Discussion: What is world class terrain?

We've occasionally done polls around here to weigh in on favorite maps and that sort of thing... what I am curious about is more general:

What are the characteristics of world class terrain? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions? What is nice to have? A must?

Also, if people want to post links to those discussions, or simply the conclusions, that would also be helpful.

Thanks a lot!

An ancillary question...
Can "world class" terrain also be "fun" terrain, or are they mutually exclusive?

To a first approximation: high ratio of kB / sq in (the map file size to printed map area.)
If we'd used this definition, we might have noticed World Class sprint terrain 20 years before we did.

This assuming the map is drawn by a competent human being, not computer generated.

That might mean world class. It also might just mean steep.

@Guy, I think it's the inverse question that is more relevant: can it be "world class" terrain if it isn't fun?

I don't know how to answer j-man's question. Maybe we need to see what kinds of areas people think of as world class and then figure out why we think that. Obviously there are sweet spots when it comes to feature density, runnability, and variation. But it should always be 1) challenging and 2) fun. :-)

What a great idea for a thread. I'm keen to find out how people answer the question. Thanks j-man for posting (and I even knew all the words you used despite the u missing in favourite). ;-)

I'll start with terrain I'm familiar with here in Ontario as examples. Each are fun, each are challenging technically and physically. Some open, some flat, some steep, some thick and rocky.

World Class terrain in Ontario:
-Horseshoe Valley (sandhills terrain)
-Dundas Valley (kettle and kame terrain)
-Rocky Ridge (limestone terrain)
-Carp Ridge (Canadian shield terrain)
-Arkell Hills (moraine terrain)
Not surprisingly these areas above have been used for multiple Canadian and NorAm Champs (and a World Cup). The variety of terrain we have in Ontario makes it even more fun (and challenging).

Thanks all. This could be good.

I wonder if world class terrain is a little like pornography? Titillating? Maybe. But, such that you know it if you see it?

There are a few traits I'm thinking of which are probably uncontroversial, but I'm also interested in the controversial concepts or examples. Are there polarizing terrains? And, conversely, universally acclaimed ones?

Is Surebridge at the top? Or is it too steep and rocky?

Anyone remember the Kievan WOC middle terrain?

Does a lot of trash and stray dogs add flavor? ;) OK, back to lurking...

I think it is difficult to define and much easier to give examples like Hammer does. I won't offer any except to make a shameless plug for NAOC 2016 and say that will be "World Class Terrain".

Daniel Boone Homestead?

Related to the measure kb / cm^2 would be decisions / leg or maybe decisions / 100m. As example, because my home terrain is relatively simple, I generally only need 2-4 decisions / leg. When I am forced to make >5 decisions / leg it becomes much more challenging for me and I have to slow down. This generally occurs on more interesting and ultimately more fun terrain. However, too many decisions per leg may be indicative of either too complicated terrain or too complicated a map.

World class terrain can mean many different things but whatever is meant by it I think the terrain has to be considered in concert with the course. One thing that is important to me is that the terrain is appropriate for the discipline. Certain terrains are great for long distance but don't have the feature density to hold a middle distance. Conversely certain terrains are technically super challenging but can't offer an element of route choice which makes it great middle distance terrain but not ideal for long distance.

Often these days we see the same terrain used for both a middle and a long - sometimes this works just fine, other times, not so much.

A bit of a different angle: a terrain might be suitable for WOC but not for World Masters by nature of being just to physical for M/F 90s.

That said here are a few things that it is important the terrain be:
- Interesting
- Challenging
- Fun *though not necessary for certain competitions like WOC where the competitors are there to compete more than to have fun
- Mappable to the standard
- Generally runnable
- Memorable *not a requirement but something the best terrains exhibit

Anyone remember the Kievan WOC middle terrain?
Does a lot of trash and stray dogs add flavor?

