Discussion: Draft map standards

First draft of ISOM201X are worth a look:

http://www.orientering.no/SiteCollectionDocuments/...

Lots of interesting ideas in there.
One thing that stands out to me is that it is making ISOM much closer to ISSOM, and including language about being forbidden to cross uncrossable features.

Impassable.

I like that they are explicitly showing the frowny face mapping choices.

Thoughts:

-like that they shrink the X and cairn symbols.

-wish they would consider shrinking the boulder cluster symbol.

-why introduce a new blue water square? Use a blue asterisk or triangle like you did for black features... Make 'em all the same.

-Rounded ends for impassible cliffs, is that gonna work with showing gaps? (Maybe help with that?)

-New trench/gully symbol definition seems too euro focused for my taste. We've got plenty of naturally occurring gullies out here that would meet the euro definition for trench (deeper than they are wide), but are not man-made.

-Too many shades of green!!! I'd argue to take dark green off of ISSOM, please don't add it to ISOM.

- Prefer F518.1 for tunnel. Text needs clarification (my reading is that footbridge is distinct from bridge, and you don't have to be able to pass under the footbridge - but it is not clear as written)

-I guess it makes sense to add grey building pass-throughs to ISOM. People were using it anyway.

Rounded ends for impassible cliffs, is that gonna work with showing gaps? (Maybe help with that?)

In that situation I would assume using the area symbol would give you more ability to show narrow gaps. The rounded ends are more for isolated cliffs - reading the text, it's to reflect that cliffs rarely have exact ends....which seems a bit finicky IMO, but ISOM is pretty much the definition of finicky.

I agree with the green comment. I am forever getting caught out by the two darker shades of green in sprint maps and always think I cannot cross whereas in reality it's usually not the darker one that is used!

Also why add new symbols for man-made and water features? Doesn't the cross and the circle cover everything? What would you map as a triangle, square or, heaven forbid, an asterisk?

I probably should have included a link to the intro from the map committee:

http://www.orientering.no/SiteCollectionDocuments/...

For dry ditch, the minimum says "two dots", but the smiley face example shows three, and the frowny face shows two. It looks to me they mean the minimum is three dots.

@ blegg: by definition a boulder cluster should be at least twice the size of a boulder, which it is (0.8 vs 0.4). Why would you want them smaller? The 0.8 triangle symbol takes up quite a lot less space than 2 or 3 dots of 0.4 plus the obligatory 0.1 minimum gap.

@ tRicky: if the mapping is accurate I can't see why you would be caught out, because why would you want to cross either of the two darkest shades of green in a sprint event? Whether it is zero runnability or zero to 20%, running around seems like a clear-cut route choice to me. (Unfortunately, areas of better than 50% runnability sometimes get mapped as 410.)

Since the proposal is to introduce 'not to be crossed' features to events other than sprint, then I can see the logic of the very dark green (421). However, I think the wording should indicate that it should not be used for gardens unless they really do consist of impassable vegetation.

"if the mapping is accurate"

Simmo, there was an area at the Adelaide NOL earlier this year that was passable (in places, it wasn't very wide) but all mapped as dark green and whilst running, it looked like 'impassable green' but closer inspection later revealed it to be the other one. This would have saved some time going through. I am too much focussed on 'not breaking the OOB rules' these days to spot the distinction.

Plus us young folk are more inclined to bash our way through stuff than M65s are :-)

Wisdom comes with age, tRicky.

But here are some questions:
Is there a way to download this 133 page document?
Has there been an estimate of how much work there will be to amend the default symbols in OCADs 8 to 11?

Depending on your platform, eg. Win 7, right click, Save Target As...

We had an epic discussion about the ISOM v. ISSOM crossable/uncrossable passable/impassable thing a year or two ago. I can't believe they're proposing to make regular orienteering match the sprint rules. It's unworkable enough in sprint. In the woods it is unworkable beyond comprehension.

(1) If I cross something that is mapped as uncrossable, I just proved the map wrong. If the map is wrong, then why should I be penalized for it?

(2) Say you've got a perfect map. Okay. Now say it rains really hard. Streams become uncrossable. Now your map is wrong. Or the example from the COCs: Marshes and Lakes are mapped as uncrossable. But it's autumn, and it's really dry, and those features are actually reasonable routes.

(3) Say your strategy on the long leg is to put the map away and run on the compass for a while. If you cross something that is mapped as uncrossable, you're disqualified. It is simply ludicrous to consider the map as having precedence over the actual terrain in the unwatched wilderness as opposed to a sprint.

I would not object to a specific set of symbols (in general, non-natural items like tall fences) being uncrossable by rule, but that distinction currently exists in the ISOM for cultivated land (symbol 415), which is for land "seasonally out-of-bounds." (If it is out-of-bounds, I expect to see overprint markings, but I may be wrong about that.)

Honestly, my preference would be that the runner can go anywhere on the map except the smallest possible subset of symbols, and that the primary way to show an "arbitrary" distinction is with overprint.

Trying to think of examples brings me to one of my pet peeves: A hard-to-see uncrossable fence on an ISOM map. Not surrounding a ball field or somewhere "expected", but literally in the middle of the woods. And the opening isn't on the line. Let's say there are two openings, so it's not possible to bend the line and add a crossing point---the point of the leg is (1) to recognize the obstacle is the tall fence, and (2) to pick the best route around it. Is it okay to just let the uncrossable fence stand on its own as a symbol? Or is it expected that a magenta line be added (1) to add visibility, and (2) to prevent M21s (et al) from climbing over it?

I really am not trying to re-open that earlier discussion. Are there really people on the other side of it---in favor of making ISOM match the sprint rule? It seems like the Map Commission is on that side of it, but I'm not sure why. The only place I can honestly see that it might make sense is at a WOC, or other very highly controlled event. But those events tend to have the very best maps, and the runners are least likely to find a benefit on an impassable route. For normal events, the map is what it is, and seasonal variations must be accommodated. Making ISOM match ISSOM is the wrong way to do that.

New trench/gully symbol definition seems too euro focused for my taste. We've got plenty of naturally occurring gullies out here that would meet the euro definition for trench (deeper than they are wide), but are not man-made.

The key to the real reason for this new symbol is the comment at the bottom:

Deep and narrow trenches are not uncommon in places where there has been military activity (many places in Europe). They are virtually impossible to represent with the ISOM2000 symbol set

They are talking about old trenches from WW1. My guess is that the reason this symbol is suddenly deemed necessary is that these trenches are a common feature in the terrain for WOC next year in Italy. Look around control 6 on this map: http://www.emilianocorona.it/carte/Turcio.jpeg for an example.

I did some mapping in this area in the late 80's. It is limestone (karst) with old trenches carved into the rock - mostly the trenches were about 2m deep and about 1m wide - easy to just step over - but dangerous if you fall in. Although in a few places they were wide enough to be impassable.

I agree with Blegg - adding this as a new symbol is going to create confusion - especially given the very vague wording of the definition. Maybe it would be better in this case for the IOF to grant a one off exemption for use of this symbol at WOC rather than adding a new symbol that will almost certainly be interpreted differently by other mappers and misused. After all there is that provision in the rules to apply for exemptions to ISOM. It just such a case as this - a relatively rare and unique feature - where it would seem better to do it that way. Although they say these features are common in Europe I have never noticed them on any other maps - I accept that they do occur elsewhere but surely they can't be that common. Most WW1 trenches (eg northern France) were dug into earth, not rock, and have long since disappeared.

If they are going to introduce this symbol then the definition needs to be much more rigorous to avoid confusion: now it reads:

216 Trench (artificial): A trench is a landform of excavation or depression in the ground. Trenches are generally defined by being deeper than they are wide (as opposed to a wider gully), and by being narrow compared to their length (as opposed to a simple hole).

A better definition might be

216 Deep Narrow Trench (artificial): A man-made excavation, usually a military trench or similar. Trenches are generally defined by being long and narrow and by being deeper than they are wide.

Further down in the 'Impact to runability' section it needs to be very clear that when this symbol is used the trench is crossable. It would also be a good idea to suggest what to do if such a trench becomes uncrossable.

also in this entry:

Corresponding symbols for the control description
None for this new symbol

It seems to me if you are going to make up a new map symbol you also need to make up a control description symbol.

Rounded ends for impassible cliffs, is that gonna work with showing gaps? (Maybe help with that?)

Why the need to be so strict on such minor details. Does it really matter if they rounded or square.

If we really need such a degree of specificity why not allow both: rounded = indistinct end - square = distinct.

Regarding my desire for a smaller boulder cluster symbol, here is an example, not too uncommon, that I currently find very difficult to map:

Say you have a tight boulder cluster of maybe three or four 0.5 to 1.5 meter boulders, and then an isolated 2.5 meter boulder ~8 meters away. In the terrain, the 2.5 meter boulder dominates.

When mapping this, the tight boulder cluster needs to be represented as a cluster, and not a lone boulder, and there is definitely not room to map each boulder in the cluster. But the boulder cluster symbol takes up too much space and is too visually dominant (it is more visually dominate than even the 0.6 mm very large boulder symbol).

Many mappers will probably fudge things here and use a couple of the smaller "boulder field" symbols to represent the more insignificant cluster, to provide a more balanced view of the terrain. But this is far from ideal. A slightly smaller boulder cluster option would give you the possibility to treat the boulder cluster as a generalized point object, while retaining the proper visual weight and spatial distribution.

The opposite situation can also exist, and, in certain terrains, not infrequently does. For example, a boulder cluster of 3 or more 4m high boulders and a nearby 2.5m boulder. In that circumstance, a boulder cluster symbol of ordinary size may not begin to hint at the actual prominence of the cluster.

I didn't really mean to say that all the boulder cluster symbols must be shrunken, but that the symbol would be much more useful if the minimum size were smaller. ISOM already allows one to enlarge the boulder cluster symbol to 1.0 mm, and I wouldn't suggest reducing that.

I'm generally in favor of making point and line symbols easier to use, because I think they make for better map generalization.

(My guess is that the drafters originally avoided making the minimum size smaller, to avoid confusion between boulder cluster symbol and boulder field symbol. But since mappers tend to improvise by using the builder field symbol to designate small boulder clusters, that distinction has already been broken)

Are there really people on the other side of it---in favor of making ISOM match the sprint rule? It seems like the Map Commission is on that side of it...

Canadians?

Just move the lone boulder further away.

blegg many mappers would just leave out your (relatively insignificant) boulder cluster, or just draw 3 stony ground dots.

The problem with boulder field is that a minimum of two symbols must be used - otherwise I might show your cluster with a single boulder field symbol and maybe one or two dots.

Swampfox the boulder cluster symbol size can be increased by 20% to show larger clusters.

I use three different boulder cluster sized symbols (admittedly a departure from the mapping specs) to try to better represent the enormous size variations that can and do exist in certain terrains, especially in dry climate granite terrains with high amounts of rock detail.

I use three different boulder cluster sized symbols

Thats exactly what I do. And I use variable sizes of boulder field triangles to reflect the size of the scattered boulders, even though ISOM only offers a single size.

