Register | Login
Attackpoint - performance and training tools for orienteering athletes

Discussion: ISOM2017 - The Beginning

in: Orienteering; General

Apr 5, 2017 4:09 AM # 
gruver:
Its here like it or not. There will be stuff that we like and don't like, it was always thus. This is a thread for the particular issues of the change. I would hope for a list of the differences shortly, I hope that the IOF will produce one so that we don't have to. Perhaps a software supplier (OCAD, OOM?) will come up with new symbol sets. Symbol change untilities (extensive numbering changes). And so on. There will be numerous areas of disappointment and maybe delight, the popular ones will justify their own threads (eh Jim?)
Advertisement  
Apr 5, 2017 4:21 AM # 
JimBaker:
I'd be interested in a conversion utility in order to try my current mapping project on ISOM 2017, in part to see the effect of changing form line width and (I think?) dash lengths (though those alone I could do easily by hand).
Apr 5, 2017 4:37 AM # 
tRicky:
Alternatively you can just change the symbol dimensions in OCAD and save any effort whatsoever.
Apr 5, 2017 4:45 AM # 
cedarcreek:
...copying dbakker's IOF link from the other thread.
Apr 5, 2017 4:54 AM # 
TheInvisibleLog:
Still firmly in the 1:15,000 camp. All that has been removed is the claim that complex terrains unable to be legibly mapped at 1:15,000 are unsuitable for international orienteering. No mention that scale is the responsibility of the rules group. I imagine there was a will just to get it out there.
Apr 5, 2017 5:05 AM # 
JimBaker:
Changing the dimensions (and screen densities) for all symbols might be tedious (and error prone), and it would be better to change the symbol numbers to match the new spec, if any have changed. Ideally, something to flag up minimum separations would be nice. It could be done manually, but if a club decides to update all its maps (is that a good idea, or better to stick with two standards?), an organized way to do it would be helpful

Who uses OCAD? ;-)
Apr 5, 2017 5:06 AM # 
ShadowCaster:
I'm just happy to see so much emphasis put on legibility. The plague of "overmapping" needs attention. Some totally illegible maps (brown or black jumble-land) have really ruined my enjoyment of orienteering. I did have the privilege of running on the 1:15,000 Aguira da Beira (Portugal) map in March that demonstrated how it can be done.
Apr 5, 2017 5:07 AM # 
cedarcreek:
I am a little shocked at the scaling of overprint symbols. Was that discussed? I thought I was pretty current on the mega-thread.

"For larger map scales the symbols shall be enlarged proportionally (to 150% for 1:10000, to 300% for 1:5000). All overprint symbols shall be printed over the map content (transparently). They shall never mask out other map details."

I'm guessing it's a way to visually enforce rule 19.4, "Controls shall not be sited within 30 metres of each other (15 metres for map scales 1:5000 or 1:4000). (see also Appendix 2, #3.5.5).", but a 3mm radius circle at 1:15000 is 45m.

It's always made sense to me that a 3mm radius at 1:10000 is the IOF separation rule.

But 1:5000 with a 300% circle gives 18mm diameter or 9mm radius, which is still 45m, rather than the normal 6mm diameter circle which is 15m.

I guess I really need to see some maps with these enlarged symbols. I'm open to a little larger, especially for sprint high-speed visibility and legibility, but 300% seems ridiculous. Big circles on a sprint map often make it difficult to create a control description that meets the standards of your typical IOF Event Advisor. You end up with a lot of column A symbols. If you're very particular about your control descriptions, you can't use some locations because there are just so many items in that circle.

added later:

