing links in that chain of logic. |
| # Posted 2008-05-01 16:44:55 | |
| simmo: | The author argues that elites see the runnability differently to the way mappers are seeing it. Since the IOF mapping standards are aimed at maps for elite competitions, then mappers need to see the terrain the way elites do (and the author was arguing that they don't).
Back when I did more mapping (and was younger and fitter), I'd test the green-ness of an area by running through it. Seems like not many mappers are doing that. |
| # Posted 2008-05-02 04:57:22 | |
| Rosstopher: | Elite runners hopefully know when they are running through green areas, and they probably find it helpful to have these areas well-mapped. The author of the article cited an elite runner who decided not to pay attention to a particular type of mapped green. I'm sure that the runner in question was able to tell when he/she was crossing this green while in the forest, but decided that the green wouldn't affect his route choice. Not all elites run the same and elites aren't the only ones that use maps. I know that I have no problem running through young pines, but other (i.e. taller) folks are more wary. Regardless, as long as the mapping of green is consistent I can't think of any time that the green has been a distraction from the content of the map. |
You must be logged in to add a message