O B S E R V A T I O N S

New Insights into the Concept of Orienteering Maps

Angel Munoz-Nieto, Pablo Rodrıguez-Gonzalvez, Diego Gonzalez-Aguilera andJuan Mancera-Taboada

University of Salamanca, Avila 05003, Spain

Email: almuni@usal.es

Orienteering is both a mental and physical activity. A compass and maps are the basic tools of orienteering, and

orienteering requires specialized maps that have been adapted and standardized to guarantee fair competition. Map-

making for orienteering has become a highly specialized cartographic task. This paper aims to answer three main

questions: What is an orienteering map (o-map)? How should we categorize o-maps? What are its essential components?

The answers to these questions provide insight into the concept and nature of o-maps. By analysing the functions of this

type of maps and by searching for similarities and differences between o-maps, topographic maps, and nautical charts, we

attempt to comprehensively characterize and conceptualize o-maps to contribute to their improvement.

Keywords: orienteering maps, maps taxonomy, map-making, map standardisation

INTRODUCTION

Orienteering is a sport in which an orienteer completes acourse of control points in the shortest possible time, aidedonly by a map and compass. As both a hobby and a sport,orienteering combines aspects of traditional disciplines (e.g.,athletics, cycling, and skiing) with spatial and directionalawareness and map reading. For this reason, the mental andphysical activity of orienteering has been integrated into thecurriculum of educational systems in some primary andsecondary schools (Mcneill et al., 1998) and in someinstitutes of higher education (Fairbairn, 1990).

Topographic maps, usually made by government agenci-es, satisfy the demand of a medium-scale standardizedmap product and are aimed at a multiple types of users.Topographic maps are used by many different types ofprofessionals, such as engineers, geologists, geographers,architects, and environmentalists. These maps have also beenused for recreational purposes, e.g., tourism and sportsactivities such as hiking and mountaineering. Currently, thetopographic map user profile has grown and has established aspecific product demand that is characterized by newformats, supports, scales, and symbols. Orienteering maps(O-maps) are an example of this trend. Orienteering, a sportin which the basic tool is a map, requires specialized maps.The need for such specialized products is justified by theuniqueness of their use (usually cross-country navigation).The huge demand for o-maps has resulted in the establish-ment of a specialized branch of the cartographic industry thatattempts to meet this demand (Petrie, 1977).

Map-making for orienteering takes into account specificconditions arising from its own mapping standards (Zentai,

2009), attempts to promote fair competition and adheres toits own quality requirements (Munoz-Nieto, 2008). TheInternational Orienteering Federation, through its MapCommission, has developed a strong standardisation effortthat has resulted in a comprehensive set of internationalregulations. O-maps standardisation has been evolving formore than 30 years (Zentai, 2001). The InternationalSpecifications for Orienteering Maps (International Orien-teering Federation, 2000) prevail at present for generalorienteering purposes.

We must also consider that new trends in Cartographyand Geomatics (e.g., remote sensing, GIS, and spatial datainfrastructures) make it easier for non-professional carto-graphers to produce o-maps as an adaptation from basemaps obtained from rigorous cartographic procedures.

The main purpose of an o-map is to provide information tohelp users navigate among control points in a race. Usershould be able to quickly read a map, interpret its layers (e.g.,vegetation, contour lines, hydrographic features, roads, andbuildings), and make decisions. Consequently generalizationtasks are very important. Participants’ performance issignificantly related to their ability to attend to the mapwhile moving. The strategic control of attention is a proposedexplanation of this ability. Attention training might enhanceperformance in sports characterized by multiple and dyna-mically varying elements (Eccles et al., 2006). The cognitiveprocesses that take place in the orienteer before making adecision primarily involve the selection of relevant mapinformation for route choice, the comparison of map andterrain in map reading and in relocation, and a rapidawareness of mistakes (Ottosson, 1986; Seiler, 1996;Almeida, 1997).