@ j-man:

And here
you can, in addition, expect some fresh graves after recent executions, dead bodies, etc., if that is what adds to the excitement

No, lots of what is generally considered in Europe ‘world class’ terrain/maps,
is not at all “fun”, by American standards.
Yet the idea that the ‘fun’ component should be given more weight is appealing.

I agree with Canadian, that the course plays into the classification of World Class Terrain as much as the terrain does. You experience the course, and fantastic course setting and jazz up some otherwise ordinary terrain.

To me, "world class terrain" means a place where I instantly want to bring more people to experience the awesomeness. Whether that's because of the map, the course setting, or the terrain itself, it's a place that I think is so awesome, I want to share it!

And yes, I agree with most of what people have said - needs to be the proper mix of interesting and challenging and fun.

When I am forced to make >5 decisions / leg

I only ever have one decision - find the freaking flag!

How often do you decide not to?

Generally only if the course has closed.

This thread will end in the usual place - World Class in appeal to the orienteering community, or World Class by adhering to ISOM and the guidelines for the three existing WOC individual disciplines? As evidence I offer the apparent favourite for the WOO course of the year nominations currently underway. My reading is favouritism is held by Day 4 of the OOCup on Tiha Dolina. Highly technical terrain presented at 1:7,500. According to the official ISOM interpretation, this probably shouldn't have been mapped, or if mapped, done to such a degree of generalisation the punters would have no longer enjoyed the experience.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-...
From a personal perspective, the most fun orienteering in the last decade.

Here world class terrain usually means hills are big enough, so climb figures will easily close to those max allowed by guidelines. It is so flat around here in general.

Most fun and challenging terrains are those with so high detail density making them not mappable to the detail, so mapper has had to generalize. Then thinking while navigating must be (instead of just picking and spotting obvious details) at the level "these are not mapped - too early, those two little spurs and a knoll are mapped as one larger spur ..." . Understanding distances travelled and directions must be in good control and one needs to be able to adapt to the way generalization was made to run fast and smooth without mistakes. A little bit less detailed regular terrains can be great fun too if mapped in generalized way. When detail density down gets to the level it's easily mappable to the detail it gets less fun (picking/spotting obvious stuff), but when detail density goes down even more and there is empty areas it becomes fun and challenging again, you need to be able to run over empty slopes/areas and still be able to hit features behind them without re-location error / parallel errors. Great fun.

^like.

@TIL, I ran OOcup4, and it was wonderful, but... not a patch on the exhilaration of the Irish Champs long.

I could imagine the Harry Lagert Finale being pretty amazing too.

Where are the NA entries?

@ndobbs: Nice to see Harry Lagert mentioned! It is named to commemorate an early Nydalens SK member who did great in multiple disciplines, including the Holmenkollen Ski Jump. :-)

I do think Norway in general and the Kongsberg-Eiker area (which was used for WOC 1978) in particular has some of the best O terrain in the world: (A. Kratov seems to agree, he just picked the Kongsberg world cup event as the best of the year.)

I know that I have loved all those areas since I was a kid, the terrain has relatively good runnability (mostly pine forest) with sufficiently complicated contour details to make it possible to run most legs without using the compass, and the maps have been very good since Knut Berglia (the father of Morten who won several WOC gold medals) took part in the original mapping revolution back in the sixties.

Terje, now that you mention Norway's terrain superiority I realize an aspect that I often think of as being important: the wilderness factor. There might be trails or the occasional road in World Class terrain, but I think we all really appreciate an area that seems untouched by human development. (Awesome urban sprint terrain being a special case, of course.)

Thanks for bringing up that aspect. It does seem that orienteering is about exploring the wilderness. Unmarked terrain, not transected by trails and roads, with the sounds of the forest, not the freeway.

Moss covered stone and cataracts of water attended by rustling leaves rather than the haze of an urban life strewn with the scaled detritus of civilization.

Anyone else feel that way?