The drafters of ISOM have never understood the requirements of, as Swampfox puts it, 'dry climate granite terrain' or similar. Presumably because you don't get that sort of terrain in northern and central Europe.

I hoped undergrowth striped would be repalced or changed a lot more. To something like borken ground but green, or stripes but a lot thinner lines making it look less dominant.



Minimun length for passable cliff is there 0.7 mm, it used to be 0.6. For rounded ends it must be longer to not get misunderstood as stone? It that's why it is longer, maybe better not have rounded ends and keep the old minimun at 0.6 mm, some mappers has already had hard time following the old minimum. Or maybe the thinking behind having these rounded ends is any mapper will realize his 0.3 mm long cliffs will look like stones (will they?) and make them longer.

Funny how form line description text has turned around. !som 2000 "An intermediate contour line. ", new proposal "ey shall not be used as
intermediate contours". I really how they draw some sad face example use cases of form lines, especially the "only one form line may be
used between neighbouring contours" part.

1. I don't understand why 202 Rock Pillar is eliminated and combined with 201 Impassable Cliff. In particular, how would this be implemented by the drafting programs (e.g., OCAD)? Currently, 201 is a linear feature and 202 is an area feature. How will the new 201 be implemented in OCAD (et al) if it has both linear and area instances?

2. I would love to see more integration between the ISOM and the drafting program (e.g. OCAD) symbol set.

For example---and this isn't a serious proposal just a quick idea---

In the drafting program, identify symbols using the decimal point, when it is applicable:

xxx.0 for the "nominal" symbol type (point, line, area)
xxx.1 would be the minimum symbol that could be used (basically a point symbol)
xxx.2 would be a minimum width line symbol (such as for green hedges)

Examples:
109.1 would be a 1.6mm long erosion gully, 0.25mm wide.
117.1 would be a 0.7 x 0.7mm square (12m x 12m) *or* a 144m^2 circle.
410.1 would be a 0.5 x 0.5mm square (7.5m x 7.5) *or* an equiv. area circle
410.2 would be a 0.25mm wide green (100%) line.

What I'm thinking is that the xxx.1 "minimum symbol" wouldn't be used all that much on the actual map, but it would be regularly added and then deleted to verify the drawn feature meets the minimum size. You might draw a line using 410.2 and then plop down a 410.1 to eyeball that your line is bigger.

For symbols that progress in size, like boulders, xxx.1 would be the smallest, and they would progressively get bigger in xxx.2 and xxx.3.

I'd also like to see some special symbols that are used while drafting and then deleted, or for proving the map symbols are the correct dimensions. For example, a rotatable greenbar-type symbol with 0.14mm bars and 0.15mm spaces used for drawing minimum-dimension contours (passable steep slopes). How about a symbol that quickly creates a cm/mm scale of arbitrary x-y length so the map can be printed and compared to a ruler? Or how about a greenbar-type symbol where you can specify a width (like 0.14mm), and the program creates a block that is 100-lines wide (14mm) and easily checked with a ruler? (There is a 101010 (line-space) problem here---it might have to print 101101 so the ruler can measure 100 wide rather than 99.)

I've actually searched for measuring devices that can measure the various line-width dimensions and I just gave up. There are devices that exist, but they don't have all the sizes, and they tend to be expensive. It would be really nice to just print out a pattern, measure it (14mm or 70mm or 140mm), and be fairly sure that "These are 0.14mm lines."

This probably doesn't require a fancy implementation, but it would be nice to draft some Pythagorean 3-4-5 triangles to verify the printer doesn't print skewed.

3. Conversion from ISOM to ISSOM. I love that the proposal has screens for broken ground, very broken ground (!!!), and stony ground. (I'm interested in how they actually look, though.) One of the hassles of converting from ISOM to ISSOM has been these currently non-screen symbols. Again I am going to complain about the integration of drafting tools with the ISOM and ISSOM. It would be nice to be able to ensure the symbol set is pristine with respect to dimensions by locking the "basic set" for each scale. Perhaps having a table of conversions---a large table showing the conversion from each old symbol to each new symbol. (And---I have no idea how difficult this is to implement.) Or how about an exportable spreadsheet of all the symbol set dimensions so they can verified without opening a gazillion dialog boxes?

xxx.0 for the "nominal" symbol type (point, line, area)
xxx.1 would be the minimum symbol that could be used (basically a point symbol)
xxx.2 would be a minimum width line symbol (such as for green hedges)

So....despite this all being completely off-topic (since OCAD and its symbol sets aren't part of the ISOM standard at all) what's stopping you doing this? There's nothing in OCAD that stops you making whatever symbols you want.

I don't think it's off-topic at all. I'm recommending that the Map Commission write the new ISOM to match this (or a modified) scheme so OCAD (or whomever) can *easily* implement it.

What got me started was the deletion of 202. Are they ignoring the obvious implemention of the line/area symbols in OCAD, or am I missing something?

If they really want to get people to use the right symbol sizes, bend the ISOM so it matches the implementation in the drafting tools.

A rock pillar is an area feature??

A rock pillar is a feature?

How about this:

The ISOM reference is three digits: 101, 410, 201

Decimal xxx.0 is never used.

For point features (e.g. boulders)
xxx.1 smallest (minimum spec)
xxx.2 medium
xxx.3 large
etc

For line features:
xxx.1 is a minimum size point feature
xxx.2 is the nominal width line

For area features:
xxx.1 is a minimum size point feature
xxx.2 is a minimum width line
xxx.3 is the normal area tool

The analogy is 1 point defines a point, 2 points define a line, and 3 points define an area (when they're not in a row).

Higher decimals are user-defined by the mapper.

Sometimes this doesn't make much sense. What is 101.1, a "minimum dimension contour"? Maybe the xxx.0 would be used when the ISOM doesn't specify a minimum point or line?

@Guy:

202 Rock pillars/cliffs

In the case of unusual features such as rock pillars or massive cliffs or gigantic boulders, the rocks shall be shown in plan shape without tags.

"Plan shape" = area

If they really want to get people to use the right symbol sizes, bend the ISOM so it matches the implementation in the drafting tools.

No. No no no. Bad, bad, wrong, bad, wrong. The standard should be as abstract as possible. Having specific implementations of a standard influence the writing of the standard is a recipe for a) headaches, and b) a bad standard. There's already an example of this further up the thread where robplow suggested that they had added a symbol specifically for one mapping project, even though it opens up the standard to abuse in the future.

By the same token, having details of OCAD (whose symbol set is just one implementation of ISOM) influence ISOM itself is counter-productive. Analogy - the HTML 1.0 standard was released in 2000, when the average monitor was...what, 1024x768 resolution? This is like HTML defining that all web pages should be no more than 1024 pixels wide because that was the current implementation on most monitors.

Symbol 202 was presumably deleted because it performs the same task on the map as 201 - you can argue it either way (and I personally don't see what they're trying to achieve by deleting it), but the fact that these are implemented as an area and a line respectively in OCAD is completely irrelevant. If another mapping package defined ALL cliffs as an area feature (ie. as a rectangle in the simplest case), then your objection becomes redundant because all cliffs and rock pillars are now "area" features.

Nothing more than a dinky makeup of rules Isom 2000.
Delicate topics are skillfully avoided ....
.
Questions for mapping committee: Magnifier will still be tolerated?
If the map scale shall be 15 000, 10 000 why is tolerated for short competitions?
This means that we will never have a classic contest 10 000 regardless of the complexity of the field?

It is more logical to choose the map scale depending on the complexity of the field and not by competition??

The lands very technical, are still penalized.

It's a shame that the commission lost 3-4 years just to embellish the Isom 2000 ...

Probably will be like ostriches each time 10 000 will be used for other competitions than "the short" .....
I honestly do not see how they could ban the use of 10 000 without making a big step back

Respectfully, I disagree with Juffy.

The current ISOM defines minimums for many symbols, including boulders, vegetation (areas).

The connection between ISOM and drafting software is currently haphazard and meeting these various minimum requirements falls largely on the mapper. Why shouldn't the Map Commission and Software writers each bend a little to create a more robust system?

It seems to me that a lot of changes to ISOM have been made because the software tool (OCAD specifically) allowed the symbols to be drawn. To imply that the ISOM needs to be a pristine abstraction is just not historically accurate.

People deviate from the ISOM for primarily two reasons. Either (1) they don't know any better (or the software fools them into using the wrong size symbol), or (2) they do it intentionally to achieve some specific result.

Reading throught Map Commission's Map Evaluations leads me to think that (1) and (2) are about equal for maps used at IOF events, but personal experience on a variety of US Maps leads me to believe (1) vastly outnumbers (2) for most orienteering maps.

Nope, I'm with Juffy on this one. ISOM should specify how maps are supposed to look, and it's up to the drafting program to meet that as closely as possible. Fortunately, 0CAD (since about version 5) gives you plenty of symbol set flexibility to allow you to do that. The scheme that you describe, Matt, can easily be implemented by creating a custom symbol set in 0CAD, and if it's a good idea that other people like, it can be distributed through the mapping community. I've done this on a more limited scale, by creating a symbol set that had some advantages which I sent to anyone who wanted a copy. (Among other things, the symbols were sorted not by number, but in the order that I feel is the best order to draw them.)

The connection between ISOM and drafting software is currently haphazard and meeting these various minimum requirements falls largely on the mapper.

See, to me that says that the tools are inadequate - if you have a standard which says "so-and-so feature must be 'x' dimensions", the implementation tools should either enforce that or at least make some noise about it - doesn't OCAD 11 have some sort of 'check my minimum areas' tool?

If, as you say, mappers deviate from ISOM because they don't know any better and/or the software is misleading them, then clearly the tools aren't doing their job. On the other hand, I happily make a custom symbol for drawing tags on earth banks because the implementation in OCAD is terrible even though there's nothing wrong with the standard.

It seems to me that a lot of changes to ISOM have been made because the software tool (OCAD specifically) allowed the symbols to be drawn. To imply that the ISOM needs to be a pristine abstraction is just not historically accurate.

That's not what I said. The available technology should inform the standard (eg. there's no point requiring things that are impossible with current tech) but you're suggesting the implementation should BE the standard.

Is anybody from the IOF Map Commission/committee monitoring this thread?
I am hoping so, but not taking it for granted.
I think there are many worthwhile thoughts expressed here, many from people who I believe should be listened to, if not sought out.
I am tempted to contribute myself, but I don't want to waste time posting here, if this is just a place to let off steam, or if there is a more effective avenue.

I think the map commission sent the documents out to each national federation and asked for feedback. I think a more efficient forum would be through OUSA (though I don't think OUSA has a map committee).

The intro document gives some information on the feedback the IOF map commission is most interested in (and gives a July 1 deadline for feedback):

http://www.orientering.no/SiteCollectionDocuments/...

Greg_L is OUSA's "mapping coordinator" (and a member of the Board), so he should be alerted to this thread and maybe receive all other comments.

I agree with Jagge about the slow running good visiblity (green stripes) symbol. In terms of how it actually gets used and the overall information it adds of use to the runner versus the subtractive nature of the symbol because of losses to legibility, this has to be about the worst ISOM symbol in the book. When used on top of areas of complex contour detail, it is particularly ruinous.