The Cartographic Journal Vol. 50 No. 1 pp. 91–97 February 2013# The British Cartographic Society 2013

DOI: 10.1179/1743277412Y.0000000006

Mapmakers, who have to be acquainted with specifica-tions, rules and traditions, are usually orienteering compe-titors (Harvey, 1991). These mapmakers have to select whichelements of a landscape should be part of a map and howthese elements should be represented to satisfy users’requirements and according to cartographic standards. Itis especially important for an o-map to include detailedinformation about runnability (the degree of difficulty withwhich an area can be crossed), which is derived both from theground and from vegetation, because runnability impactsrunning speed.

We consider it relevant to address in depth a study thatleads to the characterisation and conceptualisation of suchmaps. For this purpose, in the following sections, a theoreticaldevelopment is made that explains o-maps similarities anddifferences compared to other types of maps. This study ofdifferent mapping approaches allows us to break down thenuances and features of o-maps.

THE FUNCTIONS OF MAPS

Board (1978) classifies the uses for maps into threecategories (Figure 1): navigational aids, extraction andinference measures, and aids for viewing geographicalfeatures. The columns in Figure 1 show, in detail for eachof these three groups, a list of actions that are implicit inthese tasks. This categorisation may help us to classify mapsand to find an appropriate definition for o-maps.

According to Figure 1, tasks that must be satisfied by o-maps are mostly related to navigation. Deduction ofmeasurements is less important, because an o-map willnot be used for a quantitative, accurate measurement ofdistances, angles, surfaces, or slopes. Thus, the concept ofrelative positional accuracy becomes essential in assessingthe quality of o-maps (Munoz et al., 2005). Because we canconsider maps to be images, visualisation tasks are commonto all types of maps.

We can classify maps into categories or classes that havebeen established by various classic books based on generalcartographic principles. Authors support their classificationsbased on different taxonomic criteria. For example, Robinsonet al. (1995) uses, without establishing rigid boundariesbetween each class, the criteria of scale, function and subjectto establish an initial classification.

On the basis of the function performed by a map, andexplicitly being flexible in the application and interpretationof this criterion, Robinson makes a clear distinctionbetween topographic maps, thematic maps and charts.

Joly (1976), however, differentiates only between twotypes of maps: topographic and thematic maps. Topographicmaps are based on ‘an accurate and detailed representation ofthe earth’s surface, relating to the position, shape, dimen-sions and identification of terrain features, as well as concreteobjects’. In comparison, thematic maps are defined as mapsthat aim ‘to give, on a background of reference, throughqualitative or quantitative symbols, a conventional represen-tation of localised phenomena of any kind, and their

Figure 1. List of actions implicit in maps (adapted from Board, 1978)

92 The Cartographic Journal

correlations’. Joly adds that the distinctions between thesetwo major types of maps are based on their goals, map-making methods, and even the training and qualifications ofthe cartographer.

According to Robinson, topographic maps are a type oflarge-scale, general-purpose map that tend to pay closeattention to accuracy in the positional relationships betweenthe elements represented, that are usually produced bycartographical agencies and that are created in series thatsystematically cover the surface of a political demarcation.Thematic maps are often generated at smaller scales thantopographic maps and provide characteristics of a particulargeographical distribution. Finally, according to Robinson,navigational charts are a specific group of maps, whereasaccording to Joly, they are a special case of topographicmaps with the basic objective to enable nautical oraeronautical navigation. Thus, both its conception and itsimplementation are very different.

We may consider, based on the functions of o-maps, thatthey are not true topographic maps. However, it seems clearthat orienteering maps do not fit the definition of athematic map. Therefore, further analysis is required.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN O-MAPS AND NAUTICAL

CHARTS

Although the appearance of charts and o-maps is totallydifferent (Figure 2), we find many similarities between themin terms of goals, circumstances of use, methods andprocesses involved in their production, and criteria used inselecting the elements mapped. Figure 3 presents, in thesecond column, a list of cartographic topics for comparison.The other two columns illustrate these points with specificdetails.

The main similarities are summarized in the followingparagraphs.

Accurate geometric representation of the landscape elements that

influence navigation

In the case of charts, the main factor is bathymetry. Thus,coastal charts show undersea relief in a high degree of detail,explicitly expressing channels, dangerous paths or remains ofwreckage. To ensure safety, the origin of coordinates is notmean sea level but the level of low tide. Additionally, chartscan display the type of seabed (e.g., sand, mud, and coral).