I feel that way. One of my favourite orienteering experiences in Oz was a national event that started with a 2.7 kilometer leg into totally trackless terrain. The whole course continued in the trackless vein. It happens far too rarely. Not that many moss covered stones and cataracts of water in our terrain though. Our equivalent is smooth granite outcrops and dry washaways and erosion gullies.

Moss covered stone and cataracts of water attended by rustling leaves
... and there was me about to mention Anza Borrego. as my favorite run of the year. I was training out there on my own, armchair planned with no idea what to expect... I reckon if I'd broken a leg, I'd be dead.

Not so much world class, as a class of its own.

And yes, much running up and down roads is definitely not world class. (excepting sprints of course)

Though in small events that I think of as training, I might avoid a specific _optimal_ road route choice for a less-optimal, but more challenging run through the woods.

Though I won't do that if the woods are green, wet, muddy, full of poison ivy or thorns... (So yes world-class wise, I'm not eager to face unavoidable green fights, swamp slogs or personal injury)

(not that I have any world class experience but let's put "Local < National < World" class as a continuum, and I know what I like...)

> full of poison ivy or thorns
Add lantana and prickly acacia. A littl eprickly hakea can be forgiven if it is in flower and the honey scented aroma is both pleasant and a good warning to stay clear.

I was thinking about defining world-class terrain.
A couple of other questions that had this much trouble in the past:

If a cat always lands on its feet, and buttered bread always lands butter side down, what would happen if you tied buttered bread on top of a cat?

If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

It's like pornography...

If a cat always lands on its feet, and buttered bread always lands butter side down, what would happen if you tied buttered bread on top of a cat?

That's a myth. My cats tend to land on their sides.

Yeah, but you live in Australia, where up and down are all mixed up anyway.

@Christina: Yes, the wilderness factor is of course important, but I don't mind a few paths! With zero paths the route finding is simplified, now you just have to consider contours and green, and when you don't have too much of those either you most often end up with going straight as the only good choice.

Here's a good example: http://tmsw.no/qr/show_map.php?user=terjem&map...

Notice the "Ormåsen 4 km" sign at the top, that is the closest public road access to this finish area, we drove to within 2 km using a logging road, then we walked in.

The terrain has had some logging activity, patches of denser (spruce/birch) forest and beautiful heather/pine areas on top of all the hills. Visibility varies from 50+ meters to 5m or less. :-)

(BTW, the 2013 NM and 2014 World Cup terrains starts just a little bit to the west of this map.)

@Terje, This map has about the right density of man-made features.

ndobbs: "403 forbidden"? Maybe a different link?

Strange... http://omaps.worldofo.com/index.php?id=3379 ... was working earlier.

That terrain has too little vegetation to be world class IMHO!

It can still be a lot of fun, but not really world class, i.e. it was comparable to the (zero field survey) map I made for this year's mountain race in Rauland, Vinje:

This is Gustav Bergman's map from the event:

http://www.gustavbergman.se/doma/show_map.php?user...

His only comment was"Jävlig fint" ( "Damned nice")

Whenever these discussions take place, my usual conclusion is that there is a lot of damn fine orienteering terrain in the world, but too little of it is near me.

Some of it isn't particularly near anyone; saw some patches today which would be decent regardless and better still if they were a bit less vertical, but at 3000km from Buenos Aires (and further still from anywhere which has much of an orienteering scene), I can't imagine it being used any time soon.

Not everywhere can be an orienteering map, particularly not Melbourne Botanical Gardens.



that's a hint by the way

I ran the "Sierra 3-Days" a few years ago, this ranks very highly as one of the most beautiful places I have orienteered. OTOH, the actual orienteering was far from world class, i.e. I want much more contour detail in order to really enjoy the orienteering aspect.

What really impressed me was the fact that all the organizers live several/many hours away, it takes real dedication to host a big multi-day event when it takes so long just to get there in order to check map/control sites/facilities etc.