Per jagge's suggestion, maybe the symbol could be salvaged with thinner lines, and, I would add, pairing that change with a switch to a screened green (20%?) so that the symbol becomes much less dominant. As the symbol is usually used, it would actually be better if the symbol were so dim that it was almost hard to see on the map.

In absence of some improvement in the symbol, most mappers would be well advised to use this symbol very sparingly, if at all. And in the circumstance of an area where extensive use of this symbol would be necessary because of amount of logs on ground or thorny vegetation, etc., one could wonder instead why such an area would be selected for use in the first place.

On the slow run/good visibility symbol: Has it actually ever been 'proven' that the symbol is useful to the orienteer? Is knowing that it is slow run/good visibility more important than simply knowing that it is just another type of slow run? Where I live, we use both, and I know what it gets used for - fairly open spruce forest with deadfall. It 'feels' open in that it is not 'bushy', but given that each of the green screens can represent many, many variations of species, thickness, 'look' anyway, why not just abandon the SR/GV altogether. If it (vegetation generally) slows you down 20+%; use the light green screen.

Around here SR/GV is used for the level of pain. Very useful.

The blueberry undergrowth of Harriman fit the SR/GV description.

Coti sums up my feellings. 5 years of deliberations, there is 5 weeks to comment, and the elephants in the room are ignored. There are at least two elephants. The widespread and unstoppable move to more detailed terrains. Another, the necessity most of us have to use digital printing.

It's my belief/understanding that the GV/SR symbol evolved from something that made sense into its current heinous manifestation. When you have an area that needs to be mapped as yellow, because it can be seen from some distance as a clearing and is therefore a useful navigational feature, but when said area is not a place you actually want to use as a route choice because it's, e.g. thigh-high brambles, how do you map it? It has to be yellow, but it has to be green as well. Solution: green stripes. You can't see the detail under it, but who cares, because it's not a place you want to go anyway. Probably isn't even worth mapping the detail in such an area other than big obvious stuff. It's a fine way to map an overgrown field.

That's how it started, and that made sense.

But then once the symbol existed, people started abusing it. They started using it in white woods. I've even had a case (apologies to the mapper who did this, but I need to bring it up) where I was handed fieldwork that had some areas of dense vertical green lines over light green. Indicating that the forest is kind of hard to see through, but the undergrowth is slower still....

STOP IT!

There's a table of what symbols are allowed to coincide (page 11). I disagree with some of the ISOM2000 combinations (I fully believe in dark green uncrossable marshes, for example) and hope they will be updated in a suitable way. And one thing that I'd like to see is for vertical green lines to be allowed ONLY on top of RoughOpen or RoughOpenwithScatteredTrees. Not on white, not on full yellow, not on any shade of green.

If you can see over the green, so what? Yess, Harriman blueberries are (largely) a knee-high plant. It's still green. In fact, I took it upon myself when drafting Sebago to improve the legibility by changing most of the vertical green lines on the field notes into regular green. The map doesn't need to tell you whether it's laurel or blueberries, it just needs to indicate how hard it is to get through.

What Gruver said.

I'm tending towards your view J-J. In forest we may have 3 situations. High vis/low speed. Low vis high speed. And vis that goes down as the speed drops. ISOM2000 only provides for two of these. There is no warning from the map about (say) young plantations where passage is easy but visibility is not.

Before ISOM2000 came in I was at an IOF mapping conference, and the chair of the mapping group said: "has anyone got a better symbol? The stripes are not good, but we haven't been able to find anything better. " 15 years later, there is still nothing better. Except, perhaps, abandoning the visibility distinction. (Acknowledging that it may be needed for rough open land. And for rough/scattered, but gee, that combination is about as bad as it gets!)

At a slight tangent, the first level of running impediment comes in at 80-60% - whether a shade or a stripe. I have seen some comment that this level makes no difference to elite route choice decisions. I wonder therefore if this level might be banished, leading to (a) restoring us to 4 levels of runnability, (b) pushing the wide stripes which can almost be tolerated down to 60-40% and (c) pushing the truly awful narrow stripes down below 40%. A byproduct of that would be keeping the open/forest distinction for the 40-10% level, which seems to have been lost - it all becomes dark green.

Typical exampel case we have:
http://iso-henna.com/doma/show_map.php?user=Jagge&...

Sometimes for land use permissions the only way to get to the TC may be through open area with green stripes. So not using the area is not Lalways a choice. Near 2 and 12 you may not need to actally run there much, but it would be nice to be able to read to map to keep map contact on path to be able to leave the path right. You can't map it with green, too confusing since it is open. And without stripes one would assume it's fast, so it might affect route choices. As far as I can see there should be something, but like Swampfox put it, something much less dominant.

One thing I find we may be doing a wrong way around is the way we choose contour interval. Often the area we actually use for courses is quite flat, so flat 2.5 m interval would do better and it would erase the need for excessive form line use. But there is some steep hills nearby, so we has to use 5m controur interval even if courses wil not enter the area or even if some parts go there that's not the dominant part of the course. Example:

http://www.dxdeluxe.se/linnekartparmen/show_map.ph...

2.5m interval might have been better choice here making the top area more legible for less form lines. Steep parts might end up brown, so something sould be done to avoid that and make those areas legible and usable too, like using 5m contour interval with a bit thicker contours. On might say the approach would affect route coices, but i'd say with index countrous one should be able to figure climb just fine. Lots of form lines already makes it hard tofigure out the actual climb, so this might do it just easier. Not saying I would expect to see anything like the example below getting implemented ever, just pointing out the problem: the contour interval should be selected based on the main terrain type used for courses, not overall height difference or steepness of the steepest hill side.

I agree Jagge. Another thought - there are lots of alternative formline symbols in the draft. If we succeeded in reducing formline use then these would not be required. The dash problems they keep talking about are easily dealt with by avoiding gaps at places with high curvature.

Great example, Jagge. A case where a deviation from the requirements would have been so much better.

Back on the green stripes. I see 407 has been closed up almost to the density of the current narrow stripes. And 409 has been closed up even further. Hmmm.

re contour interval: in the late 80's I did quite a bit of mapping around Stockholm. Most of the maps made around there at that time had 4m contours - they asked the photogrammetrists to produce basemaps at 4m.

It meant you needed less formlines.

The then IOF map committee chairman was very critical of this use of a non-standard interval - said it would affect route choice evaluation. I never agreed with his reasoning. Nowadays we see in ISSOM you can choose between 2. 5 or 2m and no one seems to have trouble with that. So there is no reason to believe that a comparable choice of interval at 10 or 15,000 would cause any problems.

suggesting just getting rid of the green stripe symbols sounds a bit extreme to me. 'I dont like this symbol therefore it should be abolished'

I'm always wary of such drastic opinions - like when a current mapping committee member a couple of years back was complaining about overuse of formlines and suggested abolishing them. Such black and white thinking is rarely useful. A more nuanced approach would be better.

OK the green lines can be a bit of a problem but to me (as a runner, not just a mapper) the distinction between good and poor visibility is important. And if you accept the need for such a symbol you also realise that it will always be a bit of troublesome compromise -it has to be clearly different to normal green, it has to be able to be combined with yellow shades and with marsh symbols, etc.

My suggestion is to finesse the symbol a bit. The new suggestion reduces the gap between the lines but doesn't reduce the line weight. It is primarily the thickness of the green lines that causes the problem - not the gap between. Making the lines significantly thinner than contours eases the problem - you just have to experiment and find a balance - you can't make the lines too thin either, as it ends up looking like just another shade of green.

On this map http://www.bendigo-orienteers.com.au/gadget/cgi-bi... I used 0.07 lines with gaps of 0.48 and 0.24 (ISOM2000 specifies 0.12 lines with gaps 0.72 and 0.30). The resolution of that map is poor so it is hard to tell exactly how it looks - but nobody ever commented or complained that the green stripes were not ISOM.

Historically the reason the green stripes are 0.12mm goes back to the days of pen and ink. The smallest standard pen size was 0.25mm (ink drawing was typically done at twice the scale). The specification of 0.125mm was rounded down to 0.12. (For contours 0.125 was initially rounded up to .13 and later to .14)

Such limitations are no longer relevant. ISSOM uses .07 line weights - so going below .12 for an area symbol in ISOM shouldn't be a problem.

EricW, do please contribute your thoughts here, if you have them. Maybe I will have a time to write a brief letter to the mapping commission before July, maybe not. Although the proposal contains a solicitation for comments, if it is preferable to funnel comments through Greg L, maybe I will do that. In the meantime, I am following this tread, as very thought provoking, and what I would have written last week is not what I would write today.

In some respects, I'm just an amateur mapper, and mediocre orienteer. And so I'm not sure the value of my input when compared with the professional mappers and elite orienteers who live and breath this stuff. One the other hand, these mapping decisions will influence developing nations too. And some of us from the "sticks" have unique perspectives on how things get implemented in less than ideal conditions.

I wanted to step back a little - not looking at individual details of the plan, but big picture.

It seems to me, that the problem with mapping at any standard, is that you've got a pretty strict minimum feature density you can represent and still be legible. But nature doesn't obey that cutoff. Wherever you set the cutoff, some feature will always be just below the cutoff. Once you get used to mapping features just above the cutoff, you will always cringe when you can't map features just below the cutoff. (I know that I find it really hard to map ISOM, after I've spent a few days mapping ISSOM).

Any time you relieve the stress by shrinking a symbol or increasing the scale, mappers will adjust their style until the stress returns somewhere else. So maybe the aim should be to have a balanced symbol set, where that stress is "evenly distributed" between the different types of features in terrain.

You want to have a situation where the visual impact of a feature roughly correlates with it's importance. You don't want mappers completely over-mapping some insignificant features while struggling to squeeze the significant features. Of course, that balance depends so much on the terrain you are in. But getting the balance right seems like it will determine what kindof of features get mapped in detail, which get ignored, and which get generalized.

I think mappers like having things balanced. For example, once they get in the habit of mapping 5 m knolls in plan form, they will also start mapping 5 m vegetation patches in plan form. (Even if you're in places were vegetation changes fast, and mapping so much detail completely undermines long term map usability).

Similarly, once you start mapping 5 m vegetation patches in plan form, why would you ever use the generalized "Green X" symbol which takes up 12 meters of map space? This trend has pushed many of the point symbols (things like pits, depressions, knolls, cairns, etc...) to become almost functionally obsolete. Their map-impact is just too big for the features they represent. People see a big green X, and they wonder why two hedges are crossing.

So when I read the standards, a lot of what I'm trying to guess is how mapping styles will develop over the next 10 years. Where will the next bottleneck be?

I'm generally OK with making the point symbols smaller and easier to use, because I think that using these features tends to encourage a more generalized mapping style, and generally higher legibility. I get more scared when people talk about making contour lines and vegetation screens finer and smaller, because I think that might enable the next generation of detail-bloat. I want to avoid detail bloat, even though I can recall countless times when I've wished I could squeeze two or three form-lines in to show some awkward terrain feature. I hate the constraint, but I also love the constraint. Sometimes you need the mapping standard to say "give up, you're wasting your time here".

