Talk:Orienteering map

DYK
The DYK was:
 * ... that the orienteering map (example pictured), along with the compass, is the primary aid for an orienteering competitor to complete a course of control points?

It was archived on Recent additions 220. --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliabilty and accuracy
Una Smith has changed my ‘reliable and accurate’ to ‘accurate and precise’. My view is that the competitor needs a usable map, which suggests reliable. No map can represent all features so no map can be precise (in the sense of being literally true). The specifications allow for this and features (including contours) can be generalised or distorted if by doing so the map gives a better visual representation for the competitor. Do we need something on this? Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

ISOM colours
I approached this from the printing industry point of view. Their standard process is four-colour printing. We use five-colours to print the map (which to them is a different process) and needs to be distinguished/specified. We then overprint the map with the overprint colour, making six. The ISOM lists seven colours with their printing industry (PMS) colour codes. One of the colours is 'grey' which (on an o-map) is usually produced by putting a 50% screen on the black (cheaper than printing it as a separate colour). It is made more complicated when the map is printed directly off a computer as the six/seven colours are printed together using a four-colour process (cmyk). (cyan, magenta, yellow, black). I will stick to five-colour. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Purpose and History reworded
I have reworked ‘Purpose’ and ‘History’ as I felt it gave the wrong impressions. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Endurance suggests that the map determines the quality of the course. I disagree. The quality of the course is determined by the skills of the planner. A good planner can make something of any map; and a bad planner can make a hash of the best map.
 * Adding features suggests that it is a target to add as many features as possible to a map. I disagree. The map needs to be relevant - neither over detailed nor under mapped. I prefer ‘reliable and relevant’ to ‘accurate and precise’.
 * Higher fees are not really relevant here, and the ‘map’ is not the only resource to consider. Manpower is just as important. I agree that established clubs have an advantage.

Trivia tag on (other information)
The //Trivia// tag appears to have been inserted by a bot. Just removing it will not stop it happening again. I have inserted the following into the article, as a comment. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * //trivia// removed 7/1/2009. This section describes the content of a map, principally the symbols that are used to describe the features on the ground. In addition there are other pieces of information e.g. date of publication which need to be on the map but don’t fit into any of those categories. Other information is a proper usage in this section.

Sorry Oceanh - I had not spotted that you had changed the title to 'Other map information'. I have still added the comment - belt and braces approach. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)