User Tools

Site Tools


Mapping Policies, to 2010

High-level discussion that non-mappers (eg club elders) should be able to take an interest in. Some overlap with OCAD (Software arrangements) and non-mappers may also find Course Planning useful. This page covers discussion up to 2010, for later discussion see Mapping Policies - from 2011

MT: Michael Posted: 18 April 2008, 3:55 PM

Sometimes technology while bringing labour-saving benefits has the danger of creating a group of gurus who can drive the system, versus the majority who can't. That causes overloads and bottlenecks. It's a temporary phase, eventually the technology becomes easier to use and widespread.

I'm thinking about map production now that most of our maps are in OCAD. I mean production in the sense of taking an OCAD file, doing minor updates, extracting parts and adding border and legend, arranging printing. Coaches might want to modify maps for training reasons. Those working with beginners might want to enlarge parts, etc. It needs to be easy and widespread, just like we used to get printed maps off someone's shelf.

This means widespread use of OCAD. Now Mr OCAD, quite understandably, has moved to enforce his licence terms, one licence one computer. I'm sure most clubs have transgressed. How do we solve this, as we move to spread OCAD skills around?

(NB I amexcluding making maps in the first place, keeping a master file safe, and overseeing permanent updates.)

MT: addison Posted: 20 April 2008, 7:38 PM

Hi Michael, I agree with you whole heartedly about the knowledge transfer.

I for one would like to think that I amquite technically competent at using OCAD - however I amabsolutely useless at the beautification and legend process that goes on. For Waitangi this has always been left to Greg, but I do understand the theory in behind it however. Still I bet not many people would do it well, or do it the same way!

MT: Michael Posted: 21 April 2008, 3:30 PM

Thanks for your response Simon. Just in case your reference to “beautification” diverts people, is it clear that what I'm concerned about is widening OCAD use in a club, whether beautiful or just a simple extract of part of a map for some purpose. And the need to buy an OCAD licence for each computer.

MT: SimonB Posted: 21 April 2008, 3:50 PM

dont need an individual licence cant you just use the club licence?

MT: Martin Posted: 21 April 2008, 6:50 PM

one answer is to continue to use OCAD 8 in clubs.

MT: Greg Posted: 21 April 2008, 7:14 PM

Or a club laptop that has all the software needed for an oing event, and written instruction manuals on-board as well, this can be passed on to the next setter/controller

MT: Michael Posted: 23 April 2008, 10:15 AM

SimonB: There isn't one. Martin: Probably what will happen, but it's unethical. Greg: I like that one. But I think the spread of skills will be faster if lots of people have the software on their own computers and can fiddle away when it suits them.

MT: Michael Posted: 27 April 2008, 10:03 PM

The comments suggest that CONDES is NOT a comprehensive layout tool. Therefore I reiterate that we need the ability to spread a reasonably modern version of OCAD around members. Cheating on the licence terms should not be our way of doing this - I think NZOF should try to negotiate with OCAD. A first step might be to talk to OA and then try and enlist the support of the IOF.

MT: Michael Posted: 3 February 2009, 1:02 PM

Easy access to maps as a promotional tool. Jamie I've worried too that OCAD has made it harder not easier to do impromptu training. I think of it every time I go past a sports field in the afternoon and think, “they've just rolled up, got out the ball, and they're doing their sport.” We can orienteer without markers, but getting maps for training and small events has to be as easy as it was when they lived on a shelf in someone's house.

On the other hand we need to pay for competition maps somehow. Given that the life of a map is (and needs to be) longer than a single event, how do we protect the investment so as to pay it off. Therefore I think there may be TWO answers to this question, for two different sorts of maps.

MT: Paul I Posted: 3 February 2009, 2:45 PM

As Rob G pointed out, with the National loosing White Lightning to pulp (after only one use of the south block, which I would rate as the best forest dunes we've ever had, and the loss of other prize maps such as Pot Luck, Stags Roar, Celebre, Hedley Rd etc, it is stating the obvious that we have a big and costly problem out at woodhill. Do we need some heavyweights to sort out a better relationship with the money hungry dudes at the forest HQ. What do we pay the huge annual recreation fee for if they are not going to listen to our needs and send us broke? Is it time we spread our resources and made some maps further north where we might be treated with respect? Could the 'fee' be waived for a couple of years as compensation for loss of maps due to them taking an asset from us and giving them to other forest users. At the same time up the HQ individual event fee a little to keep them happy. We all know it would be so easy to work in harmony with other forest user groups but how can we sit back and take what's happening now?

