Discussion: So how much of it was the m...

So how much of it was the map printing? I had a really hard time reading the map even when standing still. I know my eyes are getting worse, but....

I don't really know - I go back and forth in my mind about this.

The printing is obviously not as good as offset, but offset is not reasonable for events this size. I would rather have these kinds of maps (some sort of digital offset or color laser copies - not sure which this is) than overprinted courses on offset maps since at least for these you know the control circles are exactly centered on the features. But, would offset maps have made a difference in readability? Probably. I know that black is tricky to get right - it just prints thicker and darker than with offset. The dots for #6 run together on my map - on the ocad file (Valerie had a copy that I saw after the fact when I helped her georeference for Route Gadget) I was surprised to see 4 distinct ones. I think offset would solve that, but I'm not sure. Even the sprint map is a bit hard to read - running to #9 I was astonished to see 6 separate cabins in 3 clusters of 2 and not 3 long rectangular buildings. I hesitated wondering if I had somehow gone to the wrong group of buildings.

With my reading glasses on at home I can make out most of the detail. I used my magnifier a few times during the long course - to understand the contours around 5 for example. And, the only way I knew I was looking for a rootstock for #8 was to look at the control description. I ran down the spur and was looking for a flag on a rock or earth bank and only when I didn't see one did I look at the description to know what to do. Even now with reading glasses on it's hard to make out the brown x. Mostly I tend to just run to the general location of the center of the circle and hope I can figure it out. Not the best solution I know.

I can't run with contacts anymore which is what I used to do. My eyes having been tearing so much from allergies that I just wash the contacts out or my eyes get so irritated that I rub them out.

So while the map printing wasn't the greatest, I know that at least some of the problem is me. Long answer to a short question...

I think there's more to lay on the printing than we may be willing to do. All that things have to be is a little blurry, and what you get on paper is a whole lot different from what OCAD shows on the screen.

The root stock -- no way I could read it at the time, but I did look at the clue early, so found it easily.

The 6 buildings looking like three on Friday -- absolutely. Can hardly see the gap even after the fact.

The rock around 6 -- all blurred.

Reminds me of the Classic champs in NC either one or two years ago, hard to tell if a bit of black was a boulder or a rock face, or a couple of them. All you really could be sure of was it was rock.

This isn't always a problem, but sometimes it sure is.

Balter was talking about laser printing maps like this on Sunday afternoon. Probably best to ask him, but IIRC he said that for Blue Mountain they reduced the size of some of the black features. For instance, he thought that they had reduced the size of the rocky ground points by 30% or so. Seems like this is something that's easy to miss on maps without a lot of black, and then you get used to not worry about it.

On the Earl's Trails map, only one I've been involved with for many years, after seeing how it looked initially, I had JJ cut way back on the density of dots in stony ground. It looked much better.