Thanks Benn. I too am modifying my thoughts based on this discussion.

Well I can't turn down an outright invitation, thanks blegg, but I'm not sure I know where to start or stop, whether to deal with details or "elephants", especially since I haven't digested all the comments on this thread, much less given due attention to the document itself, with its huge number of options and issues.

I guess that leads inevitably to this point- 5 weeks for review is simply wrong.
PLEASE MAP COMMISSION provide a reasonable amout of time, especially if you want comments funneled through national federations.

On most of the issues raised on this thread, my opinions are close to the middle of the road of the opinions expressed here, although that seems to be quite different from the middle of the road of tha Map Commission, although I don't assume that the Map Commission has a unified mind. While attending a MC function in Trondheim 2010, I sensed some clear but respectful differences of opinion.

Some ad hoc thread related issues:

4 levels of green? I have not once seen a terrain that needed this, and this is directly contrary to the goal of reducing mapping work/time/details. I can't think of another change that could possibly add more work for less value. I always thought 3 greens were plenty, and two is enough for some places, and I've never been accused of undermapping green. Save 100% for only the extreme end of impassability, and let the other two greens (plus white) describe the rest of the vegetation, with break points tailored to the given vegetation.

The pillar symbol- I am very relieved to see this change. Only speaking for North America, but I saw repeated cases of serious abuse of this symbol, using it to show to-scale shapes of "eye catching" cliffs and boulders. The problem is when you apply this to features that are less than super-size, the to- scale versions end up too small, resulting in striking rock features that disappear on the map. This was a serious problem on multiple recent US Champs maps, and 2 of the 3 violators are good friends, only one of which I was able to convince to change.

Kudos to cedarcreek for trying to keep mappers away from legally definiing uncrossable and impassable. I don't have any consise words to describe how ridiculous and unworkable I think this is. However you lost me on the OCAD- ISOM issue which strikes me as simply the tail wagging the dog. This is the first time I can remember disagreeing with you.

I agree with shrinking X's, O's, and vert green lines, since I've done this robplow style on very many maps.

Plenty of other thoughts but I'd better stop now.
I want to encourage people here to lobby hard, to national federations but also directly to MC if possible. I think some people here have very good real world, in-terrain, hands-on perspectives that might be lacking in the MC.

On the OCAD-ISOM issue, I'm with Eric. Lobby *OCAD* to distribute (or at least make readily available) good symbol sets including, for example, minimum-sized crags as rotatable point feature and correct (for some printer at least) CMYK colour tables, with purple as the default overprinting colour and correct colour hierarchies.

Getting OCAD to also include symbols useful for setting training exercises in its course-setting symbols set would be even better (e.g. corridor feature, an empty line with thick white border).

Of course, this doesn't have to be done by ocad...

Since Juffy and J-J disagreed with me last week on the "OCAD-ISOM issue" (as EricW calls it), I've been thinking it over. I've never met Juffy, but I took J-J's mapping class in 2004, and I'm guessing he's probably the most knowledgeable OCAD user in North America.

My mistake was not getting out the ISOM and re-reading it before opening my mouth.

My recollection was that most of the symbols had minimum areas and minimum line widths specified, and that's just not true. The third green (symbol 410) stands out as having a specified minimum width. There are a few others: 305 (crossable watercourse, min 0.25mm). 404 (ROST) has a requirement to use 403 (Rough Open) if the area is less than 16mm^2 (4mm x 4mm) when printed. 402 (OST) has a similar requirement to use 401 (Open) if the area is less than 10mm^2 (3.2mm x 3.2mm?)

Most of the requirements for minimums are in text form, in paragraph 3.3, Dimensions of map symbols:

•MINIMUM DIMENSIONS of 1:15 000
The gap between two fine lines of the same colour, in brown or black: 0.15 mm
• The smallest gap between two blue lines: 0.25 mm
• Shortest dotted line: at least two dots
• Shortest dashed line: at least two dashes
• Smallest area enclosed by a dotted line: 1.5 mm (diameter) with 5 dots
• Smallest area of colour
-Blue, green, grey or yellow full colour: 0.5 mm^2
-Black dot screen: 0.5 mm^2
-Blue, green or yellow dot screen: 1.0 mm^2

It appears the latest document (Spike's link in the first post) is showing these graphically, where ISOM 2000 has this paragraph.

I think this is a reasonable number of things to keep in your head, and it applies to so few of the symbols that my "scheme" really only would apply to at most a quarter of the symbols, and probably much less than that. So, I concede that implementing that scheme is probably not that useful.

I should say that I use OCAD mostly for three things: (1) minor map updates, (2) to achieve a reasonable appearance to the printed map (e.g., correcting contour lines that are too light), and (3) changing a map from ISOM to ISSOM, more or less. I say "more or less" because it's easy to get close to ISSOM, but pretty hard to actually meet the standard. I haven't done a sprint map conversion recently, but I remember actually reducing the size of some X's because they were just too dominant when they met the standard. But specifically, I am not an experienced mapper.

Other than converting into a sprint map, I can't remember ever getting out ISOM 2000 and actually measuring things (or checking the entire symbol set-up in OCAD) to verify the map was compliant. We basically just look at it, comparing it to a good European offset-printed map, going through browns, blacks, blues, greens, yellows, and overprint looking for stuff that doesn't look right.

I remember complaints for too-small trail symbols ('rat trails' from Swampfox), several printing related issues from Bob Cooley (ROST I think, but he also looked at the map under a microscope and recommended we remove black from several colors), and various sprint map issues mostly related to them not being ISSOM (these we didn't even try to convert because of time constraints).

My point is that I don't think most people notice non-compliant maps. If they do, most don't mention it. I remember the NAOC (Water Gap) Long having the small boulders just a bit too small or too light. We at OCIN kinda sweat over the map a bit when we print a 1:10,000 map at 1:15,000 because the ISOM requirements for enlarged symbols don't seem to be universally followed. I've felt some of our 1:15,000 maps in the past have been marginal. Twice in the last few years we felt we had to print maps at the drafted scale to avoid problems. One of my stated goals is to help prepare our elite runners for international competitions, and I hear a lot of wind about meeting the ISOM, but not much actual complaining that we are using non-compliant maps and that we're not doing enough to be compliant. I was hoping the French WOC Middle map debacle would force a reconsideration of the "enlarged symbol 1:10,000 map" rule. And I'm really conflicted here because I love a good 1:15000 map. It's just that I also love a lot of 1:10000 maps that are non-compliant.

I know a lot of people who want to make orienteering maps. But when they actually start, there are just huge barriers to entry. One of the biggest is OCAD. My experience with "beginner drawn maps" (my own included) is that it is really difficult to understand how OCAD works and to quickly achieve a good appearance. We should certainly have more mapping classes so people don't have to learn it on their own.

If we really care about making ISOM compliant maps, then we should look at the full process from ISOM to OCAD to printed map and try to take out as many chances of error as we can. I hope OCAD and Open Orienteering Mapper and whomever else cares are talking to the MC about things like the 201/202 rock pillars, and minimum dimensions to make sure the ISOM is as easily implemented in software as possible.

For EricW: My experience with rock pillars is mostly out west, and it's basically like this, "Yep, that's a rock pillar." I'm pretty sure the most common "don't-even-think-about-it," huge, impassable cliff" symbols I see are non-compliant. I'm interested to see examples of what you're talking about. Are there any on the NAOC 2012 Long map?

About scales. I would like to get scales for different race formats and all that nonsense taken away. This is map standard and it should describe mapping and maps, not what sort of races there should be. There is or should be other organs for that.

So, I'd suggest more generic approach to this scale thing here. Take one default scale, 1:15 000 would do, and tell what dimensions and symbol sizes should be. Then tell how it should be implemented _if_ this standard is used for other scales than the default one. Like strict enlargement all the way to the 1:7 500 scale and beyond that symbols sizes on paper are same as at 1:7 500 scale. And for smaller scales than the default, like 1:20 000, symbols sizes and minimum dimensions on paper are same as 1:15 000, the reduced space available on paper is handled by generalizing more. Add nice formula for the distance between north lines for any scale and it would do. If a standard describes how 1: 5000 or 1:25 000 map should be done doesn't mean such scales are allowed to use for something like WOC relay or imply such maps should be done at all.

Then an other comission should tell what combinations of scales, terrain types, printing techniques can be used for this or that event, age class and race format. That comission could always consult the map one for recommendations or printing technique details.

Here's an idea:
3 disciplines: sprint, middle long.
So - three mapping standards.
Then mappers need to know what they are supposed to show, and how they are to map the terrain, for the given discipline. The difference in how the terrain is mapped becomes part of making the disciplines different. Just as we would not think a 1:40,000 map for ROGAINE should use the same symbol set (or show the terrain the same) as a 1:10,000 map; so too would a 1:15,000 show the terrain differently than the 1:10,000 map. Of course, requires strict adherence to minimum feature size etc. Perhaps on a 1:15,000 Long Distance map, minimum boulder size is 1.5 metres, no exceptions.
Some of the problems may be due to people mapping for 1:10,000 scale and wanting that to reproduce okay at 1:15,000, rather than mapping at 1:15,000 scale (where if it can't be depicted okay, maybe there is a reason) and enlarging to 1:10,000.

Here's an idea:
3 disciplines: sprint, middle long.
So - three mapping standards.
Then mappers need to know what they are supposed to show, and how they are to map the terrain, for the given discipline. The difference in how the terrain is mapped becomes part of making the disciplines different. Just as we would not think a 1:40,000 map for ROGAINE should use the same symbol set (or show the terrain the same) as a 1:10,000 map; so too would a 1:15,000 show the terrain differently than the 1:10,000 map. Of course, requires strict adherence to minimum feature size etc. Perhaps on a 1:15,000 Long Distance map, minimum boulder size is 1.5 metres, no exceptions.
Some of the problems may be due to people mapping for 1:10,000 scale and wanting that to reproduce okay at 1:15,000, rather than mapping at 1:15,000 scale (where if it can't be depicted okay, maybe there is a reason) and enlarging to 1:10,000.

Some points

I don't think ISOM should include information about how to make orienteering maps. Although that information is important, perhaps it should be in a separate publication. For example, the section at the beginning showing good and bad examples of cartography perhaps shouldn't be in ISOM. Minimum dimensions etc. should still be kept in ISOM.

I don't think ISOM should follow ISSOM with making lots of features out of bounds. For example, Uncrossable Marsh, Vegetation: impassable, Impassable fence. Orienteering shouldn't turn into minesweeper or something where you have to be really careful about every step that you are not going to disqualify yourself. The great thing about forest orienteering compared to sprint orienteering is that ISOM allows you to run wherever you want and it’s up to you to read the map to pick the fastest way, not the legal ways. If you don't read the map enough end up in some really thick vegetation you should lose time, not be disqualified. I personally hate the sprints where you have to be so careful about where you place your feet. If the planner needs to make a feature or area forbidden to enter they can use Out Of Bounds Area or Uncrossable Boundary.