Organizing JWOC 2015 in Rauland is of course different: Yes, it is 3 hours drive away from where most of us live, but we have had mountain cabins in the area for many years, so we tend to spend quite a bit of time there anyway. :-)

I'm never quite sure how serious tRicky is with his posts, but he alludes to a genuine point - there are many, many exceptional bits of terrain which are never going to be used because there is no realistic chance of getting permission to use them, or because they don't have any practical access route, or because they are unsafe because of creatures with teeth or people with guns, or for any number of other reasons.

Or they are under a glacier. Oh wait. Just wait.

Blair, I was serious about the Botanic Gardens for a sprint event but I reckon there'd be a whopping great permission issue on that one. We walked around there and all I could think was "This'd be a great sprint area but there are so many people, I'm sure getting access from the local council (or other governing body) would be a great drama".

Night sprint when the place is closed?

Oooooh now that is an idea!

Where will the hobos sleep with all those orienteers running around?

ndobbs - I trust you're not advocating for orienteers to maximise their carbon footprints in the interests of improved access to morraine terrain. Some of us happen to like sand-dunes as well!

Last year we had the O-Festivalen sprint inside the Kristiansand Zoo, before it opened for regular visitors:

http://tmsw.no/qr/show_map.php?user=terjem&map...

This was a _very_ nice sprint area, with meandering paths, some serious elevation changes, tunnels and bridges etc.

The fact that it was the the first time ever that I won a big sprint event had absolutely nothing to do with my event evaluation of course. :-)

SOW this year used an area that was under the glacier when the SOW was last in Zermatt and world class it was

http://www.routegadget.ch/binperl/reitti.cgi?act=m...

I don't have much world class experience but in my opinion, terrain has to be challenging. The better the orienteer, the higher the feature density to make it interesting. For a newby, everything is hard therefore interesting. As people get better they want something more or it becomes bland. For world class orienteers that means a certain level of density. I don't know how you measure that density but perhaps the earlier suggestion of points per square unit would work. Density could be any feature (not just point features) although I think non man made features are the best. Although how a man made feature is defined is dubious as a lot of pits/ditches... are actually man made. The best terrain has few obvious features that simplify everything (trails, large clearings, distinctive features), I.E. something you can't just run to and ignore everything else. Terrain should make you think. Someone else talked about the number of decisions that have to be made. I think that is as much about the course setting as the terrain. Good terrain will help in that regard but I have seen good terrain wasted with bad courses.
Fun terrain. For me, fun is often different from what I usually see. That doesn't always make it the best terrain, just different. Fun also means runnable (not shredable/thorns, not poison ivy, not impenetrable green, not unnecessary water.).

For world class orienteers that means a certain level of density.
Can you formulate this density..... Can we measure % of white space per cm2 to rank and compare different terrains and its "level of density" on ISOM 1:15/10 maps.

While I enjoy feature-rich terrain, I'd like to raise a voice for empty terrain too. Perhaps this thread needs to be subdivided again into "for long and middle distance styles". Or perhaps variation of feature density is just part and parcel of variety.

Don't forget ultra-long.

Twom maps (years 2013 and 2012 2012 and 2013):


So, you say left one is less of a world class type of terrain because detail density is a lot lower than in the right side terrain? Are you sure?

I'd say map's detail density does not have much to do terrain being world class or not or being challenging (other than being challenging to read). What makes area challenging is density variation (patched with very low detail density) and the ratio of mapped details and details in terrain (aka generalization, more mapper has had to leave details out and generalize to make it readable more challenging it usually is because navigator has to be able to handle generalization and flood of non mapped).

Also, to make terrain challenging there should be some "features that can be used to simplify everything". The challenge is see and understand those those to be able to avoid reading small details. Those should just not be too obvious, like roads.

It's a trick question; that left one is a rogaine map.

Are those dates right? Is the sprint map a year older?

No, I corrected that. And O map is printed 2012, but it's one of those urban maps they update every year but it is questionable how well it is updated and has there been any other changes than new paths/roads/clearings, so contours and cliff may be mapped ten years ago. But even if updated more carefully the level of generalization hardy would change much. Mapped by the Jukola 2012 mapper.

the ratio of mapped details and details in terrain

Interesting. My view is that the world class terrains should not be generalized or only in a minor way because this could effect fair play.