O-maps are particularly careful with the representation ofelements that hinder runnability (i.e., relief and vegetation).Relief representation generally offers the same contourinterval for the entire map. However, o-maps often use formlines and special conventional signs. International rulesassign a pattern to each type of vegetation using accuratemethods. The origin of heights for o-maps is not relevantand is thus normally not expressed. The main interest is inrelative differences in elevation.

Choice of a particular representation system

Mercator projections are used in charts and, as conformalprojections, help users with a compass to determine uniformdirections. Mercator projections also include a compass roseand indicate the value of magnetic declination.

O-maps show, for the same reason, the magnetic meridian.Representing small and unconnected areas, o-maps usuallyinherit the projection system of their base map.

Representation of the key elements for navigation

Aeronautical and nautical charts include a set of specificnavigational aids that are not represented on topographicmaps such as buoys, beacons, headlights, and radar stations.

On o-maps, the most significant elements of the landscapethat are typically represented include rocks and boulders,cliffs, vegetation, and manmade features with a prominentpresence.

Figure 2. Although at first glance, o-maps and nautical charts are very different, conceptually they share many features

New insights into the concept of orienteering maps 93

Use of symbols and special graphic criteria

Both types of maps use their own symbol libraries andhave specific criteria for cartographic representation andgeneralisation.

Critical updates

For any nautical or aeronautical chart, maintenance andupdates are of vital importance and are critical for safenavigation.

For o-maps that are used for recreation and sport,updated information is not as critical from the standpoint ofsafety. However, updates ensure the reliability of a map.

Orienteering events usually take place in natural environ-ments (i.e., areas under less pressure from human transfor-mations), which comparatively reduces the need to updatecartographic information. However, because the potentialfor transformation of the natural environment is increasing,updates become increasingly necessary for this type ofcartographic work.

In any case, the concept of security during the use of o-maps is linked to the risk level in the decision-making ofrunners, whose criteria for action are based on map reading.

Map specialisation according to navigation system

Nautical charts have evolved, adapting advances in naviga-tion systems from traditional forms of sailing, radionavigation, and satellite navigation. Likewise, o-maps havebeen adapted for different specific types of land navigationsuch as biking, skiing, and horse riding.

No representation or maximum simplification in those areas where

navigation is not required

The representation of the Earth’s surface in charts is quitesimple. Only those areas that may be helpful or that act as avisual reference for navigation are represented.

O-maps show an enclosure area where events take place,and surrounding areas are not of interest and do not needto be represented.

Need for experts for production

Nautical charts require specialized surveying methods suchas astronomical methods, radio navigating systems, satel-lites, and determination of depths through probes orultrasound. These cartographic works involve a high degreeof specialisation. Similarly, map-making for orienteersrequires a deep knowledge of orienteering to know howto select and adapt spatial information to the needs of landnavigation.

Very specific and particular conditions of use

Both types of maps must solve two basic problems: locatinga user’s position on the map and deducing the directionand distance to another point. Due to unfavourable mapreading conditions such as motion during use, it ismandatory for the maps to be highly legible.

Therefore, from a conceptual point of view, we concludethat o-maps can be considered a particular type of chart thatare suitable for land navigation and adapted to their specificgeographical environment, usually forested areas.

Figure 3. Similarities between charts and orienteering maps

94 The Cartographic Journal

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WITH OTHER TYPES

OF MAPS

At this point, we analyse the differences between topo-graphic, thematic and orienteering maps to characterize andclarify the true meaning of o-maps (Figure 4). Thesedifferences are systematically explained in the followingparagraphs.

Metric accuracy

Topographic maps are generated from a capture process ofgeoinformation following strict accuracy controls. Inparticular, all cartographic steps are controlled based onerror propagation to ensure a maximum absolute position-ing error below the limit of visual perception. The relativelocation of relevant elements is the most important aspectof o-maps, and relative accuracy is only possible if theoverall accuracy is good.

Relief representation

Relief representation in orienteering maps is of greatimportance because relief seriously affects runnability.