The idea of making formlines less visible could be a problem in areas with lots of small hills on a gentle slope. Some hills will be shown with contours while others with formlines, depending on where the contour interval falls, thus making some hills much more obvious on the map than others, when they can be exactly the same size in reality. Some mappers already counter for this by showing low hills with formlines and larger hills with normal contours, but this is not the proper use of ISOM or contours. This practice could be the solution if we introduce less visible formlines, but it has limitations.

Decreasing the distance between the dots for Small Erosion Gully can make it appear as a solid line

Making changes to Broken Ground etc. to counter for miss-use sounds a bit silly to me. If the problem is with the use of the symbol, not the actual symbol, then perhaps this should be addressed in a separate document on how to map (see first point).

Rounded ends to impassable/passable cliffs should be optional like they are currently, not compulsory. Short, rounded-ended cliffs can appear as two boulders close together, and with the grey/black concept for differentiating rock and man-made features, having rounded ends to avoid confusion with tracks seems unnecessary.

I don't understand the reason for reversing Open Land With Scattered Trees. To me the feature should be kept different from Rough Open With Scattered Trees.

I don't see a problem with keeping Distinct Vegetation Boundary as it is if ISOM introduces the grey/black concept.

I think grey for rock and black for paths etc. is the better combination. Generally man-made features are more obvious in the terrain than rock features, so they should be more obvious on the map. Generally man made features have more effect on route choice too. If the rock feature affects route choice significantly it is likely to be large in the terrain and on the map. Also, in the shown example, the track is nearly invisible if it is shown in grey with the rocks black, but vice versa means both types of features stand out well, and it is very easy to distinguish between them.

I don't think there is a problem with the grave symbol being associated with the Christian Faith

Some of these have already been said earlier in this discussion but it was just something I wrote earlier

I think grey for rock and black for paths etc. is the better combination.

Totally agree with you. This is the first thing in this thread that I feel strongly enough about to comment on (though at the same time I don't have experience about creating maps to be able to comment on the sharpness issue). One other advantage of this approach is that it makes the contours easier to see in those areas, which is a problem on maps crowded with rock features. You're not likely to use a boulder to navigate in a field of boulders, but the contours can be really hard to see underneath them.

You realize that by the time any new standards are formalized, the new standard will have to incorporate digital display standards and eventually Standards piped directly to the brain. Start working on those standards now.

By the time it's time to incorporate digital display standards, orienteering will have died off because no sane kid would ever think of doing something that involves paper maps. The biggest elephant is irrelevance.

T/D, while I hear what you're saying I don't totally agree. Fencing still exists. Granted it's a pretty small sport...

Pretty sure fencing is a lot more popular in the US than orienteering.

T/D, come on, we'll be orienteering with floppy digital screens soon, certainly before the sport has a chance to die off.

@Canadian--agree.

@T/D: It is already irrelevant. Few kids know how to use paper maps currently (and not many adults.) You posit GPS is killing off navigation ability, and perhaps it is.

But, only a subset of current orienteers became that way because of love of or fluency with paper maps; they do so for other reasons. One of which shares a root with maps, but is different--spatial relations. That aptitude can be developed/expressed in other media.

Orienteering could conceivably exist without paper maps--as an anachronism (as Canadian notes) in a world where those are artifacts.

It is not required to have paper maps as a conduit. I aver that it is a situation of correlation not causality today anyway.

For me, the mammoth is the conflict between 15 000 and the 10 000. Jagge is absolutely right. While the standards are respected (ok for 15 000) can print on any scale.
Tundra dessert too, is right. Personally I expect the ISOM 201x, prepare, and transit for the digital age. There will no longer speak of the scale, only standard.


For those of you who hope for any changes futile to wait .... 5 years already, dozens of interpellations from the federation,runners and mappers, and the result?? A caricature of ISOM 2000 More photos and the more taking unnecessary. This month the expected returns from the federation is a disgusting treachery.
If the commission maps, she wanted, could take into account already have brought by the some interpellations federations, cartographers and athletes.

Frankly, I prefer an honest dictator than a "democrat" hypocrite ....

As long as Mr. Havard Tveite will be the head of the commission of maps, you can not expect him nothing more than to defend at all costs, holy 15 000.

I took J-J's mapping class in 2004, and I'm guessing he's probably the most knowledgeable OCAD user in North America.

No. Not even close. While it's possible that I might have been at one time (nearly 20 years ago), at this point I may not even be in the top 100.

Very intereting to see similar thought from all corners of the globe!
I believe that ISOM201x should be optimised to 1:10 000. It is the most used scale by a country mile. There has been a huge move toward the shorter formats of orienteering, including WOC. Whether it is what we wish or not it is the present reality.
In order to cater for the long distance I have two thoughts..
1. A 1:15 000 map is produced as a direct reduction in all sizes of a percentage that still allows it to be readable, not what would be the present 67%, more toward 80% I would think, keeping in mind an optimised 1:10 000 map would have slightly smaller specs all round. This new 1:15 000 version may require some further simplification like the removal of at least 50% of the formlines.
2. My preference by far would be that 1:12 500 be the new standard long distance map. My experiments look fantastic and would allow almost any detailed area to remain viable at a smaller scale, and so may become more popular. No additional generalisation etc should be needed other than a direct scaled reduction of spec sizing from the 1:10 000 optimised standard map.
Alas, I suspect I am alone in this type radical move.

Moving on to the present proposal since it may be the only influential opportunity we get, I am glad to see a general reduction in point features, although some have been missed out. I also like a general move to align with ISSOM.

Forgetting about all the relitively minor things there are a number of biggies that are up for discussion. After spending much of the past week trying things out on various maps I have come up with some strong preferences myself. It would be great for others to apply their ideas, or ideas of others practically to current ocad maps and see what the results look like. It is the only real way to see what may sound great in theory works and what doesn't.

A: Form lines (103) Agree that contours should be altered as much as practicable before adding formlines in order to lesson the need, but I still see an important need for formlines in some terrain types. Yes mappers need to refrain from excessive detail and smooth out the silly little wiggles.
Two of the proposed formline symbols stand out on my experiments as viable and an improvement to what we have now, and less of a visual impact
(103.4) The very thin line with longer dashes than present looks ok. Without the dashes it looks horrible, as does a different lighter coloured brown.
(103.1) Very short dashes. At fist I didn't like it but after trying a lot of things it became very nice in my opinion. It was neccessary to reduce the width to about 3/4 of the contour width. On my maps it looked great with the folowing settings (@ 1:10 000) 0.16mm line thickness, 0.35mm gap, 0.80mm dash, but with rounded ends. This last round end change seemed to smooth out things nicely. It was important to look especially to the effect on small formline hills since they will remain important features.

B: (110) Small erosion gully. New proposal dots looks too condensed and messy, the old ones were too far apart. Main issue is the conflict with knolls. I had an idea to replace the dots with small solid brown squares. Wow, I think this is the answer. Someone else here please try it out it looks fantastic to me!

C: All Rock. Again after trying experiments I have a real preference for all rock to be grey and man-made features to be black. The grey must be dark in order for items to be well defined and sharp. I liked it around 75% black. Or maybe a little darker.
C2: Rounded or square ends? Could there be an option of either. Both are ok, rounded if rock remains black. However my preference is for rounded and grey but the minimum length cliffs are a problem, especially the uncrossable one as it ends up looking like an unsightly blob - maybe a minimun symbol could have a thinner main line, or have square ends.

D: The dredded vertical lined undergrowth symbol.
No one appears to have come up with anything that has appealed to the powers that be. Some wish to get rid of it. I dissagree, and see it is as an important impediment to the runners, and is totally different to other green in the terrain.
The main problems with the current symbol is that it conflicts weth the detail underneath and can be too far apart for defining edges. I support the denser proposals, however the green lines still clash with other colors and symbolsa lot.
Stick with me a little... During my experiments I tried changing the solid green line in the new proposed symbol to the medium green. This had immediate improvement and I really like it in the white forest. It softens the look wonderfully and the contours show through nicely. On top of open yellow I thought it wouldn't look so great but again I was surprised that it gave a similar improvement. The only case where it wasn't a huge improvement is on top of the rough open, but still it looks ok and probably better than the current look. Again it would be good to see other people try it out (make sure you use the new densities,widths and colours).
I also think there is merit in not changing a symbol to something totally different if improvements can be made. Reading O maps should be natural not a chore.

E: (416) Vegetation boundaries. My strong prefence is for black dots, particularly if rock is grey. Experiments with all sorts of things, including trying to align with various ISSOM symbols, all had problems of their own. Preference by some to the proposed thin green line was not good imo, It just doesn't work at all around greens and yellows. What may sound good in theory doesn't allways work.
I do feel though that the present dots have to be smaller and a lttle closer together.
Keeping this symbol also keeps map familiar without being to radical.

One last comment from me for now is that ISOM seems to be optimised for Offset printing with it's precise nature, in reality the majority of printing surely is digital.
I would like it if this can be recognised instead of the current feeling where it feels like digital is cheap and nasty and users are second class citizens, Gruver mentioned this concept to me and I agreed. I would like to see a recommendation that for digital printing the contours be reduced in thickness by a fraction, in order to compensate for a perceived fuzzyness or bleed.

We have to remember that ISOM, just like IOF Competition Rules, is a set of standards for IOF events, ie WOC, JWOC, WMOC.

Individual nations have their own set of rules, although many (like Australia) basically follow IOF rules. But then, these apply to national-level events and not necessarily to your casual, local event, particularly in the level of detail required for a major event.

In the same way, I would expect that most maps would broadly follow ISOM, but could vary to a small degree at the local level, particularly for casual, non-competitive events and different formats such as Street-O, etc.

Since IOF is continuing to insist that their sanctioned events (especially long distance) be offset printed at 1:15000, then you would expect ISOM to match this requirement.

That doesn't mean that nations, regions, local clubs, should be required to follow suit, and this is proved by the fact that as Paul (and others) have said most maps are printed digitally at 1:10000.

I guess what I mean to say is that maybe IOF should produce one version of ISOM to specify standards for IOF events, and another, more flexible version which would be used for other events, and is intended to broadly standardise maps for other events so that you don't get any major surprises when you compete in other countries/regions.

“Waiting for perfect is never as smart as making progress.”

Yes, ISOM is now seen only as WOC standard which must be used at all levels. This is not good for development of sport. We could have many solutions or options in the ISOM guidelines for things we see differently and time will tell what should be a WOC ISOM standard. The official process of changing the ISOM is too long. Why we can't have a system in which each year the best ideas go through direct into ISOM? Mapper has still a chance to do it differently and WRE level should be a testing polygon for these changes, special symbols, etc. But no, MC is strict,...why? What do we have in return for this perfection of drawing, printing, strict rules, ...

I spent a weekend lately on my first Mapping Meeting here in Norway, in order to show the work I've done for the JWOC 2015 base maps:

http://tmsw.no/mapping/basemap_generation.html

I did spend some of the time arguing with our (in-)famous mapping boss, Håvard Tveite, particularly noting that in a world where pretty much all competition maps are laser printed instead of offset press, it really does not make any sense demanding that one scale should fit all:

"Orienteering is a map reading competition at speed, not a vision test!"

The new standard does acknowledge this, by making 1:15K the norm while at the same time making it legal to print true enlargements, all the way to 1:5K for the elder classes in WMOC.