I haven't heard of any organizer to put this ratio in an event invitation and I'm not sure that I correctly understand your approach and meaning of this ratio. First, I agree that white space could not be a very good variable. Terrains with few features or terrains with many features are probably the best (ISOM rules, of course). The challenge is always present (hard to find in nature and/or see on map the distinct feature to navigate).

A) If mapper obeys ISOM then all features large enough to meet ISOM requirements should be on the map, regardless how this effect the map legibility. If this is not possible and legibility become very bad then this terrain is not a "world class terrain" by the IOF rules:) but we all know that this is too conservative thinking. Are you saying that it should be the mapper decision (option) -> to leave them out (even if this have no affect on legibility) and that he could generalize the map more than the rules says and terrain allows?

B) If mapper leaves some details out they are probably NOT large enough to meet ISOM requirements or uses generalized symbols because of too many features. Using a different scale to put more objects on the map is a common approach to avoid generalization.

Generalization
If you talk about (stony ground) and some other generalization symbols I agree that this ratio could be very good for participants as pre-race info. To get a quick information about what % of map uses generalized features. And about this stony ground -> I would rather see this symbol as a vegetation symbol, although this is not veg but has same influence on running as veg.

Its a different topic, but I think that the first sentence of A) is completely the wrong way to look at mapping. Actually, could I also challenge Graeme's post back on Nov 19, he is confusing "terrain" with "a given map of the terrain". As often happens Jagge has shone a bright light on the issues.

@gruver
If you're saying it is wrong I would expect that you want to present your way. When I see a boulder I also expect to see it on the map. What is wrong here?

The boulder you see is only 2 meter high and there is plenty of from 3 to 6 meters high boulders around , so it should most likely is not on the map.

But it does not mean similar 2 meter boulder should not be on map at an other corner of the same map. As EricW (I think) put it well in an other thread, mathematically consistent map usually does not feel consistent. For context issues.

Do we have ISOM rule for such cases? If your approach how to map such cases is possible than I ask myself way we don't have a rule, so organizers would be obligated to put this in pre-race info.

ISOM minimum height of a passable cliff or boulder is 1m. That's minimim, so mapped boulder/cliffs must be at least that high. It does not mean all over 1m boulders and cliffs should be on map. If there isn't much boulders and cliffs in given terrain those 1 m objects most likely should be mapped. But for terrains with decent amount of of those the minimum should be higher -for example 1.7 m - and single boulders/cliffs smaller than that does not need to be mapped with boulder filed or anything. ISOM states that all too quite clearly.

ISOM also tells if terrain cannot be legibly presented at a scale of 1:15 000, it is not suitable for international foot-orienteering. This does not mean your terrain is not suitable for O if you have too much 1m boulders or too much 1m cliffs (that would make pretty much every single terrain around here not suitable for O). It means if one can't by generalizing make any sensible and usable map. For example if you have flat area with nothing much else than 3m boulders but too much of them to map them all,and all your boulders are equally high, so you can't take only the largest ones. And if you take none you will have pretty much nothing left in your map -> area is not suitable for international O.

An extreme example.
http://www.eddys.altervista.org/immagini/Orienteer...

I ran the race here in 2007 and I don't want to comment the map but my experience was that lower 2m boulders were significantly more important for my navigation than higher boulders. It was easier to see surrounding, shapes of the boulder, terrain and objects behind the boulder. When I came to the big boulder it was hard to see which one is and it was much harder to relocate. I would say that in your case the small boulder should be on the map too and all larger boulders should be generalized in a way that all together cover the same area on the map.

I am not a fan of this approach, because we all want standardized map rules (ISOM). If this is important for mappers to show legibility than standardization is needed. We can't have rules and in the same time allow individual interpretation how to map some combination of features. Maybe I don't get it but in such an extreme cases where too much compromises should be made organizers (mappers) decide to use 1:10k or 1:17500 because they want to show all ISOM boulders and not just generalized version of boulder field.