Further to my 'permanent O course' rave on the other thread, how could this be set up at woodhill (ie Muriwai DOC campground etc) if they always want more moneys and won't let anyone in the forest???

Any ideas? Any heavyweight sweet talkers?

MT: ML Posted: 3 February 2009, 10:57 PM

I personally dont think we should be paying anything to use Woodhill forest, it's crown land after all. The forestry company (whoever they are now) only own the rights to the trees. I think we probably need to get together with the other forest users that are being treated badly and maybe a lawyer to find out what our rights actually are and what to do about it.

MT: Bryan Posted: 4 February 2009, 9:30 AM

Part of this is related to the Internet Q&A Thread but I'll post here to get general feedback on the direction mapping is heading.

In 2006 our company (Urban Jungle Adventures) made up of myself and Paul Dalton sent a proposal to all NZ clubs about a commercial venture selling Orienteering maps.

We wanted to create a secure website which would allow the public to purchase Orienteering and park maps (50% revenue to go to clubs) via a credit card. Most of the framework for the website is finished. Only one club signed a contract. Our own club (Wairarapa) was against the idea, clubs like Hutt Valley are worried about losing their IP, and Auckland was worried about what the maps would be used for as they had problems with the council previously. Most other clubs did not respond. We are going to follow up but we are quite busy and we view it as a long term plan to be implemented over several years. Our view is that if a park is not available from a club to sell then we will eventually map it from scratch (but to 'tourist' standards where a park could be mapped in a few hours and a map produced in a few days based on existing photos and internet information and probably without contours). Of course we would prefer to sell the Orienteering map as they would be better maps and provide a win-win situation for clubs - they would receive some extra revenue and probably end up getting new members.

I have been mapping for 27 years and have gone way past the point where I do it for love because of the time involved and the time away from my family.

I'm looking at a reasonable return but I'm not looking at making it too expensive. It's hard to tread a fine line between commercial rates and slave labour.

There is also a tension in many clubs between some who believe mapping, planning, organisation costs should be 'free' or volunteered or at a minimum against those pushing for a more user-pays sport. Last year for my own club when petrol was so expensive, my club would only give 30c a km for planning - I asked for them to review this (and planning fees) but they came back (as I expected) with no change in petrol costs and as they had never given any planning fee before they did not want to start. I tallied my costs and worked out in my view that I actually subsidised the event out of my own pocket. This obviously makes me wary of doing the planning for any future events with them.

I plan to keep on mapping for a long time and I'm always on the lookout for new mapping projects but can only work in my spare time. A new city park map I'm mapping at the moment involves an ownership sharing arrangement where a club and our company gets full rights to the new map - meaning our company can sell the maps sometime in the future. The club pays me at the going fieldwork and cartography rate + GST and I research and gather all the information required to produce the map (eg aerial images, base contours, creating a base map). Obviously, we are working in closely with the club's wishes.

I also see other possiblities in the future - being paid for planning/organising an event for a club with little club help, and/or doing the mapping for clubs/NZOF in new areas. The costs would be more expensive than what is paid for currently.

I'm sure that there is some resistance to these new concepts but it's a way for me to get some extra incentive for producing Orienteering maps otherwise I would probably do something else.

What do others think?

MT: Paul I Posted: 4 February 2009, 11:47 AM

Addison said “Maybe NW should just arrange a meeting with its local MP for Helensville ;-)” It's not just NW but Akl too, but hey why not, we're in reccession aren't we, we need economic stimulus to recover at this point. Red tape and the RMA is being chopped faster than White Lightning, It might just work

If Addison's plan A doesn't work then ML's plan B sounds like it has merit. Any orienteers studying law?

MT: Michael Posted: 4 February 2009, 1:29 PM

There seem to be two main ideas in your post Bryan.

One is payment for significant orienteering services. This is not a yes/no thing, its a path we are already moving down. We started with mapping for large events and the larger NZOF jobs. There have been some payments for key event roles I think. The debate is essentially over the speed of the change and how far to go.