Personally I would like to see a new multiple-choice field on entry forms: Which scale do you prefer?

Like most orienteers I spend a lot of money on entry fees and travel to/from events, I would be perfectly happy to pay say NOK 30-50 extra to be able to get a map printed in 1:7500 or even 1:6000, so that I could easily read everything on it!

Re the new standard there is a lot of very nice stuff and (IMHO) one glaring error:

(Re-)introducing impassable details on a forest map, features that will cause a DSQ if you cross them, is a really bad idea!

We used to have a "no swimming" rule in Norway, which meant that you could not cross a black bank line, but this was impossible to monitor so we removed the rule: It is always up to the competitor to judge the actual risk. If the organizers find that crossing a particular river/stream would be unsafe, then they can add purple out-of-bounds to it.

I am particularly worried about impassable cliffs, as a longtime rock climber (i.e. NW face of Half Dome in ~6 hours back in 1981) I know that most cliffs here in Norway usually has several "weak spots", i.e. places where it is totally possible to get up without undue risk, even when it is mapped as a single impassable cliff.

Near the ends of such cliffs it is almost impossible to judge exactly where the boundary should be between regular and impassable, making it just as difficult for the competitor to make sure that she doesn't break the thick black line.

vertical lined undergrowth symbol. [...] During my experiments I tried changing the solid green line in the new proposed symbol to the medium green. [...] On top of open yellow I thought it wouldn't look so great but again I was surprised that it gave a similar improvement.

That may be, but what would possibly be mapped as full-open yellow with the undergrowth symbol?

I would like to see a recommendation that for digital printing the contours be reduced in thickness by a fraction, in order to compensate for a perceived fuzzyness or bleed.

I'd be willing to keep an open mind until I saw the results, but my guess is that making fuzzy process-color brown lines thinner is going to make things worse, not better.

@jjcote.
re undergrowth on open land; you are quite right, my bad. I think the shade of green that I mentioned could move to medium green (60%) could be a bit darker for better viewing on top of rough open but not as dark as the current version. It is the softer look that is more appealing to the eye and allows detail underneath to show through better.
re slight contour thickness reduction; I know some mappers, cartographers or controllers on maps in NZ reduce the thickness to improve the results of digital printing, and to me it does work. However what really bugs me is seeing some people fiddle with the specifications too much. We are setting up a new technical committe now and hopefully this group will find a way of stopping random changes to ISOM. In some cases it gets so wrong that I think it would be good to make Ocad locked and unchangable. This is why I am passionate that the new ISOM201x should be fit for purpose. If it works well for most maps (as it should) there will be no need for personal changes.

There are two issues with the undergrowth symbols.
1. The width between the lines is problematic for small areas of undergrowth. This is true mainly of 407: Undergrowth - slow running. One solution for this is using tighter lines.
2. Making things hard to read under the symbol. The solution to this might be thinner lines and or lighter green.

I would like to suggest the possibility of using thinner lines and or lighter green lines with spacing similar to the 409: Undergrowth difficult to run symbol for both slow running and difficult to run. To differentiate the two we could use green dashes similar to those used in indistinct marshes.

I think undergowth is very important to map in white forest. The orienteering technique needed in white forest with undergrowth is quite different than in green forest with low visibility. It could additionally affect route choice if one route leaves me attacking through low visibility green while the other has the attack through undergrowth where I can see the feature from a distance.

@nh- You seem to have paid very good attention for an M19. You make many good points, and I agree with almost everything.

I especially agree with your central point re form lines, that form lines often depict features as strong or stronger than features which happen to be caught by a 5m line. However, re the practice of showing lower knolls with form lines and stronger knolls with full contours regardless of elevation, it is not correct to say that this practice is contrary to ISOM. In fact the the definition of 111 knoll actually requires this in many(most?) cases.
"...A prominent knoll falling between contour lines may still be represented by a contour line if the deviation from the actual contour levelis less than 25%. Smaller or flatter knolls should be shown with form lines..."

True, this practice violates engineering contours, but not in orienteering. Even so, your main point still applies to many spurs, reentrants, terraces.., and I think this makes a very strong case against weakening the form line symbol.

@EricW /nh agree also. From what I can see trying a new thinner but very short dashed, rounded end formlines in fact enhances the line shape contrary to what you might think. I guess it is because it shows better shape with a smaller gap and sets it apart from the contour line.

@Canadian. Have just tried your idea^^ and it definately has merit. The main downside to it seems to be that the contrast between slow run and difficult to run undergrowth is less distinct. The best option I found was to make the new vertical marsh typed shapes very short and made them around 75% green (a random new shade), with the straight vertical lines the usual 100% green. Indeed it looks quite nice from where I sit. The differcult to run darker lines is still a little harsh on the eyes and hard to read the map through (though this is not so neccessary I suspect).
Will run it by some of our mob in due course. Great idea.

@cedarcreek, re the NAOC 2012 Long map, I know this terrain well, along with the original older map, but I have not spent any time with this new map and I do not have the map file. I do not suspect there is any misuse of the pillar symbol on this map.

On the other hand, I know the NAOC Middle map very well. The mapper of most of the competion area respected my request to not use this symbol, the other mapper did not. I edited/enlarged many of the pillar cliffs, mostly around the edge, typically doubling them in size to make them look proportional to what I saw in the terrain. I am sure I missed plenty, and did not touch anything which I did not witness directly in the terrain. (This is another issue, doing map changes and criticism sitting only at the computer, that could be expanded upon, especially as it relates to our MC, right coti?)

The other issue that comes up on this NAOC Middle map is the min length of small cliffs. In the main competition area there are many cliffs (non pillar) shorter than the current ISOM standard. In an attempt at compliance, I editted some of these up to the min, generally the more isolated cliffs, but this simply wasn't possible, space wise within lines of cliffs, where most of these short cliffs are meticulously and perfectly mapped. Adding round ends made a complete mess. In general these are not small cliffs, 1.5 to 3.0m, but they are short and have many real breaks.

My conclusion, what difference does it make if a black rock feature is a legal, virtually one sided, boulder on a steep slope (some were mapped this way), or a slightly larger but illegally short cliff symbol. I believe both were used as control features, with no(?) complaints. They both function the same way. Therefore, not only am I against lengthening the min small cliff length, I think this min. length is completely unnecessary, or at most should be set at the size of a boulder. Note this is a completely seperate issue from mapping small (low) cliffs, which I agree can add useless clutter.

@Terje M- another cliff issue. I am not a rock climber, but I completely agree with your point about passable places in large cliffs, that are not possible to map as breaks. I noticed this early on as a mapper, and made this point to a fellow orienteer ~30+ years ago. I got a poor incredulous reaction, so I shut my mouth since then. This situation probably exists more in some geology types than others, but I strongly agree they are very real, and yet another reason why mappers cannot be involved in the issue of legal impassability.

Course setters must have the primary responsibility for safety, OB, and other Iegal issues (along with other O administrators, insurance companies, and everybody's lawyers). Furthermore, think the word "impassable" should be editted out of ISOM, and substituted with "large", "deep", "extremely thick", other similar adjectives, and possibly "dangerous", but that might still be problematic.

I would certainly like to get rid of "impassible". We need three words:

1/ "It's never going to be the best route to go though here"
2/ "You are not permitted to cross this, although physically you can"
3/ "This may be the fastest route, but it won't be pleasant."

A "not permitted to cross" symbol is essential in the UK. In many farmed areas we have hedges, stone walls or wire fences which the farmer will not let people cross as a condition of letting us use the area. Marking these with purple overprint produces a hideous mess, so often organisers just put a note in the event details. Invariably someone doesn't read it and complaints and protests follow - this has been going on forever. So we need a "not permitted to cross", and a single symbol (thick black line) is preferable to two (black line obscured by +purple overprint).

I think there is one remaining elephant. "Who is responsible for the map". Currently ISOM has the attitude that the mapper makes the map, whereas ISSOM stresses that the planning team must update and consider "legal impassibility". The ISOM attitude goes back to the days when you bought 5000 copies of the maps and overprinted on them for 10 years and the planning team could only use purple. This should be explicitly changed - the mapper cannot be expected to tell what the landowner permission regarding a given fence will be at an unspecified event in five year time..

It should be made explicit that the "not permitted to cross" symbols are the responsibility of the *organisers* to add. In the UK, the same should be true of the green stripes, since normally the undergrowth is only there during the summer. Some of our best mappers use two different OCAD symbols for "seasonal" and "non-seasonal" undergrowth, which appear identical or the map, but the "seasonal" one can be hidden across the map with a single click.

@graeme:

It should be made explicit that the "not permitted to cross" symbols are the responsibility of the *organisers* to add.

I totally agree.

In the UK, the same should be true of the green stripes, since normally the undergrowth is only there during the summer. Some of our best mappers use two different OCAD symbols for "seasonal" and "non-seasonal" undergrowth, which appear identical or the map, but the "seasonal" one can be hidden across the map with a single click.

That's a very good idea, I'll remember it!

Lots of interesting senarios here, and quite educational. This is why it is important not to just think on your local or own country specific requirements. I've heard many people wish to get rid of many items and keep things simple which sounds great, however terrain and infrastructure does differ around the world. Just because the symbol set may get larger to cater for a greater variety does not mean it is a competition for mappers to see how many of these you can use on one map. I think it's good that there should always be something ideal to use from the set rather than thinking 'should it be this or that?' when neither may be right.
Re Dark Green: Yet another green I here people shudder - more work, more rules!
On the surface this does sound daunting, but hearing about Graeme's hedges etc confirms that such a colour for hedges and the like would be invaluable. I see the colour as something that is used quite rarely on most maps, and not something to be scared of. Alternatively there is purple OOB symbol but it isn't practical to use for small permanent features and should be used most often by the course planners for up to date OOB issues.
Olive green is better recognised in ISSOM for OOB gardens etc so could even make it's way into ISOM which I wouldn't have a problem with. But it's light colour doesn't do well on things like hedges. Purple OOB lines would be self-explanitary but far too complex amongst course lines. Therefore a Dark green may have it's place and aligning with ISSOM will surely help familiarise runners with the restriction rule so it does become second nature.
One thing for sure is that we need to educate and remind athletes, particularly on sprints ISSOM that these colours are strictly OOB. Not because someone makes all these tiresome rules for the hell of it, or to trick people, but because the land owner doesn't want anyone running through their gardens etc. It's part of the deal.

Re Green Stripe; Still keen on Canadian's concept as long as the dashes are quite small. Getting the correct shade of green is tricky, too dark is not so good on white, too light not good on rough open. (Maybe the open land and rough open are just too dark?) Also, new densities and particularly line thickness proposals, like Robplow has said, are probably too thick as well.

Hey all

Glad to see there are so many constructive ideas here. Unfortunately, there is no one to receive them. In addition, time passes and stayed only a few days left until the IOF will close its doors for this historic openings.

What I propose:
Make a letter to be addressed to all affiliated federations and clubs to ask for to postpone the deadline the consultations with national federations (3-6 months its more resonable) and opening and other topics related ISOM be avoided by commission maps.

