Occassional thoughts about orienteering
|
|
| okansas.blogspot.com Occassional thoughts about orienteering |
|
|
Saturday, October 23, 2010 Comparing mapping stylesComparing two maps of the same terrain, posted by Jagge at Attackpoing: You can argue and discuss whether this sort of development is good or bad. I'm not really sure. It seems consistent with the development of orienteering maps over the years - a move toward more and more contour and runnability detail. I don't really know how much further it can go. With laser scan (lidar) data for basemaps, it is easy to fieldcheck a map with a 1 meter contour interval for a final map that will have a 5 meter interval. That will make it a lot easier - and more tempting as a mapper - to add form lines. As mappers become better at extracting vegetation data from laser scans, fieldcheckers will have an easier time mapping runnability detail, too. Drafting on a computer as opposed to the old-style pen-and-ink also makes it easier to add more detail. Jagge had some interesting comments on the map comparison. I think the newer-style maps change orienteering technique a bit. An obvious change, which Jagge notes, is that they make it harder to see the map. It is hard enough that young runners, with young eyes, often carry magnifiers. The maps also provide a lot more information that could help with the "micro" route choices - i.e. the decisions about how to best move through the forest. On the older-style maps, you made your way through the forest by looking ahead and having some general familiarity with the type of forest. As you ran, you picked your way through the terrain. On the newer-style maps you can get more runnability detail from the map itself. Here's a similar comparison of maps that I made a few years ago. Back to okansas.blogspot.com. posted by Michael | 10:41 AM 
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
|||||