The other is a delivery mechanism for maps. As the mapping officer for my club I'm becoming more and more conscious of the time it takes to put maps in the hands of those who need them. Unless a happy accident has resulted in leftovers (and they have made their way to a single place) it takes longer than I would like to prepare a print-ready file and get copies. Part of this is the fact that we now have “mapped areas” as opposed to fixed-boundary maps.

The Urban Jungle proposal may not solve all of this, but I think you should refresh your proposal to clubs.

PS The Akatarawa Attack usually generates an interest in the maps which are far better than the topo and useful for other recreationists. We've established a price, but enveloping and posting one here and one there is something that (if time was paid for) would outweigh any return for the mapping. It's a delivery problem.

MT: mick finn Posted: 4 February 2009, 4:39 PM

Re PS Maybe a subscription service for an area like Akatarawas - getting access for a small fee to a whole area that gets updated and you just print out the area you are running on…Only problem is that it wouldn't stop people printing lots to run an event but they would be subscribed and therefore known entities.

MT: Jamie Posted: 4 February 2009, 5:48 PM

Geez, we could have a good debate here, cause I ain't gonna hold back..

(but preliminary comment: when lawyers get involved only lawyers win. You Akld guys have just got rolled by a clique of boneheads on their bikes re your networking skills).

First. I think mappers are awesome. I raised the question recently why sooo many administrators are recognised at the national level but mappers almost never are. I think you are all very special people with amazing powers of concentration and immense skill. I would love to have “mapping projects” but unfortunately I have the attention span of a kitten.

I also have no problems with mappers deciding… hey I might try and make this pay… and making a map and seeing if anyone will buy the right to use it. Individual enterprise and all that, they are taking the risk. Go for it.

But why on earth would clubs use a website such as you describe, to sell their established maps? What is the market? School groups, scouts, fellow orienteering travellers, NZOF members looking for training maps…isn't a clubs whole founding purpose to support such people orienteering?

We, in NZ orienteering, have these amazing assets, maps, that can be used to practice our sport. Many of them, especially those in key public areas were created yonks ago and are updated by volunteer club mappers. Really don't we want to see them used as much as possible?

What we need in regard to these maps is a “tragedy of the commons” where everybody uses them. Whether that is people to go training, new clubs to run events (be they University clubs or other niche groups), community groups, schools…etc. Except that there is no tragedy. Its win, win win.

Why on earth would we need another website to put these maps on and get these people to buy them off? We could create a basic geo-referenced system through NZOF or MAPTALK (See Shaun Collins Lactic Turkey Run Register as a possible framework. We can load A4 pdf's on the web and let everyone go for it.

These groups don't need fancy file formats or taxes, they need a map in their hand as cheaply as possible.

Now this status would be the defacto status of all maps in NZ. There would be two main exceptions 1)when landowners are an issue …then the map could be referenced but not uploaded so potential users must contact the club map person and landowners 2)when the map is still new and events are re-couping the costs of its production…the details would need to be worked out.

The thing is, this is actually quite simple. We need to get over the idea that maps are our most valuable IP. Our most valuable IP is our course setting/controlling/event format/branding/reputation for challenging people and helping them have fun. There isn't a delivery problem if we understand this.

MT: Michael Posted: 4 February 2009, 6:35 PM

You've got me thinking Jamie. I think I'll try out my club with the notion that we allocate our maps to two categories, free and otherwise. For the free ones, whenever we produce a layout for our own use, we stick a pdf version on the web and anyone can print it. (What website doesn't matter yet but it does need a structure to let someone to find a map.)

I agree that getting maps in peoples hands is a promotional strategy. And also I want to get out of the map production loop. My stance on this has changed over the years, I expect orienteers might come round gradually, as they have with paying for mapping and other services.

Which leaves the non-free ones. Maybe Bryan's payment mechanism might be required here - though the name “Urban Jungle” suggests he is targeting city streets and parks which would probably be on the free list. Protecting rural access goodwill might be another reason for making a map non-free. Anyway one step at a time.

MT: mick finn Posted: 4 February 2009, 7:29 PM

Sounds like a good “open-source” proposition Jamie; a bit like Wikipedia or Linux…might be an option to have old versions free and new current high quality not yet available.

I can see a mega resource called Ogle-Map in the makings…

MT: Michael Posted: 27 February 2009, 12:53 PM

OHV has made the decision to have a “free” list of maps. What's on that list we'll decide from time to time, we are thinking park maps at present. It's a major shift in thinking so we might extend it over time.