Gymnastics is subjectively assessed by judges and seems to do just fine. So is race walking - and is arguably a shambles. Mappers' skill at subjectively displaying the terrain is essential. As is often posted, compelling myriad terrain types to conform exactly to strict rules is futile - but conversely, the improvement in consistency has been useful!

That's minimim, so mapped boulder/cliffs must be at least that high. It does not mean all over 1m boulders and cliffs should be on map.

Rules, rules.....we could write down that all boulders min. 2m in height should be on the map and mappers would have free choice to put any boulder between 1-2 meters (different symbol). It would be easier because I would say: OK, mapper give me an additional boulder for my navigation than guessing which boulder is or isn't on the map.

they want to show all ISOM boulders

What do you mean by ISOM boulder? Over 1m high boulder? If so, please don't call it that. Some may think ISOM expects all those to be mapped. It doesn't.

From ISOM: "... it will be necessary at the survey stage to adopt minimum sizes for many types of detail. These minimum sizes may vary somewhat from one map to another according to the amount of detail in question ..."

Over 1m high boulder?
No, I was not aware that rules says 1m is already a boulder. That is way it might be better to change the rule as I wrote down in previous post. It is more logical to me.

If we put fixed min. dimensions in ISOM (I think they are working on this for last 7 years) we could have a clear information before the race if details are somehow different than what ISOM says.

Fixed minimum of 2m for boulders might make some areas around here almost entirely black. Making fixed dimensions like that is a bit dangerous, this is wonderful planet with lots of variation.

"I came to the big boulder it was hard to see which one is and it was much harder to relocate
... guessing which boulder is or isn't on the map"

That illustrates why generalized maps are challenging to run with. You need to know where you are going to, in advance. When you enter a location you must in already know where you are, that's where you were going to a moment ago, you should never need to re-locate. And when you see a boulder or a cliff you know is it mapped or not by looking at your map, if it is there is mapped, if its not in isn't. Simple as that, no confusion or guessing. But you need good navigation skills to do it.

If we to avoid generalizing map "everything" and enlarge map to 1:5000 ... 1:7500 to be able to capture the personal character of each location, we make it easy to re-locate and harder to make parallel errors. Good navigators loose their advantage and advantage goes to those with good vision, those who are able to read the over detailed map. So, who should get the advantage, good navigators or those with good eyes?

would make some areas around here almost entirely black
But one solution must be accepted so participants can have pre-race information about important details. For special features we have a rule to put them in invitation or bulletin and the same approach we should have for dimensions if min. dimension is larger than feature description in ISOM. Min. hight for boulder = 1.5m or 2m or 2.5m or ... or not?

kofols, terrain description for races often says, only larger boulders are mapped. Nothing's broken.

And as for rules prescribing everything... the mathematician in me wants to say, you must be mad!

That pre-race information you ask for is available... that's exactly what model maps and training events are for. And mapper's notes. Do a little bit of homework and that information is readily available. Whether you like it or not it is 100% impossible to create a standard for all the world's terrain with no flexibility like you are proposing. If we were to try that we'd end up with a standard with so many exception clauses it would become a joke.

Should we also not allow the mapper to choose to use 2.5 or 5 m contours?

..prescribing everything... where did you get this. Lost in translation.

@Canadian
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if we have an ISOM rule that says the boulder means 1 meter in height +..."it will be necessary at the survey stage to adopt minimum sizes"... + if mapper and organizer agreed about minimum sizes I think this is not in the field of "prescribing everything". It is a special information/deviation from the ISOM. Could you post (or you Neil) one link to pre-race information to see how it looks this exception as we are somehow behind and organizers don't bother with this.

@kofols

See page 9 of the Final Bulletin form the recent North American Championships for a sample of mapper's notes (in addition to helpful course setter's notes I might add).

