Discussion: Rootstocks on maps

After a truly fantastic weekend of orienteering and banter with DVOA (really great job from an expert team, great stuff guys) I was wondering what the general opinion is on rootstock mapping. I don't think I like it - not being able to distinguish which are mapped and which aren't, and the occasional huge one giving the game away that a control is just behind them from a long way away. I understand there's not too many features in some of the woods, but I think that'd be just fine - getting things right on a "featureless" slope is a pretty good skill to practice.

Thoughts?

Loved the new map yesterday btw, beautiful contours. Whoever originally braved the green in Ridley Creek also deserves a medal!

I don't like them because they tend to change so much - new ones keep popping up. Makes it tough to trust the map.

I'm opposed to mapping rootstocks in almost all circumstances.

"...and the occasional huge one giving the game away that a control is just behind them from a long way away."

Wait a minute, this is about the strongest argument possible for putting them ON the map. I certainly don't see this as a black/white issue by any means, but the reasoning needs to better.

And while we're at it, what about the closely related issue issues of mapping fallen tree trunks, snags (vertical dead trunks), and stumps?

I agree with AZ and JJ ('most circumstances'). But what I really dislike is 'distinct trees' marked in forested or semi-open areas (talking ISOM here, not ISSOM). What a mapper thinks is distinct at a walk is hardly distinct to a runner at race pace looking across a semi-open area to spot it. And sometimes you have to be a botanist or a local to spot the difference.

....I don't think I like it - not being able to distinguish which are mapped and which aren't...

Couldn't the same be said about most point features? Boulders, dot knolls, "distinctive" trees.....?

When you are cursed with flat, flat, flat terrain, often rootstocks are the only features that keep the map from being pure white. And they allow the Course Setter to avoid a series of doglegs. I endorse mapping >1m rootstocks if there are no other mappable features within 200m.

While I agree with the premise that new ones could appear at any time, they are distinct, the large ones at least, and will last a long time. Same issue arises with trails these days - new mt bike trails can appear over night. The runner must learn to distinguish what is there or not. And the map owners do need to update occasionally, not wait 20 years.

by the end of the day i guarantee 100+ comments

EricW, I guess with that argument I meant that sometimes they give the game away, but not all the time - it's more a case of "I'm heading for that re-entrant, oh, there's a mapped rootstock/fallen tree, my control is just behind it. But so was my last control, and that wasn't even on the map."

forcing the Course Setter to design a series of doglegs.

I'm not sure any circumstances call for the use of doglegs, much less a series of them. Doglegs are poor course design and discouraged in sanctioned events. Perhaps you meant "crossing and recrossing the terrain".

I think the most distinct rootstocks should be mapped. I found it interesting on my course yesterday that a mapped rootstock with one of my controls was described as 3.5m, but the one behind it that I could see as I came up the hillside was about half again as high (I though it was my target as it was huge, but then saw the flag correctly hung on the other rootstock). Downed trees where the rootball is only a meter high or so are much more questionable.

Indeed, rootstocks are a big topic and hotly debated in general, with respect to DVOA terrain broadly, this terrain in particular, and relative to the mapper for the weekend (who originally had a different, but in my mind valid, interpretations of rootstocks and knolls vs. stumps vs. trees.)

I'd be happy to discuss this further... not sure if I will wade into it here, just out of laziness with respect to typing at the moment...

I agree Janet...doglegs are not good course design. But when setting courses on flat, featureless terrain, it is sometimes difficult to avoid designing doglegs. Because there are no other nearby features to use to pull the runner away from the same route he used going into the control.

And when I'm in competition as a runner, one of my rules is to seek to "dogleg" every control that I can, since that route is now familiar.

The Carter Caves maps have no rootstocks on them. But if you love rootstocks, you will be able to find some in the forest. You just won't be able to use the map to find them!

Ok, yurets. I've done my part on the road to a hundred.

"Makes it tough to trust the map.'