The mechanism for making them available belongs in “Internet Q&A” I reckon. Initially pdfs on our own website, there's a separate debate as to whether a central website would be a good idea or not. It would be good to have the index to what's available in the form of a map rather than just a list for example, and do we all want to invent that particular wheel?

Now a remaining question is a legal one. I'm thinking there needs to be some sort of wording on each map and maybe on the website, about “does not confer right of access”, “club accepts no liability for use” and “you can't use this for commercial purposes”. I asked the NZOF solicitor for advice and as I understand it we should retain copyright even if we are expecting eg teachers and private citizens to print the maps without paying us anything.

These have always been issues when we sold or gave away maps, do you think I'm worrying needlessly?

MT: The Map Guy Posted: 27 February 2009, 6:34 PM

No you are not worrying needlessly Michael.

I am mainly concerned with two issues: 1. People, in particular schools, using out of date maps even if there is a free current version available 2. Commercial operators using our maps without paying a royalty. I have met a number over the years. They seem to think that if they have bought a set of maps (usually at next to cost price), they have a God-given right to reproduce the maps indefinitely and make as much loot out of them as they can.

The only protection/shaming of inappropriate use is to have LARGE TEXT showing important details such as “map date”, “does not confer right of access”, “club accepts no liability for use” and “map is not for commercial use”.

MT: Michael Posted: 27 February 2009, 10:17 PM

OK. The move will surely lessen the extent of #1. And the legal advice is to TRY to limit #2 with declarations, presumably on both map and website. (I wonder if the hon. solictor's services would extend to helping us sue:-))

I'm thinking that what we must avoid at all costs is legal action against a club as provider of these maps, if a map user does something wrong. That would break us. This discussion could now turn to the exact statements that we need to make?

MT: onemanfanclub Posted: 28 February 2009, 10:57 AM

The user of this map takes full responsibility for their actions?

I'm no lawyer obviously, so perhaps the honourable Mr Harris or Mr Stewart could point out the truck sized holes in so simple a statement.

MT: Bryan Posted: 2 March 2009, 9:26 AM

We use many clauses at our work. eg something like: Short form: Disclaimer and Liability <The Club> does not warrant that the map is free from errors, omissions, or other inaccuracies. <The club> is released from all liability for any errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the data.

Long form: Intellectual Property 1.28 Unless otherwise agreed in writing, all intellectual property in, and relating to the map (including inventions, patents, trademarks, copyright, know how, designs, trade secrets and other proprietary rights or forms of intellectual property, and information confidential to us) and any alterations, additions or amendments to intellectual property shall remain the property of <The Club>, or of a third party as notified to you by us, and shall not be disclosed to any other person without our written consent. 1.29 We will retain ownership of the map. You will not provide, supply or otherwise make available such data to any other party without our written agreement. 1.30 We may use the map as we see fit, including building other maps, products, services or data sets. 1.31 You agree to take all reasonable steps to protect our intellectual property and ownership rights.

Liability 1.35 <The Club> shall not be liable to you for any direct or consequential loss, damage, or expense incurred by you or anyone else as a result of or in connection with the map unless the loss or damage arises directly as a result of our gross negligence or willful misconduct. In any event, our total aggregate liability to you under or in connection with this Agreement shall not under any circumstance exceed an amount equal to the total sum paid by you to us in relation to this Agreement. 1.36 You indemnify us against any liability for any direct, indirect or consequential injury, loss or damage arising out of any act, default or omission of, or any representation made by you or your servants or agents.

There are also many standard liability clauses to be found on the internet.

MT: Michael Posted: 2 March 2009, 1:45 PM

Thanks Bryan. I've also had some suggestions from the NZOF hon. solicitor. I'll distill something out of all these shortly.

I wonder what's the smallest font size we can use:-))

MT: Michael Posted: 6 March 2009, 8:44 PM

For comment. This wording is designed to go on the map, using OHV as an example. Some observations follow.

About the Map Map prepared for …. Basemap by …… Fieldwork by …… Cartography by …. File xxxxx.ocd

Copyright This map is the property of Orienteering Hutt Valley. It may not be reproduced or copied in any form without the explicit permission of the owner. OHV hereby gives permission for download and printing by individuals for personal use and teachers for use in schools. © OHV 2009

Use of Map OHV makes no claim that the map is free of error. By using the map, the user releases OHV from all liability for errors, omissions and other inaccuracies. Possession of this map implies and confers no right of access for orienteering or any other purpose, whether on a road, track or elsewhere. Please respect the rights of landowners.