Therefore, relief representation is much more detailed ono-maps than on topographic maps. Microtopography isobtained through rigorous fieldwork performed using a basemap. Recently, airborne laser scanning has improved therelief representation of o-maps (Ditz and Gartner, 2005;Gloor and Hohl, 2005). Accordingly, o-maps tend to useform lines and special symbols that allow the representationof microtopographic features (e.g., earth banks, earth walls,erosion gullies, knolls, depressions, pits, and brokenground).

However, unlike on topographic maps, no shadingtechnique is used to enhance relief representation, becausethe o-maps’ colour patterns display information aboutrunnability and visibility. Map reading could be difficult, ifshaded topographic representation was also added.

The aim of relief symbols is to show specific geomor-phologic or landscape details that are not relevant to thegeneral mapping. The work of compiling these altimetricdetails is the most time-consuming part of topographicsurveying.

Planimetric representation

To represents planimetric features, topographic maps, andorienteering maps do not follow the same criteria.Selection, classification, and generalisation of planimetricfeatures in orienteering maps depend on their use for landnavigation.

Therefore, the significance of an object is consideredfrom two points of view. On the one hand, it takes intoaccount visibility, including the degree to which a runnercan locate himself on a map or deduce the position of othertopographic elements. On the other hand, cartographicfeatures (e.g., open lands, impassable cliffs, watered areas,cultivated land, fences, stone walls, and crossing points) arevalued in mapping according to their ability to facilitate orhinder runnability.

Cartographic representation systems

O-maps are an accurate type of map containing manyplanimetric details with a main focus on the relativepositions between them. Relative accuracy is possible onlyif the overall general accuracy is good generally, which isinherit from the base map and is achieved by the definitionof the geodetic reference system and coordinate mappingsystem.

Mapping isolated areas and having no need to overlapwith other maps, this information is not too much relevantin o-map-making processes. From the user’s point of view,geodetic information is also insignificant because onlyinformation for navigational purposes is required.

However, it should be noted that rigorous georeferen-cing improves the o-map-making processes by allowingimmediate integration of data from several sources: air-borne laser scanning, high resolution images, remotesensing data, GPS surveys, and GIS data.

The criteria for thematic representation

You cannot categorize o-maps as thematic maps because o-maps do not use topographic maps as a framework forillustrating a topic and abstracting the most relevantinformation. O-maps use topographic maps to extract,adapt, and modify adequate spatial information for their

Figure 4. Mapping the same territory: o-map (a) and topographic map (b)

New insights into the concept of orienteering maps 95

purposes. O-maps omit items that are unimportant forcross-country navigation and include items that areirrelevant on topographical maps.

Unlike geological maps, o-maps do not use topographicmaps as a simple background onto which to add specificinformation. Neither o-map reduces the informationdisplayed at the same level as other thematic maps, suchas those made for urban planning.

Orienteering maps are usually read under unfavourableconditions while racing outdoors in the presence of wind,rain, and sun glare. Therefore, attempting to increaselegibility on o-maps is more critical than on topographicmaps. It is true that the legibility of topographic maps isvery important; however, users often read them for longerand under much more favourable viewing conditions.Hence, topographic maps add other detailed informationsuch as place names.

Sheet size and shape

Map sheet size and shape are other differences betweenorienteering and topographic maps. While sheet size isstandard for topographic maps, it varies to fit the surfaceshape represented on o-maps, which constitute individua-lized representations of isolated areas without overlayproblems to solve.

Standardisation

As referred to in the map-making process, topographicmaps consider systematic and objective criteria to guaranteeconsistency in surveys of large areas. Controls are rigorousto minimize standard deviation.

By contrast, o-map data acquisition is dependent onsubjective considerations and requires more cartographicinterpretation. Therefore, o-maps are more subjective. Thesame surface can be represented in different ways dependingon the cartographer responsible for acquiring and proces-sing information. The cartographer’s experience as anorienteer is key to successful orienteering map generation.This fact is noticeable due to the adoption of differentgrades of cartographic generalisation. For example,Scandinavian o-maps are usually highly readable becausethey show a high level of generalisation. Due to thecommon complexity of terrains, Scandinavian maps repre-sent only major details that are genuinely important. At theother extreme, Russian and Czech o-maps are usually verydetailed and incorporate so much information that maplegibility may be hindered. Due to the general lack offeatures in Central European terrains, mapmakers tend tounnecessarily map many small features.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that o-maps are different and special type ofmapping made necessary by experts in orienteering, not onlymapping professionals. O-maps are the result of interpretingthe landscape from a topographic map. Through a functionalanalysis and a comparison of differences and similaritiesbetween topographic maps, nautical charts, and o-maps, wereason that o-maps cannot be classified as a type of thematic