Yes new ones occur, but a new rootstock is hardly a reason to question the whole map, just the rootstock picture.

I think it is quite fair to expect advanced course participants who grew up on planet Earth, to understand the temporal nature of maps, and specific features. The course setter also bears some responsibility in dealing with the situation.

I think the trail analogy is relevant and reasonable,

That said, I believe that for terrains with many strong details, rootstocks are not prominent, and given the drawbacks, do not add net value to these maps. On the other hand, I think rootstocks add great value in otherwise featureless terrains, especially for high level debut events.

I have encouraged mappers to both map, and not map rootstocks, in differernt settings. (and mapped and not mapped myself)

Any debate on the color of green vs brown? This is an ISOM 201X issue I intentionally did not take a stand on.

If they are going to be mapped, you can at least make an argument against brown since they don't describe the shape of the ground, and they often require breaking the contour lines. Though I guess in the places where people most want to map them (flat and featureless), the need to break contours is minimized since there aren't many. Because they are a vegetation feature, there's something to be said for green (and you can have a green X for a rootstock and a green O for a distinct tree). That, of course, becomes problematic when the map already has a lot of green, especially if the rootstock is in a green area. But flat, featureless, thick terrain isn't really a place I want to orienteer anyway, so go ahead and map that any way you like.

About featureless slopes and flat featureless areas - I have always wondered what would happen if we could allow placing controls anywhere - not just by mapped feature - by using really large 1 x 1 m flags at those controls and require them to be relatively visible. Do we think a mapper can locate any object (lone rootstock or boulder) accurate enough but same person working as course setter simply can't? We could get more use out of these featureless terrains and could set some challenging route choice legs we now can't without building artificial fodder racks to place controls where we want.

Empty slopes are nice and challenging like Becks wrote, you just can't get all out of those terrains with our current rules.

In Southern england we just built a tripod, marked it on the map, and then rebuild it the next time if it's broken down. You can move it too! That's kind of the equivalent of what you're suggesting Jagge.

I think the most important question is: Does it matter to navigation at speed?

The majority of the time I dislike them but then finding the proper balance between significant and insignificant features and displaying them on the map in an understanding manner is the job of the mapper. Obviously some are better and some are worse.

If rootstocks are mapped, I would prefer them to be green falling in line with vegetation not brown as in contour.

One inconsistency on the maps, and to Jordan and JJ's points... in some cases we mapped large tree trunks/canopies as linear green fight thickets. In most cases, these emanated from a (brown) rootstock. So, you had the integration of two legitimate ISOM symbols into a Franken symbol composite, which I think was often very useful for micro navigation.

But, the green X vs. brown X... the only defense I can give of the brown X for rootstocks is that is the convention in our area. All other vegetation is green.

However, alluding to my earlier point--there is an ecological transition from rootstocks to dot knolls in many cases (most of the dot knolls on these maps were formerly rootstocks before the wood decayed and the dirt remained.) So, there is a sort of direct family lineage there.

I've orienteered in places where there were no real features to speak of. There were some "imaginary" things like tiny boundary markers that were shown on the map, and used as control features. I've also orienteered where there were "artificial" features, such as a man-made object, added to the map, and there was a chair in the forest (much like Becks's tripod). Both of these were fine, using normal control markers, because visibility was good -- it would not be okay if something like this were done in green forest, any more than a pit or small boulder in the green would be. The advantage of the small boundary markers is that the mapper has the time to be sure they're located correctly. A course setter can also do that, but it slows down the course setting process somewhat.

It really doesn't matter if the tiny control feature is permanent or temporary. My feelings about rootstocks don't have anything to do with their use as control features, but rather as navigational features between the controls. Not everything in the terrain needs to be mapped. I'm also fine with leaving off distinct trees in the forest (though mapping them in open areas seems more interesting). When you map rootstocks, you've added a maintenance issue to the map, and maps already have enough of those. There are some kinds of terrain where it makes sense to map them, but most of the places I've been where they're shown, I would have preferred to have them omitted.