*** 1st para: We've always had a statement about the origin of the mapping, just joining up the various fineprint clauses into a standard format.

2nd para: The NZOF solicitor suggested that if teachers were the main group that we wanted to encourage we should explicitly allow them. Other examples he felt could be dealt with by a phone call, so he's not envisaging a formal process here.

3rd para: combines the access and the accuracy issues to try and mnimise liability. Hon solictor says we can't fully exclude liability, sometimes there are just risks that we must take in life.

All: we would put similar wording on the website, not sure whether it would be map by map or we would generalise it to apply to all maps on the website.

MT: The Map Guy Posted: 7 March 2009, 12:55 AM

Really good stuff Michael, but once we put all that on the page, how are we going to fit the map in - especially if the font has to be big enough for people to read?

Maybe some sort of system where the downloader has to read the conditions and accept them before they can proceed with the download, and minimal disclaimers/conditions on the map.

If the map is a PDF file, a second page containing “Conditions of Use” can easily be inserted if you have the software.

MT: onemanfanclub Posted: 7 March 2009, 10:11 AM

Just a thought, if there was something along the lines of “contact details for landowners/managers can be obtained through the orienteering club” would that have the potential to monitor how much “casual” usage the maps are getting, or even be a potential gateway for appropriate/inappropriate use?

MT: Michael Posted: 7 March 2009, 12:30 PM

I think we can get away with 6 or even 4pt text. What with a statement about orienteering and how to contact the club, I've been putting about half of this stuff on maps anyway.

Good thought oneman, have to think about the possible consequences of failing to give a complete list though. Remember the federation wouldn't make whistles compulsory because of consequences if checking wasn't carried out. The law is soooo helpful innit.

MT: Michael Posted: 27 April 2009, 1:32 PM

Save me searching, has anyone else got maps for download on their website? I mean a set rather than the odd one.

MT: Michael Posted: 5 August 2009, 12:30 PM

Interesting how people like to twist a thread towards their hobby horse, heh, heh. On your “fabulous areas at the back of beyond” that you'd like to see mapped Jamie, I'll be there. But even though I would benefit as an addictive orienteer and a mapper, there aren't many who will travel to a faraway place except occasionally. It's not the spark that will rekindle the fires of large numbers of former orienteers who are enjoying different activities and responsibilities.

Jason Markham liked the Winter Classic because it was close to home. One can presume that Yvette Baker with three young kids and a non-orienteering husband wouldn't have travelled far. I think there's more scope close to home, in small areas, in new types of map-sport that suit those areas. And they are cheaper to provide.

I've concluded that sport doesn't work on rational behaviour. 90% of the work is done by a few nutters who do much more than is reasonable. Now you can't demand that these people toe a particular line - they will (and can only) do what turns them on. For example I recognise the huge benefits in developing the secondary school scene. However I CAN'T raise the enthusiasm for work in that area because I already did, when MY kids were at school. I can keep going only because I've found new aspects that turn me on. Close to home orienteering.

Talking of which we had some good sprint training on Saturday. The maps and courses are on the download area of the OHV website. Anyone else got maps for download? That “give them away” was a breakthrough Jamie.

MT: addison Posted: 5 August 2009, 5:55 PM

Only a breakthrough as you had your mind changed Michael! I'd be quite interested to know how many ppl have actually downloaded them and if it is actually worth the hassle. How do you even get in touch with those people who have downloaded them anyway… SEEMS like a waste of time.

MT: Michael Posted: 2 July 2010, 3:05 PM

There's a special offer of 20% off OCAD from now until 31 August.

This is a very good opportunity for clubs to upgrade and/or buy more licences. Among other features is the most significant for some time, map transformation by “rubber-sheeting”. This revolutionises the fixing of older maps, most of which are distorted. IMHO clubs should have a programme to geo-reference and straighten out their most-used maps.

It's also an opportunity to think about the ethics of using pirate copies of OCAD. I amfrustrated by wanting to spread OCAD expertise all round my club, at the same time as respecting the terms of the licence and the work that has gone into the software.

mapping/policies2010.txt · Last modified: 12:50pm Tue 25 October 2022 by