map. Nautical charts, which have a different appearance fromother maps, are more related to o-maps than thematic ortopographic maps. However, o-maps obey internationaldrawing standards unlike most other types of mapping thatonly have local cartographic standards. Due to the specificconditions of their production and use, o-maps call forspecific quality requirements focusing more on externalquality assessment than on absolute positional accuracyrequirements.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Angel Munoz-Nieto receiv-ed the received the BSdegree in geography fromUniversity of Salamanca,Spain, in 1986 and the BSdegree in surveying engi-neering from University ofExtremadura, Spain, in 1989and the PhD degree fromthe University of Salamanca,Avila, Spain, in 2008. Hehas been a Professor at

Salamanca University since 1991. He has authored morethan 10 research articles in international journals andconference proceedings. His teaching and research interestsare focused on orienteering maps, cartography, photogram-metry, laser scanning applied to engineering and architecture.

REFERENCES

Almeida, K. (1997). ‘Decision Making in Orienteering’, ScientificJournal of Orienteering, 13, pp. 54–64.

Board, C. (1978). ‘Map reading tasks appropriate in experimentalstudies in cartographic communication’, Canadian Cartographer,15, pp. 1–12.

Ditz, R. and Gartner, G. (2005). ‘Applying Laser Scanning as a basisfor deriving Orienteering Maps of Vienna’, in 22nd InternationalCartographic Conference, A Coruna, Spain, Jul 11–16.

Eccles, D. W., Walsh, S. E. and Ingledew, D. K. (2006). ‘Visualattention in orienteers at different levels of experience’, Journal ofSports Sciences, 24, pp. 77–87.

Fairbairn, D. (1990). ‘Orienteering mapping and higher education’,The Cartographic Journal, 27, pp. 128–131.

Gloor, T. and Hohl, T. (2005). ‘Representing the relief ofOrienteering maps with the aid of airborne laser scanning’, in11th International Conference on Orienteering Mapping,Toyota City, Japan, Aug 6.

Harvey, R. (1991). Mapmaking for Orienteers, British OrienteeringFederation, Doune, Perthshire.

International Orienteering Federation (2000). International Standardsof Orienteering Maps (ISOM), http://www.orienteering.org/index.php/iof2006/Rules-and-Guidelines/Mapping-Standards(accessed November 2010).

Joly, F. (1976). La cartographie, Presses universitaries de France,Paris.

McNeill, C., Cory-Wright, J. and Renfrew, T. (1998). TeachingOrienteering, Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, IL.

Munoz, A., Herrero, M. and Vidal, M. (2005). ‘Quality control inorienteering maps’, in 22nd International CartographicConference, A Coruna, Spain, Jul 11–16.

Munoz-Nieto, A. (2008). ‘Los mapas de orientacion: caracterizacion,analisis normativo y evaluacion de la calidad externa’, PhD thesis,University of Salamanca, Avila.

96 The Cartographic Journal

Ottosson, T. (1986). ‘Cognitive processes in orienteering: an outlineof a theoretical frame of reference and some preliminary data’,Scientific Journal of Orienteering, 2, pp. 75–101.

Petrie, G. (1977). ‘Orienteering Maps’, The Cartographic Journal,14, pp. 14–22.

Robinson, A., Morrison, J., Muehrcke, P., Kimerling, A. and Guptill, S.(1995). Elements of Cartography, John Willey & Sons, New York.

Seiler, R. (1996). ‘Cognitive processes in orienteering. A review’,Scientific Journal of Orienteering, 12, pp. 50–65.

Zentai, L. (2001). ‘Development of orienteering map’s standardiza-tion’, in 20th International Cartographic Conference, Beijing,China, Aug 6–10.

Zentai, L. (2009). ‘New technologies in making orienteering maps’,Scientific Journal of Orienteering, 17, pp. 56–64.

New insights into the concept of orienteering maps 97