Discussion: Course notes available!

Get all the details on the event, maps, and courses here: http://dvoa.org/events/aevents/2014/index.php

no water on 6 pt relay courses?

Basically, if the gestalt is dominated more by dirt, it is a rootstock. Again, it be a tree that fell over the day before the field-checker found it. On the other hand, if less dirt and more wood, probably a rootstock.

The first one should say dot knoll, correct?

Yes, thanks.

@Joe… if it is relatively warm, there will probably be an extra water stop established for the "red" leg in the six point category. Final notes will indicate this. However, the other two legs, with distances of 3K or less, probably will not have a water stop unless we see extreme heat. While these aren't sprint courses, they are of similar length. Sprint courses almost never have water stops, for good reason.

The "small map sample" does not display. At first I thought it was the IE GIF issue, but it doesn't display in other browsers, either.

The map sample issue has been fixed.

Those fence lines do look mightily confusing. What's the rationale of using a symbol that already depicts something to show something else?

thanks! interesting notes

Clem,
I don't understand the logic. If you are going to provide water for two (shorter) courses on the 9pt relay, I think you should at a minimum provide water for the red leg on the 6pt relay, regardless of the weather.
Are you thinking 9pt teams will be slower and have time to drink vs 6pt teams running super fast and not stopping?
what do the rules say about water on courses?

Joe, we will probably provide water for all runners of the red leg, except you, should you run it. ;) No real logic behind it, but it should make everyone happy.

I believe the rule is 8 ounces every 2.5 K per runner. That is the rule of thumb I use.

I am running it, and thank you ; )

I don't want to go into a lot of additional details regarding the former fence line symbol here. We had some discussion about retaining or discarding it and opted to retain it because it does convey some (marginally) useful information that cannot otherwise be communicated with the normal ISOM symbol set. The mapper has used this symbol previously on European maps.

Whether people even notice them in the terrain will probably depend on how much attention they pay to contours. I don't think the symbol will lead to any confusion.

Maybe I missed this, but a former fence/property line is what exactly? what does it look like in the terrain?

I don't object to new symbols that convey something not in ISOM. I do object to repurposing symbols already in ISOM for a manifestly different meaning.

For example, on the sample map, look at the open marsh in the NE corner. It's probably sound to assume that the marsh itself isn't enclosed in former property lines. But on the downstream side, is that an old property line or a dam/earthbank?

It does seem odd to use a symbol that can only be interpreted as an earth bank, when in real life it has nothing to do with shape of the land.

The symbol absolutely has to do with the shape of the land. The former fence lines look exactly like what you would expect them to look like: subtle linear perturbations in the shape of the terrain where there used to be a fence or property boundary.

This symbol fills a void in the ISOM symbol set. I have struggled with the issue of how to represent something like this in the past. Use of form lines or blips in contours don't convey it adequately. Given that it is a terrain feature, it makes sense to use a brown symbol for it. It differs from an earth wall in that there is a slope on only one side. Thus the use of the slope tag.

I've said all I will say on the matter for now. You will just have to trust me when I say this is a complete non-issue.

Things like this stand out prominently in the lidar. I use purple dashed lines for them on my basemaps, which means "linear feature that may be too subtle to put on the final map." I always think of them as the edges of old plowed fields where debris and earth had been pushed up against the treeline. Its also possible that a centuries-old field has subsided somewhat relative to the forested land around it (or vice-versa). There might also have been an old path cut into the contours along that boundary. Subsequently the forest has encroached on the old field, but the faint outline of the original field boundary remains (whether there was an old fence there or not). They can also show up in the middle of a pasture if an older field had been expanded. Too low to be mapped as an earth wall, or might be one-sided like Tom said. I gather its a threshold issue. I'm glad its the fieldchecker's call and not mine :)

Eddie - thanks for the added explanation. Your comments are right on.

Well, mapping geeks like to discuss non-issues...

I know I should not comment when I haven't even seen the feature on the ground, but I can't help myself. It just sounds like a case of the mapper being "feature horny"...

Thanks for the explanations, it seems that the verbiage "former fence / property lines" is insufficienty descriptive.