And I don't know that it's practical to have the ISOM be more rigid and then regularly ask for deviations from it. How many maps are there in the world? How many of them would need to ask permission for a deviation? And if you don't bother to have a proper deviation permission granting process then we're right back to square one.

Rock faces/cliffs may be as short as 5 metres in length but they are vertical, higher than 1 metre, and contiguous.

Does this mean that all 1m cliffs are on the map or should I understand that map shows only selected 1m cliffs where there are no other even larger cliffs.

The best way to describe a boulder or cliff or whatever that's worth mapping isn't a standard size, or even a size that's specific to a map. It's whether the feature is "prominent".

Jagge, the ideal world you describe, i.e. all orienteers must always know exactly where they are in order to determine if any given boulder/detail is mapped or not, will never occur in real life. :-(

The only example I know about which was similar to what you describe happened almost 40 years ago when Trond Rønneberg arraived at a control site (a depression or boulder in an area consisting of nothing but boulders & depressions), looked around for a few seconds, then immediately told the 3-4 guys running around that "this control is missing, just run on".

He was of course absolutely correct, but nobody else dared to do the same that day, on a very important race (selection for an international competiton).

Getting back to the main thread, it is very obvious that all mapping standards must be interpreted based on the actual terrain. Personally I'm guilty of breaking the minimum boulder standard on several maps: If the terrain has relatively few details, and the boulder is located so as to be very visible/obvious, then I'll map it without first checking that it is at least 1m high.

Nuff said, thank you Jagge and others. Now back to the topic. We are talking about world class terrain aren't we? Not about world class maps.

Any terrain without paths and suitable for orienteering is world class terrain for me. Do we still produce maps like that? WOO selects the best course of the year but it would be fun to see what are the 10 most virgin orienteering terrains mapped each year.

As a side note: I'm also interested to know which world class terrains were used more than once for big events (WOC, WC,...). Like Gjern Bakker, Denmark (WorldCup 1990, WOC 2006) and how those terrains changed over time.

I have to stop reading this thread now that kofols got involved. Sorry for no further input.

World class enjoyment in terrain is what interests me. So for me World class terrain is different from the question of ISOM compatibility.
I was involved in the selection of terrain for the Oceania Middle Distance Championship. We invited a group of runners to visit and sample the terrain. The terrain generated great excitement. But test mapping showed it had to be mapped at 1:10,000 to be readable. So it was mapped 1:10,000 and presented at 1:10,000 and 1:7,500. IOF adviser and course setter disagreed about 1:7,500. Subsequent use for regional championships has only been at 1:7,500. It is a much loved area. Its world class terrain producing world class fun. In truth its not suitable for an ISOM map. I don't care. Generalisation to 1:15,000 would have significantly reduced my enjoyment of the terrain.
http://omaps.worldofo.com/index.php?id=47553
The video
http://vimeo.com/27413775

I knew which map you were talking about before I even checked it!

Oops, I'm not in this thread

I have very similar terrain to map. Struggling to decide on the scale. Oops I wasn't going to talk about mapping.

That area looks ace.

It is an interesting question as to what should be mapped and what shouldn't (and a different question to what world class terrain is). Re. boulders/rock this is something I've been getting used to in Oz and there are some very different styles.

So, Mt Kooyora
http://www.bendigo-orienteers.com.au/mediawiki/ima... (sorry old link - ultralong RG doesn't seem to work.)

lots of rock on there but quickly worked out that if the rock is on the map it's fairly significant so pretty easy to see and navigate by.

2 weeks later, get to Wagga:
http://garingal.com.au/gadget2014/cgi-bin/reitti.c...
and it felt like everything over knee high was mapped and it totally blew my mind.

Not sure what the answer is but I do think that mapping is something of an art form depending on the terrain, and that blanket rules like "map all rock over 1m" should be avoided. As it stands the current ISOM rule seems to reflect this.

btw the terrain in both those areas was amazing.

