As usual there will be surprises, misinterpretations, conversion issues, work-arounds, etc, and this community has been helpful to tease these out. So I start this topic for the purpose. A similar thread has diverted into ISOM scales.
Can I postulate that this is not so much a SPRINT spec but an URBAN spec. How do you suppose it will work in forest or rural open land? While we use a lot of schools and campuses, we've had some wonderful rural sprints - apart from the legibility.
I've always had trouble seeing the brown path symbols on a rough open background, and the new spec doesn't let me use a darker brown infill any more. It is reserved for traffic. At least the small black dashed track has been increased in size, maybe it was an error before.
Yeah I've always had difficulties differentiating between rough open and the lighter paved symbol too, even on the screen.
I completely agree with gruver's URBAN / SPRINT distinction, and the brown path symbols have always been the most problematic symbol in non urban settings.
Why can't the traditional black path symbols be an option, other than MC's campaign to eradicate that word.
Oh, I know, because that would involve mapper's judgement, and the use of eyes in the terrain and on paper, which would not produce a quantifiable violation.
Well there IS a reason not to use black dashed lines in the urban situation, where we use thick black lines to represent barriers. But that doesn't generally apply in rural areas. I have been using the small black dashed track at 150% of ISOM size, and I have been using the larger black dashed track too (also at 150% of its ISOM size). The former has now been legitimised, any support for the latter?
For larger tracks (large enough to think of as having edges) the brown infill track symbol would be OK subject to the sideline thickness and darkness of the brown. The changes document says we mappers have trouble determining what is urban and rural. Is that enough reason to make the symbol invisible in the countryside?
I like the way that the passable wall has been defined as a TWO-SIDED thing, by separately defining a one-sided wall. Plus they are black, the gray ones were often invisible as well as being ambiguous.
What do APers think about the smaller threshold for knolls and depressions, and the absence of a minimum for boulders? I have been used to applying the same minimum on sprint maps as for ISOM.
I'd always had issues whether to map a retaining wall as a wall or a cliff. Now I know.
I really like that the wall is defined as two sided (i.e. its something you know can see as you approach). And I'm pleased they ditched the grey wall which too up lots of space while still being invisible.
In practice, I doubt it will be possible to see the difference between the wall and one-sided retaining wall symbol.
The spec has gone silent on uncrossable retaining walls. I picked up an injury and a DQ falling off one once, since when I always mapped them as cliffs with tags. That was technically wrong in ISSOM, but maybe it isn't wrong any more?
"What do APers think about the smaller threshold for knolls and depressions, and the absence of a minimum for boulders? I have been used to applying the same minimum on sprint maps as for ISOM."
I have been waiting for others to take up gruver's query on this worthy topic, in part because I don't claim any expertise on sprint/urban map standards.
From an ISOM, or general mapping perspective, I believe context is everything, from the regional setting down to the immediate surroundings of a feature.
Sure, for a nice round number, the 1.0m min for boulders is a good place to start, but I've always believed this could / should vary up to ~50% in both directions, and I sense that most mappers and users understand this, although not necessarily active AP debaters, nor regulators.
I found reassurance for this on the last WOC maps I've been on (Trondheim Norway 2010) where I noted many 0.6m boulders on the maps in appropriate places (at least from my perspective) where the visibility was good, and there weren't other features competing for attention, and the boulders were clean, not camouflaged with moss, or high ground cover.
Boulders are probably the best case for a generally lower standard, because the symbol is the most compact on the map, and the feature is an "up" feature, usually highly contrasting in the terrain, and unlikely to move :-) .
U depressions and V pits are a little tougher to justify, being "down" features and also occupying much more map space relative to their visual impact.
Urban contexts usually provide exceptional visibility, justifying lower standards, but often with more competing features nearby.
Yes, when mapping, I usually have a metric number in my head, as a helpful guideline. Nevertheless, the main question is not what a feature measures, but how does it strike honest eyes in the terrain and on paper, relative to other features, mapped and unmapped.
Map specs are a bit like legislation. The legislature passes the law, and then the courts interpret that law.
The problem with that analogy is that our legislature and courts are often (usually?) the same entity, and sometimes the same individual.
I accept the fact that we don't have a democracy, nor proper separation of powers, but I do expect our system to be a benevolent form of governance, with some checks and balances, that prioritizes the activity on the ground, not the self importance of the bureaucrats.
I can't claim to be central to the IOF, MC, and SEA activity, and I probably don't hear about the well functioning situations, but almost everything I hear sounds like headbutting dysfunction, authoritarian will enforcing the nth degree of the spec vs reasonable requests for modifications from the people doing the work.
Eric thank you for your views, and also the elegance of your writing.
I don't have the pessimism about our institutions that you and Log express - isn't there a new convenor of the MC? But more importantly I hope this thread can return to questions of "how do we do this?" and "is that what the authors intended?"
I welcome the 5m contour interval (as it makes what I was doing legitimate:-)) Round here the terrain is either steep or flat valley floor (where a contour line is meaningless). The public reserves which form the majority of our close to home orienteering are, guess what? The land that was too steep for farming in the early days, or too steep for urban development in recent times. The ownership system here does not allow orienteering through people's' back yards, as I read in another thread.
I am not pessimistic. I think I am realistic. No matter how much good work is put into a specification, the use of the specification will bring to the fore issues such as are being raised in other on-line forums. Recognising this is not a criticism of the work done by the MC. I just wonder if the process of developing the specification should have included time for the development of maps in different terrains as was done with the previous spec. I think that approach might be less difficult than the working document approach being used for this spec. In making my legal analogy I was in the main referring to the perception of judges as being on a spectrum from black-letter law judges to interpretative judges. I can see a similar range of application of the spec in mappers. I do have concerns about both specs, but I am taking a black letter law approach (stronger than the MC) to implementation of the spec as a tool to test the spec for our terrains.
The ownership system here does not allow orienteering through people's' back yards
Quite unfortunate if you own your back yard but still can't give permission for orienteering.
I didn't mean that Jagge. I can give permission if I choose.
What I meant was that there's no "freedom to roam" here. That means no presumption of access, a lot of owners to ask in the urban areas I was thinking of, and such a low "yes" rate that it's not usually worth asking. Fences are the norm, often high ones. If you landed from a space-ship, you would think, "don't these people LIKE each other?"
Our "freedom to roam" does not give us permission to arrange any orienteering events or access back yards. Just hike alone in forest with no buildings nearby.
Around here public land/parks are too "open" for sprints, no complex route choices. So private land is needed, that means plenty of land owners needs to be asked, I know a case where was hundreds. Huge job, sometimes insane, forest races are a lot easier to arrange, often just couple of dozen land owners. Like you wrote yes rate is crucial, that yes rate may sink if map fail to show OOB clear enough.
Please login to add a message.