Discussion: Symbol size on 1:7,500 maps

I'm in the process of drafting a map of a local park (forest map so using ISOM) using a 1:7,500 scale. At any scale greater or equal to 1:10,000, ISOM suggests that map symbols should be increased by 50% relative to the 1:15 size. So, I am scaling my symbols accordingly.

This has got me wondering what was done at COC's when they had maps being used at 1:7,500 and 1:10,000 scales in the same event.

1) Was the map drafted so that the symbols would be enlarged by 50% at 1:7,500 and then simply printed at 1:10,000 for the longer courses. This would yield 1:10,000 maps with symbols enlarged by 12.5% relative to the 1:15 ISOM standard.

2) Did they draft the map so that the 1:10,000 maps had no enlargement. If they printed those maps at 1:7,500, they'd be enlarged 33% relative to ISOM.

3) Or, did they draft the 1:7.5 and 1:10 maps separately, so that the symbol sets on both maps were enlarged 50% relative to ISOM. This would yield maps with significantly different "look" - the 1:10 maps would be more cluttered than the 1:7.5 maps.

Looking at my maps, the line thicknesses and feature sizes look closer to "1:15k" standard than "1:10" sizes (ISOM +50%), so I'm figuring they picked option 1. Does anyone know?

ISOM Section 3.4 states: "Where a map is enlarged to a scale of 1:10 000 or greater, all lines and symbols must be enlarged to 150%". I.e. you should not continue to enlarge symbols when you go to smaller and smaller scales.

For sure there was something a bit funky with the 1:10 000 Middle distance map at the COCs. When you look at some of the fences for example, you will notice that the symbol is so thin that it's hard to even see it.

Thanks for the pointer Magnus. My first test-print used 1:10k sized symbols, printed at 1:7,500 for a total enlargement of 100%. That definitely looked "clunky". Reducing the symbol size for an overall enlargement of 50% (at 1:7,500) looks a lot better.