You're also probably going to need a circle with a focus point, because it's going to be so big. And the numbers are 300% as well? I'm going to go dig out the old US sprint finals maps that had big circles. Someone seriously needs to get some recent elite sprint files and show what this looks like.
Apr 5, 2017 5:08 AM # 
JimBaker:
I'm trying to make a point for my current map of avoiding over mapping. I hope this becomes a thing.
Apr 5, 2017 5:42 AM # 
paul:
My observations so far: >Minimum gaps of 0.15 (approx. contour width) seem reasonable to achieve better clarity. >No dark grey option for rock. >411 New Impassable dark green (polarising views - I like it but only for extreme situations to avoid confusion. >103 New thinner, longer dashed, but smaller gapped formlines - ok to me but I have found some situations where it can disappear and so I would have been happy if it stayed as was. >105-106 Thicker earth walls etc makes sense. >108 Closer dots on small ditch an improvement. >202 Slightly narrower passable cliff face - good. > 201-202 rounded or square cliff end optional - good. >208 Boulder field, slightly smaller shapes. >210-212 Stony ground dots slightly larger, various densities, surely there is also an individual stone for precise use? >213 Sandy ground, slightly smaller dot - good. >215 New trench - great addition. >302 shallow water body symbols - great. >304-306 all watercourse items thicker - good. >309 Narrow marsh, ever so slightly closer. >311 Water Tank new Square symbol - better than circle to avoid confusion, however in NZ we use the black circle for Tank and a blue circle for cattle drinking water trough. >313 New blue symbol. >402 Open land w scattered trees, can also add green into dots - good. >404 ditto, but there is an error where it states you can fill the white dots with either slow or walk in the text, however then it also states the dot colour can be 50% green... which one is correct? >407 slow running good vis - same as old one!!! >409 Walk good vis - almost same as old one but thickened line from 0.12 to 0.14 - IMO I think this is not dense enough to try and match the low vis green shading a bit more. >411 New Impassable green. >415 distinct cultivation boundary a little thinner - good. >416 slightly closer dots for black - good, plus a new optional green dashed symbol for very rocky maps etc - good. >417 Prominent tree slightly larger! > 419 Prominent Veg feature cross slightly larger! >501-502 All black lines bordering roads etc slightly narrower - good. >508 Narrow ride options, the line itself has shorter dashes and smaller gaps - good. >515 Impassable wall thicker - Good I think, not as thick as proposed ? >516-518 Fences shorter gap for tag position, larger gap on ruined fence, shorter tag - all good. >518 Impassable Fence thicker - Good IMO! >519 Fence crossing point - NO change - IMO this symbol is a little too large. >521-522 Buildings options to match ISSOM - Good. >529 Prominent Impassable line feature thicker - theory ok could be messy? >601 Black North line thinner - good. >3.7 Overprinting Symbols for course setting, slightly reduced size but then wording says they shall be enlarged proportionately to print scale of map - not sure this is very nice!! >708 OOB areas, now use old Dangerous cross hatching. They have gotten rid of old vertical lines. Not sure - cross hatch will look very overpowering on larger areas, but otherwise ok. Lines could have been a little thinner IMO. Probably a few more items but a brief summary of what I can see.
Apr 5, 2017 6:41 AM # 
Pink Socks:
[Paul's post was one giant paragraph that was very, very difficult to read, so I copied it and added line breaks.]

My observations so far:

>Minimum gaps of 0.15 (approx. contour width) seem reasonable to achieve better clarity.

>No dark grey option for rock. >411 New Impassable dark green (polarising views - I like it but only for extreme situations to avoid confusion.

>103 New thinner, longer dashed, but smaller gapped formlines - ok to me but I have found some situations where it can disappear and so I would have been happy if it stayed as was.

>105-106 Thicker earth walls etc makes sense.

>108 Closer dots on small ditch an improvement.

>202 Slightly narrower passable cliff face - good.

> 201-202 rounded or square cliff end optional - good.

>208 Boulder field, slightly smaller shapes.

>210-212 Stony ground dots slightly larger, various densities, surely there is also an individual stone for precise use?

>213 Sandy ground, slightly smaller dot - good.

>215 New trench - great addition.

>302 shallow water body symbols - great.

>304-306 all watercourse items thicker - good.

>309 Narrow marsh, ever so slightly closer.