Community of the mappers and athletes can influence and even the duty to intervene when the stake is huge for at the moment.

Personally I would do it but do not have the necessary diplomatic language ,I do not speak English well enough and I'm not the ideal person for such an initiative.

Together I think we can draw up a document good enough to be taken seriously so federations and by IOF.

At Lausanne 2012 while presenting 'progress in reviewing the rules ISOM 201x "Thomas Gloor said that it takes so long because it will be done for a long time before and not have to rush.

So there is a real danger that rules ISOM to freeze in this formula and 10 000 to be in the future shall ban from all competitions for seniors (except for the "short")

Together, we can succeed and we can be heard

I totally understand the need to designate certain features as impassible. Occasionally, we will have an event were the park owner requests we don't cross fences, don't enter streams, etc... I always try to use magenta overprint in these situations. But it does look ugly (especially with streams).

But I have real problems with the mapper trying make that distinction, especially with vegetation and rock features. I have certainly encountered the problems Terje and Eric described mapping cliffs, and worse problems with vegetation.

It's one thing to map an impassible hedge. Another thing entirely to map wild vegetation and enforce impassibility rules. Anyone who thinks they can handle that task should try mapping California chaparral or NW Himalayan blackberry first.

Passing the requirement off the the meet organizer doesn't make that task any less impossible. I also have trouble imagining that most recreational meet organizers have the time and skills to make that kind of map edit. Most of the ones I know struggle just to put in magenta OOB.

The width between the lines is problematic for small areas of undergrowth. This is true mainly of 407: Undergrowth - slow running. One solution for this is using tighter lines.

Please don't map crap like this. I've drafted many maps where the mapper drew small circles and indicated that they were supposed to be 407, and they turned out to be a single green line when drafted (or sometimes, they even fell between lines). This is not useful stuff to put on an ISOM map, it serves only to make the map more difficult to read. Although I advocate using this symbol only to show overgrown fields, I don't actually expect there to be enough support for this notion for it to be adopted. But undergrowth has to be extensive for it to be worth showing. Tiny bits of undergrowth are neither potential control features, navigation features, nor route choice features. Either leave them off, or if there's enough of the stuff, show the whole area as undergrowth. (And please don't suggest a new "scattered undergrowth" symbol, either.)

Marking these with purple overprint produces a hideous mess...

...magenta overprint in these situations. But it does look ugly (especially with streams).

Seems to me, at least, that aesthetics should not be the tail wagging this dog (or elephant), but, rather, the effectiveness in conveying OOB. At least for ISOM maps, nothing beats overprinting in this respect.

JJ, don't get me wrong. I agree that small patches of undergrowth in the middle of the woods should not be mapped. There are on the other hand situations where small or awkwardly shapped patches should be mapped:

Situation 1 is a linear clearing (such as along a powerline or an old abandoned railway track) that is overgrown with blueberries. If that linear clearing is heading north-south then the undergrowth won't show up very well at all yet I want to know it's there so I can decide whether it's worth taking the route with the trail cutting through this line of blueberries.

Situation 2 showed up in the long distance terrain at WOC in 2012 where trail junctions that haven't been used much recently got enough sunlight to develop massive patches of raspberries that were effectively impossible to get through so you couldn't actually get to the trail on the other side. Small - yes. Important to map - yes - it's very disctinct so I want it mapped so I know how far I am along the trail and it's distinct from green forest so I want to know that but I can't get through it easily at all so it shouldn't just be clearing....

I'm sure there are more situations in various terrains but those are the two that come to mind.

It's one thing to map an impassible hedge. Another thing entirely to map wild vegetation and enforce impassibility rules. Anyone who thinks they can handle that task should try mapping California chaparral or NW Himalayan blackberry first.

I have no idea what these things are, but they sound like "practically impassible" (i.e. no rule to enforce, mapped green by the mapper, and avoided by sane competitors). Even if there is some Californian "keep off the Himalayan blackberry in Spring"-type law, the mapper can map it as green and the meet director can change the symbol to forbidden-green with a single click: exactly the same as for an English hedgerow. If it's simply too complicated for the mapper to map, then no standards are going to help.

So I don't understand what point you're trying to make...

Before making another post, I took coti's suggestion and sent a number of emails on the "more time please" issue. The first was to my national rep, noted above. I hope some others have done the same. For those who feel it appropriate, email addresses for all the MC members are on the IOF web site. Yes it is interesting to expound on this subject, but there is also some work to do.

"Graeme's hedge"-
If I understand, this does not sound like a real vegetation runnability symbol, but rather a political OB symbol that might happen to be greenish, although I would definitely vote against that color, and for magenta (or dayglo orange, or safety chartruese), because of the importance of the issue. Aesthetics should not be the priority here, although anything would be more appealing to my eyes and stomach than our pukey ISSOM 528.1.
I don't think "Graeme's hedge" would have an effect on the overall mapping work or mindset, whereas the proposed 4th green, would have a major impact.
However, isn't this simply an alternative to the current OB options, which are already plentiful, and usually one or two clicks away.

responsibility-
Yes, it doesn't sound fair to dump responsibility on other overburdened, or inexperienced people, but prescribed responsibility has to go the most practical and responsible position, not individual. Furthermore, the outside pro mapper is usually even less aware of the local political issues.

green lines-
For small patches of any weak but significant feature, the principle is to step up the size of the symbol to its logical or prescribed min. or use to the next stronger symbol, or an alternate symbol. I think some people are forgetting the two levels of green lines (407, 409). If you can't get two stripes out of the stronger symbol, especially the proposed version, something else is wrong.
But yes, skinny N/S sections are an inevitable problem.

I can only say how I would probably deal with the two situations:

1) A skinny overgrown N/S clearing? I'd just map it as green. Unlike a wider clearing, a skinny canopy gap isn't something that stands out at a distance. If it's wide enough to be significant, then as Eric says, you can step up to 409 if it's really that bad.

2) Effectively imossible to get through? That's fight, 410.

Vertical green lines in the forest is a solution that has successfully created a problem to solve. People have gotten used to it and think it's more important than it is. As has been noted elsewhere, we don't have a solution to other things, like poor visibility with good running, and we get along fine without them.

I'm in favour of more time being devoted to getting the new spec right. The current draft document looks like a long way off anything final to me and should incorporate some of the ideas above. How to do that is going to be problematic as EricW suggests above. As well as the Map Commission there also appears to be a reference group working on this (since last November), so it might be worth asking these people as well: MC 13/09 ISOM 201X: A working draft was sent to the reference group for consultation in November 2012.
The members are Adrian Uppill AUS, Christer Carlsson SWE, Robert Micek SLK, Pat Healy IRE, Flemming Norgaard DEN, Libor Bednarik CZE, Emil Wingstedt SWE, Kazushige Hatori JAP, Pat Dunlavey USA, Cesare Tarabocchia ITA, Agna
r Renolen NOR. Thomas Brogli SUI, and Björn Persson, IOF Sports Director.

Due to relentless peer pressure and and keeping to an open mind I think I may be coming to my senses with a few things...
Magenta is best for OOB, Graeme's Hedge is a special case that could be dealt with locally by informing or by use of a magenta symbol. I understand aesthletics can get messy.
The most recent NZ Middle Champs were held in a forest encompassing a camping ground, planners used a Special Symbol (thin magenta line filled with 20% magenta) to mark the individual OOB campsites. Far from looking ugly it was very clear and precise. This has got me wondering if we need to change, or add to our OOB symbol set. Could the likes of a permanently OOB feature such as a hedge or building be shown as my example above (60% magenta infill looks even better) This way there aren't huge unsightly vertical magenta lines required. The other symbol I like is the Dangerous Area cross-hatch where it could cover such a hedge so you can see through, but not as ugly and stands out better than the current vertical line OOB.
Another real life experience I just had in a race reciently involving green fight, the course had route choices around old swamp ares marked as solid green, the map hasn't been updated for a few years, running around one of the swamps the first time I noticed the vegetation didn't look very dense and there were no signs of water. Later we came back some I took a gamble to give it a go to cross saving quite some distance around, low and behold it was fairly easy and must have saved me good time. This really was an example of an unfair advantage which involved luck. Obviously the best option was for the map to be properly updated in this case but there are other times when it may be best for the area to be shown as permanently OOB for whatever reason (deep water? or just to make it fair if it is marginal) Here the new Dark Green would be useful although there are also the permanent black and magenta vertical striped options too. Too many options? The cross hatched Dangerous Area would be a good fit as well. Any thoughts?

After more discussions here with a mapper who would like the undergrowth symbol removed, he changed his mind when thinking about the variety of maps and vegetation around the country. At present my preference, without yet convincing anyone on the merits 'canadians idea' (which I like) is for the same symbols as present with narrower gaps and thinner lines. I think the new proposals have gone way too far though. To me the lines look good at 0.10, with slow gap 0.3, and walk gap 0.6. (@1:15000).
The best alternative to the current formline that I can come up with has the following specs.. (@1:15000) 0.10 line/ 0.35 distance/ 0.25 gap/ rounded ends..
One thing I think we should all keep in mind when making submissions is not to feel too strongly about things that don't really affect us. For myself and others in this area our main terrain is sandunes, and a variety of vegetation types, so to us formlines and contour features are the most important along with the greens, yellows, veg boundaries and tracks. I have strong thoughts about rock but in reality it really should be left up to the mappers who deal with rock issues all the time, such as some mappers in Australia etc. Ditto with water features probably best made by someone in Finland or the like.

Graeme,
You are correct, both chapparel and himalayan blackberry are "practically impassible." Any attempt to scramble thorough more than about 10 meters of the stuff would be virtually impossible. As written, the new standard clearly intends this stuff to be mapped using the "forbidden" symbol.

But even in these most impenetrable of vegetation features, there are almost always little gaps of various sizes where one can squeeze through, here and there (the deer ensure this). Also, some of these vegetation patches (esp. blackberry) tend to taper off at the edge. Regulating and separating the legal gaps from the forbidden gaps would be impossible.

I look at this, and I think that the approach suggested by the mapping committee is just inviting more incidents like this: WOC Sprint disqualifications , where even clearly defined walls and lawns caused confusion. Are you planning to start putting tape around all the cliffs and bushes??

Indeed Paul, listening to other points of view is vital, I am modifying my opinions as a result. On the need for green stripes I am undecided. On the one hand we are getting by without a symbol for fast run low visibility. On the other hand we at least need something to put on rough open when there is enough junk to reduce the speed to the levels we expect to show in a forest. IF we retain stripes it seems from experiments that reducing the gaps WITHOUT also reducing the line width will make the legibility problems much worse. But reducing both lines and gaps (thanks robplow) might be OK and have the byproduct of representing small patches better.

Paul I can't find your reference to the "Canadian" view on formlines, but I would urge you to consider the existing formline specs PLUS loud exhortations to use them sparingly, with the finer contour interval if appropriate, you know the map we are both thinking about:-)) Many of those minor wiggles don't pass "the puzzle test" - you can't immediately recognise them at elite running speed. The apparent concern in the draft with unfortunate gaps in areas of high curvature is easily controlled with the dash point.

