Discussion: 1:15,000 maps

Should we be using more 1:15,000 maps? Personally I much prefer 1:10 and they have become the norm here in the US. Internationally though, 1:15 are used for long events and at O-ringen 4 out of 5 days were on 1:15. Would we be better orienteers if we used 1:15 maps at least some of the time? They certainly require more focus and if we practiced with 1:15, the 1:10's should seem easier.

1:10000 maps are much easier on the eye and with the advent of electronic punching, courses can loop back on themselves without opening up opportunities for cheating by punching in the wrong order, therefore the courses can be confined to a smaller area thus enabling more 1:10000 scale printing. I think it is much fairer, to have a more readable 1:10000 map, especially for older folks.

Unfortunately some mappers like to fill in all the extra white space on 1:10 000 maps with more detail. There were a lot of good points about map scale and resulting extra detail raised in our Form Lines discussion last June. The thought generally was that 1:10 000 scale maps had to be used carefully in this new age of LIDAR base maps.

I personally have difficulty "simplifying away" a lot of the form lines and extra detail that is crowded onto some 1:10 000 maps. And too, some inexperienced course setters are tempted to use those diffuse features for control points....which make the whole exercise frustrating for us less-skilled orienteers. So I dispute this "bigger is better" philosophy, and generally prefer a 1:15 000 map.

Addressing Carl's point in particular, I'd like to hear whether the JWOC and WOC team members and aspiring team members would like more 1:15,000 maps at sanctioned events in the US as practice for events overseas.

For me, reading a 1:15000 map is more difficult to read, but I think it is good training. You have to focus really hard on the map if you want to read it while running. But at JWOC, there is only one race at 1:15000 and two at 1:10000. I personally have no preference using 1:10000 or 1:15000, though. It may help your ability to read on the run, but your sense of distance can be screwed up.

chitownclark makes a good point - a 1:10000 map can be choked with unnecessary detail. That is unfortunate, but it doesn't make the 1:15000 maps any easier to read. When I was younger I thought they were fine, but I certainly can't read them now.

The IOF guidelines are pretty clear that you're not supposed to overmap just because the scale is 1:10. Granted, a lot of mappers don't read the guidelines. However, there really isn't any more "space" on a 1:10. The symbols are all scaled up by 50%, so if you hold a 1:10 map 18" from your eyes, it should look EXACTLY LIKE a 1:15 map held 12" from your eyes. Holding a map that close doesn't work to well for those of us over 40, so I prefer 1:10, but I have a maginfier that works just fine on 1:15.

As for getting more practice on 1:15, there's nothing stopping folks from reducing a 1:10 map to 1:15 on a color copier and going out for a training session (well, except for the copyright, but I don't think any club would object).

A 1:10,000 map is just an enlarged 1:15,000 map. Its mapped for legibility at 1:15,000. Mapping at 1:10,000 is an entirely different beast.

A 1:10,000 map is supposed to be just an enlarged 1:15,000 map. Its supposed to be mapped for legibility at 1:15,000.

Fixed that for you.

I think this discussion often takes place among people with fading eyesight as well as fading memory. My recollection from before my near-range vision started to go is that the same map, printed at 1:10000 or 1:15000, is not particularly different for someone with young eyes. Practice with 1:15000 maps is overrated in my opinion.

"O-ringen 4 out of 5 days were on 1:15"

That may have been the case for youngsters like Carl, but for old farts like me in the last two years all our maps have been at 1:10000. And very much appreciated as well.

I enjoy both. Switching better the 2 usually isn't a problem for me. The long legs look shorter on a 1:15000 :)

Samantha - they might look shorter but they ain't!

Since it is common use for long elite courses in the world to use 1:15k we should practice(race in the US) with 1:15k on the elite courses.

Train as you race.

Thanks for all the input but I guess I wasn't clear. My quesition isn't about mapping details or legibility or fading eyesight. I'm really wondering if people think that using/training with 1:15,000 maps is benefitial, especially for the 15-35 age group?

We run longer than we race so that the race seems "shorter" by comparison. Would the same hold true for training with 1:15 maps but racing on 1:10?

I think you should train on the scale that you will race on.

There are times that you should train longer than you race, yes. But, there are also times where you should train the exact length of a race as to train to run full speed for the length of a race.

I'm very interested in answers to Carl's question. For the DVOA A event next fall we are doing a S/M/L format and considering printing some of the long courses at 1:10,000 and some at 1:15,000. No decision has been made and there are all sorts of considerations that might dictate the decision, but I'm curious to hear from the US M/F-20 and M/F-21+ runners about their preferences.

There is also the subject of Digital printing,

Current technology and experience is that 1:10,000 can be printed digitally and decent quality and legibility is the result, however at 1:15,000 the digital prints have poor legibility especially for maps with lots of rock (as many Australian maps do) and hence the requirement to print these via Offset printing. Offset is more expnsive and more hassle to overprint courses etc so 1:10,000 is just a whole lot easier.

In Australia the Elite courses for Long Distance are required to be 1:15,000

I think that very much depends on the form of digital printing. You can't lump color laser and digital offset into the same bucket. The latter produces results that are nearly indistinguishable unless viewed under a rather strong magnfier. Of course, some printers will still screw it up (I've been burned by that), but that can happen with traditional offset as well.

The world standard for elite long is 1:15,000, MF21 runners will (or should) appreciate it. what Jordan says.

but I'm curious to hear from the US M/F-20 and M/F-21+ runners about their preferences.

Well, this F21 runner prefers 1:10000, but I expect 1:15000 for long courses and think it's appropriate. If it's an actual Long course, and you have to make lots of route choices on long legs, it helps to have the 1:15. Otherwise it can be like trying to read a full-sized newspaper on an airplane.

An example of where 1:15 is better than 1:10 is map size is at the big relays.
If anyone has ever run the long night at jukola, the map is 1:10 and it is MASSIVE! Its a pain to try fold when running. 1:15 would at least cut down on the size of the map/ how much you can see when folded to a managable size

I'm curious to hear from the US M/F-20 and M/F-21+ runners about their preferences.

I echo Jordan and Ken; because the IOF long is on 1:15k for MF21, I would like the MF21 map at the DVOA long to be 1:15k.

I agree, 1:15 for the long.

Not that anybody asked...but could I put in a vote too? I vote for 1:15 000 for M65+ on the Brown course.

Ok, so I agree long courses should be on 15:000 for F/M-20 and F/M-21+. I know that they're not shorter, but I like that they look shorter! Plus, I agree with others - it's easier to pick out route choices for the long legs on a 15:000. And once I get going in the map, I stop noticing how small everything is. Of course I do use a magnifier....

nate won't post himself, but he prefers 1:10 unless the map gets too big to handle easily. He said he has no trouble switching back and forth. I think he can run faster when it's 1:10 and easier to see.

My threshold when I'm creating meet maps is 11x17. If the course won't fit on that, I go to 1:15. The STL A-meet will use 1:4 for sprints, 1:10 for the middle and 1:15 for the goat, which I think is appropriate on all fronts. I definitely agree with the route choice comments. I remember getting a 3K leg at the Flying Pig a few years back on a 1:10 map and it was somewhat annoying to run with the map all the way unfolded, flapping in the wind.