>311 Water Tank new Square symbol - better than circle to avoid confusion, however in NZ we use the black circle for Tank and a blue circle for cattle drinking water trough.

>313 New blue symbol.

>402 Open land w scattered trees, can also add green into dots - good.

>404 ditto, but there is an error where it states you can fill the white dots with either slow or walk in the text, however then it also states the dot colour can be 50% green... which one is correct?

>407 slow running good vis - same as old one!!!

>409 Walk good vis - almost same as old one but thickened line from 0.12 to 0.14 - IMO I think this is not dense enough to try and match the low vis green shading a bit more.

>411 New Impassable green.

>415 distinct cultivation boundary a little thinner - good.

>416 slightly closer dots for black - good, plus a new optional green dashed symbol for very rocky maps etc - good.

>417 Prominent tree slightly larger!

> 419 Prominent Veg feature cross slightly larger!

>501-502 All black lines bordering roads etc slightly narrower - good.

>508 Narrow ride options, the line itself has shorter dashes and smaller gaps - good.

>515 Impassable wall thicker - Good I think, not as thick as proposed ?

>516-518 Fences shorter gap for tag position, larger gap on ruined fence, shorter tag - all good.

>518 Impassable Fence thicker - Good IMO!

>519 Fence crossing point - NO change - IMO this symbol is a little too large.

>521-522 Buildings options to match ISSOM - Good.

>529 Prominent Impassable line feature thicker - theory ok could be messy?

>601 Black North line thinner - good.

>3.7 Overprinting Symbols for course setting, slightly reduced size but then wording says they shall be enlarged proportionately to print scale of map - not sure this is very nice!!

>708 OOB areas, now use old Dangerous cross hatching. They have gotten rid of old vertical lines. Not sure - cross hatch will look very overpowering on larger areas, but otherwise ok. Lines could have been a little thinner IMO. Probably a few more items but a brief summary of what I can see.
Apr 5, 2017 6:54 AM # 
Jagge:
>208 Boulder field, slightly smaller shapes.

Depends on how you interpret the old standard. it states 0.5 - 1.0 mm. So if 0.5 mm was allowed as minimum long side then this shape becomes quite a bit bigger.

> You end up with a lot of column A symbols. If you're very particular about your control descriptions, you can't use some locations because there are just so many items in that circle.

if 1:15 000 map is just enlarged as it is for old folks, I can see how magically any new features can appear to map that did not exists in the 1:15 000 map making control descriptions any different from 1:15000 version of the descriptions.
Apr 5, 2017 7:23 AM # 
graeme:
I liked the touching boulders on the cover.
IMO every change they made is good, and it's nice to see some clarification on things like whether you can cross a forbidden route.
The commentary about uncrossable features is priceless!
"a feature that is mapped using a barrier symbol could turn out to be passable/ crossable, but to what extent it is possible to pass/ cross cannot be determined by inspecting the map"
Apr 5, 2017 8:04 AM # 
Jagge:
I agree with graeme.

Olive green "settlement" is now "area that shall not be entered" and there is nice illustration how it shall be discontinued where a path or track goes through. In ISOM2000 olive green was not forbidden, so at least some forbidden features made trough. But hardly anyone disagrees with these olive green changes(?).

Instead of implementing forbidden features they have tried to improve tools for showing OOB. Olive green, purple hatch, forbidden route. I believe these changes will not satisfy those who hoped to have those forbidden features, but at least tools should be slightly better tools now.

519 Crossing point illustration image has a fence with wrong line width. Its too thick, most likely that fence was thicker in draft and they forgot to thin the fence in the crossing point illustration.