Have we explored the runnability demarcations enough? Initially I didn't like the "new" zone of 60-40% runnability. But now I think it brings the zone of around half speed "into play" whereas before it was part of an extremely wide band of up to 3:1 speed range, and a planner concerned with reducing luck could hardly use it. The question is, do we need three zones above 40% and what will it do to mapping effort? Developing my earlier thoughts I'm now tending to 100-70% (white) and 70-40% (light green). Comment from runners as to whether they actually use the current 80-60% is required. Below 40% there are two zones both currently and proposed, and it isn't going to make much difference whether the break is at 20% or 10%.

I'm "on the fence" when it comes to making the "hard to cross" features "not allowed" . On the one hand it removes an ambiguity for the person who isn't a strong swimmer or a rock climber. Even the experienced rock climber can't tell from the map whether there are going to be climbable bits! On the other hand the edges are not usually clear on the ground, and the measure is un-enforceable. Keep the discussion going and please be open to both sides.

@gruver, sorry for the reference to 'canadians formline' which was a mistake on my part. I deleted it from above quickly but after you must have read it.

Re green zones, I'm not a percentages man when it comes to this as runnability is always subjective and reletive. I just like fast,slow run, walk and fight. But I do see a need to differentiate general vegetation impediment from good visibility ground cover rubbish, combining the two into one symbol would create great confusion all round I believe. There are very many terrains that have a huge variety of vegetation, including exotic and native trees with there own distinct undergrowth all on one map.
Agree entirely with your position to stress more minimalist formline use. Haha I know what map you are talking about.. thats a real toughy as quite a unique place, unfortunately, or fortunately you can't smooth out a thousand reentrants and spurs without the use of a bulldozer. Using 2.5m contours would have negated the use of so many formlines but this would have created problems of it's own in the steep parts of the map. Three mappers looked over it after the initial fieldwork and agreed that it was the best we could come up with at the time. The terrain probably qualifies as unsuitable for orienteering use according to the IOF recommendations, which would be a great loss. I havn't heard any complaints from elite in regards to over mapping, quite the contrary. But yes it is a bit of an eyesore in places. One visiting Australian commented that it was like France WOC on steroids.

Several references to magenta by various posters in this thread. Magenta is simply the default in OCAD, not sure why developers of OCAD chose to use it. It prints as a pink colour, which many colour-blind people can't see well at all.

The correct IOF colour is PMS purple (for offset). The recommended approximation of purple for CMYK is C43,M91, but in Australia we have found this is still unsatisfactory (too bright) for many colour-blind orienteers, and OA Mapping Committee recommends C30,M100,Y15.

@blegg But even in these most impenetrable of vegetation features, there are almost always little gaps of various sizes where one can squeeze through, here and there (the deer ensure this)..
If you can get through, then it's 410 (Vegetation: very difficult to run) or maybe undergrowth equivalent.
I think ISOM should keep the undergrowth stripes. The symbol isn't useful for anything else, and in the UK it is very useful. If it isn't useful in your country, then don't use it! The purpose of the map is to help you find your way, and the distinction between "thick forest you can see from far away" and "thick undergrowth you can't see until you're there" is worth keeping.

Just because someone misuses it isn't a reason to ban it (and no, I'm not in the NRA...).

Paul wrote: I just like fast,slow run, walk and fight.

I don't measure speed percentages either (except that once a long time ago I had a disagreement with a fellow fieldworker, and we had to resort to timed runs!) My point is that the draft is suggesting fast, fairly fast, slow run, walk, and fight, and I want to hear from runners whether they see any benefit in that and are prepared to pay me more to do it.

The correct IOF colour is PMS purple (for offset). The recommended approximation of purple for CMYK is C43,M91.

Hi Simmo, where is this listed? I was curious why my courses' purple was not the same as other purples at our local meets, and when I looked at the IOF map spec, PMS Purple was listed as M100. I didn't see anything in the competition guidelines, but I skimmed quickly (and searched for PMS, which only listed a different one.)

http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12... see page 15.

I just want to use the right settings. Thanks.

In my comments, I wasn't trying to differentiate magenta from other purple/violet variations. I was just try to keep it simple, follow suit, and I'm quite happy to let others work out the precise specification.

Here "form lines" are the thin line ones.

I would say it might end up better in the end if we simply erase form lines ideology alltogeter and replace it with every second contour rule (or "an intermediate contour"). Contour interval would (almost) always be 2.5m, every second contour is thinner and when it's too steep we'll drop thin lines off. Maybe if area is genuinely flat 2m interval could be used. Like this there would never be "stacked form lines"- a mapper can't just add some random contours in between, it would break the every second thing. No gaps, just some ends, visually better. There would always be enough contrours for mapping all the essential stuff (2m or 2.5m interval is always enough, right? some generalization please). By leaving all thin ones out the map would have effectively 5m interval as of today. And as a bonus one could see whats up and whats down (depression) without seeing any tags. In the example map above I have some depressions (wihout tags), can you see and count them? This approach would symbolwise be same as the thin line one in the ISOM proposal, but the execution is a bit different.

I really struggle to see how an argument can be made to use any shade of grey for rock features (that limts runnability), as long as we keep the symbol for bare rock to 100% grey.

Not only are bare rock a common feature in many types of rocky terrain, but it is also a symbol that typically designates good runnability.

This is quite a radical idea but it is just a thought.

It has been mentioned earlier that light green (406) is not as significant on the map to the runner, in terms of route-choice etc, and could be removed. This would leave two shades of green (408 and 410), as well as white (405), to classify runnability of forested areas.

Also, there are a number of issues with the undergrowth symbols in terms of legibility of details under, and legibility of small or oddly shaped undergrowth patches. The light green colour could instead be used to show undergrowth (409, because 407 wouldn't exist on the map) in forested areas.

Then when it comes to open areas, is there really a significant difference in open land (401) and rough open land (403) for the runner? I for one seldom use the difference to plan route-choices and we don't have the equivalent of 403 in forested areas. 403 could instead be used to show open areas with significantly bad runnablity (what were before 403 combined with 409).

This way patches with undergrowth can still be shown with good legibility, both in forested and open areas

@nh yes interesting excercise in minimalism which shows what can be achieved if that is what is wanted by runners and mappers and the IOF. I don't think it is though. Also try changing set habbits or preconceptions of thousands of masters and veterans and see what happens! As it stands think of rough open dunes with it's long grasses etc, the rough open already represents slow going, then undergrowth typed vegetation creeps in in places, people complain if it is not mapped as they could have gone around it. I think the current method with some tweaking works fine. Symbols have developed naturally over time, green on yellow makes complete logical sense.
I would find it interesting if you have changed your own thoughts about mapping since moving to norway, I see they are about to experience a nh map soon :)

@simmo, yeah like others was just referring to magenta as a general term, however it is another item that is important to clarify and get right as MrWonderful has pointed out the colour specs can be confusing when there is course setting and OOB versions of purple. Thanks for sharing the AOMC specifications with us.

Bare rock with vegetation, best oxymoron I've heard in a while!

Thanks to other posters' here, I am now errering on the side of not wishing there to be an uncrossable extra green. Though orenteering should always be fair, there also needs to be choice and guesswork. If there is something that is dangerous or OOB for ownership reasons then there are already symbols that highlight that. Going down a path where one could be disqualified for crossing an uncrossable feature is a path we don't wish to go down, it's the wrong routechioce, things like uncrossable streams and cliffs etc should just be highly recommended that you do not cross for safety reasons and that it is not the quickest way!.

Nick, when I suggest doing away withe the 80-60% band, that is so the proposed 5 speed zones comes back to 4, not to reduce the present number which I'm comfortable with. However keep up the radical thinking, it's what we need.

Jagge is also a radical thinker, but I must say that I can't immediately see the ups and downs in his example without puzzling over it. Doing without tags - hmmm - will we really get used to recognising a thick contour within a thick contour as a hill within a hollow (or a hollow on top of a hill)?

The best purple for CMYK - I had always thought OCAD silly for its 100% magenta default - but Mr Wonderful has pointed out that the (demonstrably wrong) setting goes back to ISOM2000! (They have recently modified their default, I think.)

@nh "I think grey for rock and black for paths etc. is the better combination. Generally man-made features are more obvious in the terrain than rock features, so they should be more obvious on the map. Generally man made features have more effect on route choice too. If the rock feature affects route choice significantly it is likely to be large in the terrain and on the map. Also, in the shown example, the track is nearly invisible if it is shown in grey with the rocks black, but vice versa means both types of features stand out well, and it is very easy to distinguish between them. "

I know I'm going back a ways in the conversation here but I'd like to revisit the idea of having different colours for trails and rock.

First off let me say that I like the idea as it can get easy for areas with trails and cliffs and boulders to become very messy. But I have to disagree with nh on a few statements - I think the rock and cliffs should be black). First off that man made features are more obvious in the terrain than rock features. Sometimes perhaps but then only when you're on them. I've run in many areas where trails are hard to see / follow even when you're on them. And in terms of navigation (route choice is a different matter) I generally use rock more than paths as rock features (especially big cliffs) are more visible from further away. And in terms of runnability you can always cross a trail but crossing a cliff can be another matter. I'd rather the cliff stand out more on the map than the trail.

As for the specific example in the draft standard I think that has as much to do with the particular case used there and the drafting and conversion to raster image as anything else. What's with the grey shade on the left half of the samples? It doesn't quite look right for bare rock.

A few additional points:
1. With the gradual move to representing buildings in grey with a black border as in ISSOM grey is already used for man made features.
2. There should be a very obvious distinction on the map between a patch of bare rock and a giant rock pillar or shaped cliff.
3. If there's a rock right at the edge of a path I'd like to see the rock stand out over the path. As a long linear feature the path already has prominence and a grey dot half showing beside it could easily missed despite potentially being the feature you see first if coming up a hillside.
4. While trails are important for route choice too often these days they're playing a role in major middle distance races. Maybe if the trails are de-emphasized on the map by being grey the will also get de-emphasized in the course setting?? On the other hand maybe it's important to think of trails when course setting to emphasize the importance avoiding them when course setting...

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have {EDIT TYPO} black for both rock and paths as the default, with grey rock/black paths, or grey paths/black rock allowed as alternatives depending on how the mapper sees the particular terrain?
If the mapper, setter, organiser and Event Adviser agree that is how it should be done; and it is highlighted in Event bulletins and Notes and on a model map surely that is good enough?
In general, I don't think a prescriptive set of mapping "rules" can be set up to ideally cover all possible orienteering terrains; there should be flexibility given to the mapper. Otherwise we could be in the situation of discarding multiple terrain types as "not suitable for international events" - as in page 8 of the draft re scale. After all orienteering is a sport of navigating in "unknown terrain"

Doing without tags - hmmm - will we really get used to recognising a thick contour within a thick contour as a hill within a hollow (or a hollow on top of a hill)?

I wasn't suggesting there would be no tags. There would be both tags and also this bonus way to get hint whats up and whats down. I can't find that really that radical.

gruver, to make it clear: Even if there is only contours in that image I am not suggesting ISOM 201X maps should be contours only.

2,5/5m contour interval.
http://kartparm.malungsok.se/show_map.php?user=Mat...