I've also been involved with a meet where the last control was simply in the middle of an open area, and the description was just a picture of a control. No problem.

Around here, the federation has made a conscious decision that the green circle means a "distinct tree/group of trees", and a green cross means a "log/stump/rootstock/dead tree". That's the national definition, in terms of usage it is a mapper's decision as to whether, like a knoll or a boulder, it is immediately identifiable on the ground. In my view these green point features are usually used quite sensibly, whereas boulders, dot-knolls and U-depressions are frequently over-done.

I added a rootstock and a distinct tree to a new map last Sunday. I will remove the rootstock now, thank you very much.

They're useful when they are redwood trees :)... but most maps don't have to worry about that.

Whoever originally braved the green in Ridley Creek also deserves a medal!
Back in '88 ... and then I hitchhiked home :)
But I think the medal goes to EricW for fixing the mess I made on my first mapping effort.

I'm opposed to mapping any feature much smaller than nearby unmapped rootstocks.

Speaking from the perspective of honest, hard-working orienteers of the Deep South, we are blessed to have so many rootstocks in our forests, and on our maps. I could endlessly watch those fat brown “X”s, covering the whole map. What else would I need on a map, anyway? Of course, some of them rote away ten years ago, and a new bunch just appeared after that big storm last Spring, but it’s a challenge equally posed to everyone. Without them orienteering would turn into a boring artificial no-fun exercise of skills, with control guaranteed to be found after flawless execution of the leg (who would want that?). It would lose precious spirit of wilderness adventure.With rootstocks, it’s fun-o-plenty! Which one has that elusive control hidden underneath? You’ll have to search them all to find out! As Mr. Colt made people equal in this country, Mr. Rootstock did the same for Orienteering. Some of those smart alecs may be all into WRE, but we enjoy simple things here like chasing a raccoon, maybe pulling a skunk by the tail, getting into a hole head-on to see if a rattler is hiding in there, ..and of course going rootstocking, I mean orienteering.

I think it is quite fair to expect advanced course participants who grew up on planet Earth

Off-topic - this is an orienteering forum.

I normally wouldn't map them, just because they're not that visible in our forest. But on my last map, there was very little undergrowth and there was a number of 2m+ root stocks that were significant in the terrain, so on they went. No one's complained yet.

I think it's a decision best left up to the mapper. As Eric (and Juffy), imply, there are situation where they warrant mapping and others where they don't.---though if the local club feels strongly one way or the other, that should be made known.

But after the mappers have done whatever they've done, and rootstocks are marked as brown or green, and new rootstocks appear and old ones decay and the map is old or new and has aged well or poorly - it is up to course setters to mitigate all of this with - a lot - of time spent in the woods dealing with issues exactly like this.

Yes, but this is no different from any other changes on the map - for example, on the map I mentioned above, the farm manager is a huge fan of running around with his bulldozer making new firebreaks. In four years I've had a lot more changes generated by him and his toys than by trees falling over. :)

Isn't this supposed to be the great thing about OCAD and digital printing? You can update the map and it doesn't age as badly as in the old days of printing 2,000 offset maps in one hit and scribbling map corrections for the next 15 years.

I don't think the problem with new root stocks is the mapping of them, but rather the finding of them. And the parallel with bulldozers and new trails is maybe not quite 100%. I suppose my comments are strongly based on my personal experience which is that I live in a place where we get strong wind storms several times a year that result in blow down. I also live in a place where new bike trails are built every year. It is much easier to find new bike paths than new rootstocks (since for one thing, the bike paths are often advertised, but even if not they are long (usually) features ;-).

Juffy, I believe they were referred to as root mounds, not root stocks. I shall henceforth lodge a complaint against your improper terminology.

Juffy I (and a few others) would have complained, but did not want to upset you. tRicky 'mound' is Oz terminology, 'stock' is British/American.