Time will tell is form line too now thin or not. It may be fine with ossset, but I belive it possibly needs to be made thicker with some printers to make it not disappear. But I think Terje knows it far better, lets wait for his comments.
Apr 5, 2017 7:17 PM # 
EricW:
Thanks to paul for the summary, and thanks to Pink Socks for the editing.
Apr 5, 2017 11:31 PM # 
paul:
Yes thanks Pink Socks, now I can read it too.
Missed noting the new Railway line symbol which is a huge improvement and the Olive green mentioned above by Jagge, which I agree offers better tools and is aligned to ISSOM for better consistency. Less purple/magenta/violet or whatever it's called these days the better so that the course stands out, as well as any special crossing point options etc.
Apr 5, 2017 11:50 PM # 
gruver:
Won't affect us if we adopt compliant symbol sets, but there's more clarity about whether dimensions (eg circles) are outside or centreline measurements. Think I spotted some ambiguity about (eg cliff) tags as to where the measurement starts. There's been attention to "must" "should" and "may".

Perhaps its been there all the time but the words about legibility at running speed are very good. I think we should all read the spec from cover to cover once a year. No make that "must"...
Apr 6, 2017 1:33 AM # 
tRicky:
Your comment doesn't cut the mustard.
Apr 6, 2017 3:00 AM # 
TheInvisibleLog:
The really big issue isn't addressed. That's the issue that elicited the most criticism from a number of national associations. Scale. Its an issue that won't go away. Our event advisers are put in a very difficult situation by the popularity and value of a number of highly detailed maps. The detail isn't a result of the much touted "under-generalisation". Its the nature of the terrain. This problem arose in the lead up to the recent Australian National League event at Pittwater Dunes. This is our only significant dune map, and it was the obvious choice for the lead up to the Oceania carnival on NZ dune terrain. Is it readable at 1:10,000. Is it readable at 1:10000 using CMYK printing? Same issue arose for the Oceania carnival on Rowdy Flat. The IOF event adviser and the setter disagreed on the scale. The issue was resolved by the setter making a unilateral decision. The new ISOM doesn't give event advisers any leeway in this situation.
Apr 6, 2017 5:23 AM # 
kofols:
"The new ISOM doesn't give event advisers any leeway in this situation."
It is expected that FOC will prepare a rule or guidance. Let's wait. Im also thinking that this should be resolved.
Apr 6, 2017 5:42 AM # 
gruver:
See alt thread for significant disappointments. Back on making the most of the new spec, mappers might benefit from some practice in changing the symbols and colours of a map using a CRT file. Or are there other ways of dealing with wholesale numbering changes?
Apr 6, 2017 6:09 AM # 
cedarcreek:
With the new standard's mention of 1:5000 maps, I had forgotten elite sprint maps use a different standard, ISSOM, and would continue to use the appropriate-sized circles from that standard. (I just checked---it's 6mm.)

So I'm changing my theory. The 300% circle at 1:5000 is just another example of the 1:15000 scale bias of the mapping committee.
Apr 6, 2017 12:24 PM # 
graeme:
The really big issue isn't addressed.
Yes it is..
The base scale for an orienteering map is 1:15000.
Generalisation shall follow the requirements for the scale 1:15000
...(For other scale) all lines, symbols and screens shall be enlarged proportionally.
...The minimum gap shall be 0.15mm.


Notice "shall", meaning compulsory. They had the option of saying "should" meaning you need a good reason to do anything else. So it has been considered and addressed. Just not in the way we would have liked.
Apr 6, 2017 6:56 PM # 
Zerbembasqwibo:
TheInvisibleLog> I really disagree.

How could you explain that the exact same terrain is possible to map in skale 1:10 000, 1:100 000 or a globe?

Of course the terrain is almost neverending complicated and full of details down to quantum or even smaller. But the scale and level of generalisation must cooperate.

But your point that lots of pppl want less detailed = bigger scale maps is totally true! I guess this question will end up in 1:10 000 as base scale in next norm, lets say within 7 years.

The very exciting question is also: will we end up in 1:7500 in 15-20 years, and is there a limit??

It must be possible to reach a limit, as far as we have same running speed.
Apr 6, 2017 7:26 PM # 
kofols:
In the past MC was the 100% guard of the scale. FOC and RC probably will not have such power as the MC. We need a clear rule what is allowed for which discipline and type/level of races.