As I see it. Navigation is different based on circumstances. If map is generalized, athletes needs to understand what is mapped and what is not, be able to ignore unmapped details and navigate using the little information they have, run over areas with no much details and hit mapped features behind. To be fast athlete should not try know where they are, they should focus on where they are going to. Control should be visible enough and at least should not be hidden behind unmapped objects (if control feature is re-entrant you should not hid the flag between unmapped boulders there). This allows legible smaller scales maps, like 1:15 000 (or even smaller scales). Good for long distances and long route choice legs.

If map is not that generalized the challenge for athlete is quite different. They need to be able to handle all the information, simplify, ignore mapped details instead of unmapped details like with generalized maps, run over detailed with lots of mapped details without reading them and hit prominent ones behind. The map scale needs to be bigger to make them legible like 1:5000 - 1:10 000. Flags does not need to be so visible, since map allows navigating all the way to the control. Good for short/middle distances. All the added details may make maps more expensive, but on the other hand you don't need that large area for short distances.

If terrain is a maze of forbidden to cross objects the challenge for athletes is again quite different. They can't speed up by picking a place further away and running straight and and hard and ignoring all details. Because they may run across OOB objects. This forces athletes to read essential details and speed up by ignoring details with no effect on running speed or passability. To do well and fast athletes need to know they are all the time (in addition to knowing where they are going to of course). OOB objects makes navigation quite different from previous two.

It is a shame we use map and scale to differentiate sprint from forest disciplines, but not to differentiate those forest disciplines form each other. Officially - the practice is different, maps are already made 1:10/middle or 1:15/long in mind). Same generalization level will not do well for both. you can choose your favourite, should we kill long style navigation or kill middle style navigation or do something to our mapping standard to keep them both?

Change ISOM to reflect that the two Middle and Long are suited to different terrain and sometimes different mapping styles. It seems to me that the more differentiation there is between the two formats, the more interesting the sport is to a recreational orienteer such as myself. There would be a different mix of skills for the two formats, as described by Jagge. I would welcome any two day event that had exemplars of the two forms on different days.

and that blanket rules like "map all rock over 1m" should be avoided.
Just to be clear what I meant. Terje mentioned that if the terrain has few details he might also use prominent boulders smaller than 1m. Might! and that he do this sometimes even if ISOM says that this should be avoided. Probably those boulders would be omitted in case of a major event no matter how prominent they are. In your example you mentioned that mapper mapped every boulders just over knee high which means that boulders were smaller than 1m. This is over mapping to me. I assume Terje and mapper in your example also put on map all boulders larger than 1m to have more point features and more chances to make course more interesting. If this is not correct than why someone would use boulder smaller than 1m and in same time leave out some boulders larger than 1m? ISOM also says that consistency is important.

I'm not saying that we should map boulders SMALLER than 1m no matter how complex or simple terrain is. I've never said this. I'm saying that if terrain has a lot of boulders and it is not sensible or physically not possible to map all prominent boulders LARGER than 1m on 1:15, mapper needs to define what is the min. height for boulders on the map or use bigger scale to map those prominent boulders. In our cases mappers just use 1:10 or 1:7500 because they don't want to generalize area and leave out some prominent boulders larger than 1m. But If mapper wants to generalize or decides to change min. ISOM dimension as Jagge said = 1.7m (EDIT: or 0.7m) than I would expect to have this information in pre-race bulletin. It is the easiest way to give participants more information about mapping style used for the terrain. Than I might better know which features are on the map and which one I should avoid or be carful when navigating through the terrain. I think model event is not the only way to get acquaintance with mapping style.

Enjoyed running on Lithuanian dune maps with maybe one or two boulders... total. Each was mapped and each was under 1 meter. But they stood out in the terrain. Sort of ... what the heck is a boulder doing here?

Many of these recent posts belong on the other thread, the "map scale/ readability issue".
I think there are many worthwhile points being made.
Would the authors consider copying and re-posting them there?