As a general rule I wouldn't map them in forest because to me trees are trees whether upright or fallen, however I did have to use the green cross twice at Sprint the SW last year. One was an enormous (3m high, and yes it was on it's side) tree root next to a path, and the other was several roots bulldozed into a large pile next to a small dam. Had either of them been in the forest on a standard ISOM map I would have ignored them.

If a Simmo complains in the forest, can he be safely ignored?

Only by a butterfly

Juffy I (and a few others) would have complained, but did not want to upset you.

If no one feels strongly enough about it to do so much as make a polite comment to the mapper, then that's as good as no one being upset.

Yes, you can keep rootstocks updated, but it takes a lot of work, and in practice will often be neglected. My reaction to a place with a lot of bulldozing activity would not be "no problem, we'll keep updating the map every time we use it", it would be, "yeah, we can deal with this, but what a pain in the neck". It's nice that the drafting/printing obstacle to map updates is gone, but the fieldwork one is still there. It's enough of a problem to keep adding new MTB trails without looking for new fallen trees out in the middle of nowhere.

We tend to have more of a problem with new trail bike trails on our foot maps, all of which are incredibly illegal.

TOC once built a lightweight "boulder" that can be placed in a featureless area, although I've not seen it used in recent years.

Thought of this discussion as I reran a Green Y course from 2005 at Fair Hill. Still is one of my favorite areas and this map remains quite good. However the temporal nature of certain types of features was evident - namely rootstocks as originally posed, trails as suggested and also man-made objects such as horse jumps which are prominent on this map, it being a horse training area after all.

Some of the jumps have been moved or added. Trails have been added. Rootstocks have withered in some cases and the green canopy used on one is completely gone as would be expected. Numerous new ones are present, and in one area, so many large trees are down that it is close to impassable making this course unacceptable with the map without revision. Still a fun area though.

I'm not sure how viable this idea is, but it would be nice to create rootstock symbols that indicate the year it was mapped. For example, if I am coursesetting and I start finding rootstocks and mapping them, I could create a new symbol and name it using the current year. This way, at some point in the future, old rootstocks could be deleted, leaving behind the newer ones. If you wanted to do the full GIS thing, you could somehow tag each rootstock with things like height. IMO, the only "reliable" rootstock mapping is when a mapper makes the effort to do the whole map. I tend to add new rootstocks where I find them while coursesetting, not with a methodical mapping process, so a lot are missed.

If you want to store year with the rootstock, then create and link a dbf file to that symbol and you can store year or any other info you want for each one.

The easy way is to just make a new rootstock symbol every year, and you can optionally hide the old ones.

Uniform degradation amongst the root stocks? I suppose if it was Australia the old ones would be forced into retirement after 70 years, at which point they could apply for the age pension and move into a nicely tucked away (featureless) paddock that didn't get overrun with orienteers on an annual basis.

Nice idea there, I've been wanting to represent the change of the bank line/passability near the sea, could I link the dbf file into the tide tables? Further up the river its more about the recent rainfall, perhaps I could use a weather model.

+Eric!
+to running this for more than 100 comments!

I think tRicky's comment is quite sound. Australian root mounds (local dialect) are generally hardwood and can last many years. Mapping them does not raise issues of map life. That comes from the vegetation changes with frequent burning.

Yeah, wandoo doesn't break down very fast. Even the termites prefer to just use the rootstock as a framework rather than actually eat the bloody stuff. :)

A lot depends on climate. In hot and humid tropical climate, like in those crocodile- infested swamps near Darwin, rootstocks disappear much faster.

It's not just disappearing, new rootstocks also unpredictably appear.

Darwin orienteers would be more likely to use the crocodile as a control site rather than the root mound. They breed 'em tough up there.

We have a map from 1996 or so that still has the originally-mapped rootstocks. The problem is they're so small you can usually confuse them with newer, unmapped ones that are very prominent.

Darwin orienteers would be more likely to get the Darwin Award

We have a map from 1996 or so that still has the originally-mapped rootstocks. The problem is ...

... we haven't updated our map in 19 years!