I think if we get a too general rule this will leave too much room to council members and commissions to make decision case by case. This is an old practice.

What could go wrong if we get a clear rule and a list of races/map and insight into decisions made by whoever will be in charge to make these decisions. So we all know the reasons why the exception for WRE, WC, WOC, WG, etc was rejected/allowed and who made it. For the past races we don't have any such list but there where plenty of exceptions under ISOM 2000 made by same MC.

So who will be really responsible for decision making process if let's WRE organizer want to ask for exception? Should we wait for the rule 1 month or 1 year or how long after the council decision was made and ISOM 2017 is out?
Apr 6, 2017 7:27 PM # 
JimBaker:
There are two very different reasons for wanting later scale maps. One is to accommodate older eyes, or poorer printing such as inkjet. But another is the allow mapping terrain like the detailed limestone section of Flock Hill west of Christchurch, New Zealand. In some places pushes could be only a few meters apart. That isn't possible to map with ISOM at 1:15,000 (nor 1:15,000 photographically enlarged). But it was a tremendously fun area to orienteer.

The IOF's map committee took it as part of its charter to decide what is and isn't orienteering terrain, and what is and isn't orienteering.

But this isn't the first time that the restrictive definition of orienteering and scale has been challenged. When some international elite orienteers decided that orienteering wasn't being well promoted, they created the Park World Tour, a series of events in city centers on decidedly not traditional orienteering terrain, mapped at non traditional scales and even (I recall) symbology. The tremendous success of this caused IOF to reconsider, and eventually offer ISSOM and Sprint format.

Rather than sit in committee meetings in which the powers that be consider their mission to tell you no, and waste your time pretending to listen, consider and adapt (but not really) as a way to wear you out, the proven answer is to promote your own answers by doing. If successful, the powers that be will then follow.
Apr 7, 2017 12:14 AM # 
gruver:
I found a draft symbol set that Gian-Reto Schaad of OCAD sent me last month. So OCAD is working on it. Their colour numbers are going to change again, and for this we can't blame the MC. Maybe things should be soooo different from past symbol sets so that there's noooo possibility of hidden problems.

With the change ISOM1990->2000 the green cross became a circle and a circle a cross, or something like that. I'm also giving some thought to the numbering of my regular symbol variations (fence with no tags for stockyards for example) and my cartographer-only symbols (GPS lines and waypoints, unverified lines traced off photos, etc etc.) The number changes force a complete re-think. I once thought that some coordination here would be worthwhile, but then my collaborator went her own way and I've given up:-)
Apr 7, 2017 12:56 AM # 
Hammer:
Apr 7, 2017 5:07 AM # 
Jagge:
JimBaker, I'd say that Flock Hill area could quite easily be mapped and used at 1:15 000 scale. And make it legible too. All you need is to generalize. And it would became usable, fair and fun. There is areas for sure the can't be mapped at 1:15 000 but I believe that is not one of them.

To me Flock Hill is a good example of area that could benefit from getting mapped in two scales with two entirely different generalization level. 1:5000..7500 for sprint/middle and 1:15 00 for long/classic. More use for the same area, just different navigation challenges and character.

Claiming areas like that can't be mapped at 1:15000 scale and saying that is reason for allowing other base scales than 1:15 000 will not take us anywhere simply because that's not true. It might be much more fruitful to agree 1:15 000 and generalization is possible and fine, but also claiming there is new parallel world out there there for orienteering if we map same areas _also_ to a larger scale with an entirely different generalization level. And that it would provide more use for those areas we have access to, spread orienteering, make it more accessible, make it possible to do O in places O has not been before and so on - what ever general goals IOF has. Good accessible O terrains does not grow on trees. And as a side effect it would also make it possible to map and use also those very rare areas that are genuinely not usable at 1:15 000 (and not only considered by some orienteers to be less fun if generalized all the way to 1:15000 scale).
Apr 7, 2017 7:48 AM # 
Cristina:
+10 Jagge
Apr 7, 2017 11:18 AM # 
jjcote:
Good accessible O terrains does not grow on trees

