Rootstocks?
-
Topic created by EricW on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 7:08 pmRootstocks are an optional feature on orienteering maps. In some parts of the world and North America they have been mapped by tradition, other places, not.
For the last ~30 years virtually all DVOA maps have shown rootstocks.
I would like to find out how people feel about the presence of rootstocks on DVOA orienteering maps.
I do not want to discuss the wisdom of mapping or not mapping rootstocks, nor related course setting or policy issues, nor global warming, in this forum.
I am simply looking for feedback on how useful or unuseful rootstocks are to your own orienteering experience. -
Reply by BRycharski on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 8:02 pmHi Eric, I like Large rootstocks as a "course setter", when they land in a open forest with no other nearby features they are very useful. As we see from recent Hurricane Sandy, maps - gain massive a new rootock supply when the wind blows them down in large numbers. Quail Hill will need to I estimate gain 30-50?? new large rootstocks (less those chopped up by Ranger there for firewood) if the QH map is refield-checked in a few years. The trick is to add them (newbies, by the previous years CS measurements) and to also remember after 4-5 years to "delete" them (of Quail 2008/9 rootstocks, 3-4 have moldered into mere logs). But there in lies a problem, massive storms make rootstocks galore, instantly making rootstocks a CS issue (and a runner a dilemma or 2) or the humble Carpender ant eats them to sawdust. I think the trick is to only map the largest of the rootstocks (5-6 feet tall at the root and diameter very large (> 18 inches diameter when new). Hope you make it to Silas where a real logjam of rootstocks will be identified on a normally clear trail (now impassable with out climbing gear). Enjoy.
-
Reply by WindWalker on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 8:12 pmI personally find them unreliable and usually don't give them much thought. Unless the control is at one.
My 2 cents worth.
Mike -
Reply by rgbortz on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 8:45 pmI find rootstocks, whether utilized for control locations or not, to be useful in clicking off position as I move through the forest. I can conjecture if the particular rootstock I am looking at existed when the map was made or is newer than that. I would say they are as important as any indescript pit or depression.
-
Reply by furlong47 on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 10:06 pmUnless they are massive and distinct, and the map is fairly recent, I find them pretty useless. There are almost always additional new ones around (and sometimes you can't tell which are new and which are the older mapped ones.) After a few years, the smaller ones have disintegrated and now you have mapped features that don't exist.
One exception is when there are multiple rootstocks with large trunks in a certain area and they could possibly impede movement. Then I like to see them mapped along with the line showing the direction of the trunks. -
Reply by Len on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 7:38 amI like them when they are current - like the NAOC maps (we even reran a course there last weekend and were still able to identify the mapped root stocks from the ocasional new one). Sometimes they are the only feature that stands out. But I also have feelings as Mike mentioned, sometimes I just don't trust them. Is it and old map with a few rootstock updates, or it this rootstock no longet there?
I am also new to this and am still working on my map interpritation skills. But I will stay I rely on them more than the green shaded areas. A root stock would seem to be around longer than a light green turning to dark green.
I also agree that only the larger ones be mapped, kind of like rocks. The more there are the less you identify the small individual ones. -
Reply by Trazy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 6:30 pmI like the rootstocks sometimes used as a part of the course. Sometimes it helped me get my bearings. Sometimes they did not, especially when they have distinquished while using an older map. Some of those rootstocks are incredibly interesting to see while running the courses.
-
Reply by johncampbell on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 8:51 pmI use rootstocks as a navigational aide. In some woods they are often the only feature to assist navigatation. The downside is that their lifecycle is limited and depending on the weather more are added with each storm, which can then make them inconsistent. Once one is used to having rootstocks on maps and know that they are constantly eroding, one of the things I do is note when the map was last field-checked. That way one can determine how reliable the rootstocks are likely to be as a navigational tool.
-
Reply by markwalsh on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 11:28 amDepends on terrain....basically I ignore them especially in really busy maps. ...but then again I'm not map reading technician....... If a control is on one...... then the control is usually very easy to find unless post storm or very old map.
I did learn some useful things reading this post that should help me in the future though. -
Reply by edscott on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 12:44 pmI use them as necessary. In bland terrain where there is little else to use, I'll use them. In most cases I depend on more permanent features.
-
Reply by Dasha on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 8:43 pm
I am always tempted to use them, but I have to say it never did me much good.
-
Reply by o-maps on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:13 pmI love them. I like that they add a challenge relating to changes over time, which few other features do as clearly. I use them in bland terrain and have often used them as control locations, espacially where few ideal features are available.I also appreciate that they force me to keep in mind the age of the map and work as a reminder of the changing nature of the environment.
-
Reply by Steve on Sun Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 pmWhere does this logic stop? Yes, it is true that rootstocks age, but so do dot knolls. If we stop mapping those two items, how about trails, which have been kown to appear over night, and disappear in a single spring? It seems to me we had an event a few years back at Fort Washington with a flag on the corner of an invisible building (The park had torn down a restroom), and at Fatlands an entire housing development appearred. (Star Village has the same issue right now)
If we were to stop mapping items that change over time, we will be running on black and white topo's in no time. Although some of our more experienced purists may like that idea, recruiting new blood would become impossible. My two cents is to keep the rootstocks.