A very curious use of this expression.
Apr 7, 2017 2:41 PM # 
cedarcreek:
But very well said.
Apr 7, 2017 4:15 PM # 
JimBaker:
Flock Hill as a whole could be mapped at 1:15,000, but the interesting limestone detail would just become one big black blob I think (it's been 16 years since I was there), and you'd be left with a hilly sheep pasture with few features. The limestone area can't be mapped at 1:15,000 in the sense of making it useful for orienteering. It'd simply be a "go-around" zone mapped as a single rock pillar or as dense boulder field or something. But I think we're dancing on the head of a pin. Flock Hill at 1:15,000 is a very different thing. The MC is saying that the detailed map of the limestone must be kept at a large remove from ISOM, and is not proper orienteering terrain or orienteering. (To be honest, this seems a bit arrogant and gratuitous of them, and outside their remit of defining a specification. "This isn't valid orienteering (terrain)" is something that should come from a wider community, if at all, not just the group focused on maps.)

I suspect that the only solution to
Apr 7, 2017 8:37 PM # 
TheInvisibleLog:
Then can someone explain why sprint terrain is not mapped at 1:15,000. Or why one is given a choice between 1:4,000 and 1:5,000. Surely you can generalise that terrain as well?
Apr 8, 2017 3:44 AM # 
JimBaker:
Because the Park World Tour side-stepped the IOF, ignoring all the "everything must be so, everything must be 1:15,000" and created an exciting navigational event that wasn't ISOM, wasn't IOF-blessed, and wasn't defined by IOF rules, but managed to get a lot of publicity and a following. The IOF saw this, and decided to follow, renaming it Sprint. (It wasn't because the IOF came up with a new idea, or listened to someone's idea.) But surprisingly it didn't change their "1:15,000 generalization is the only valid orienteering" thesis beyond that one exception of Sprint.
Apr 9, 2017 12:17 AM # 
TheInvisibleLog:
> The very exciting question is also: will we end up in 1:7500 in 15-20 years, and is there a limit??
Its not such an exciting question really. We already have world championships running on 1:4k maps. Competitors run faster on these maps than on 1:15k maps, and generally manage to navigate effectively... except when they aren't legible, such as stairs or passages are drawn too small.
Apr 9, 2017 10:27 AM # 
tRicky:
We already have world championships running on 1:4k maps. Competitors run faster on these maps than on 1:15k maps

That's because there isn't typically a lot of bush in the way.
Apr 9, 2017 12:41 PM # 
Terje Mathisen:
I do think that the new ISOM will turn out to a very welcome improvement on the old, even if some/many of us haven't gotten exactly what we wanted/asked for in the national comments. :-)

To me there are two remaining key issues:

a) Scaling 1:15K maps to 1:10K by default, in order to make the maps readable at full competition speed even when printed on a CMYK Laser. I.e. this is in order to make all lines and symbols so much larger that currently available, reasonably affordable laser printers can faithfully reproduce sharp lines of the required thickness and Pantone color value. Since all relative dimensions stay exactly the same, this has (at least in theory!) nothing to do with mapping extremely complex terrain, like limestone/karst rock pillars.

b) Allowing scale changes _without_ symbol scaling in order to have room on the map for arbitrarily complex, critical features.

The second one is the real cliff in front of us, it corresponds very closely to what happened when we went from 1:25K to 1:20K and then to 1:15K, i.e. we kept more or less the same symbols, but increased the scale so that there was room for more of them.

When we are allowed to create (say) a 1:12500 map with 1:15K symbol sizes, and use that for WRE/championship races, then we will in fact be able to map more complicated terrain than today, while still allowing racers to read it at speed.

BTW, I have checked some old 1:20K maps, and some/many of them seems to have used 0.10 mm contour lines instead of the ISOM 2000 0.14 mm standard. This explains why those maps seem a lot whiter than new maps of the same area.

Please login to add a message.