The list of major changes compared to the 2018-version looks like this:
● Now covers both ISOM and ISSprOM.
● Description Sheet should be printed in black.
I guess that answers that!
I see they're still including the useless (but harmless) line to describe the start location.
I guess that answers that! - my thoughts exactly, though I couldn't recall which thread that discussion took place in...
I see it's now possible to describle controls in multi-level sprint areas but not in the way that I'd have imagined they'd do it (that should be fun for the next event set by certain members of our association). I mean, there was already an 'upper' and 'lower' in column C.
Use of Top and Beneath symbols extended to include a the Upper or Lower of two levels.
It also took me a while to place the black vs purple thread-https://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/m...
I'm OK with this decree, however I think this issue is far from settled.
The ISOM is still at best ambiguous on this issue, and directly contradictory according to many semi-reasonable people, who are clearly supported by decades of precedent.
For me purple is prettier on the map, but if one color needs to be specified, I think black is more reasonable for the benefit of color-challenged people.
I am glad to finally see a solution for an area of distinct white within thicker green vegetation. (I believe my interest in this goes back to WOC 93.)
However, I think it would make more sense to apply the clearing symbol, because relative to the surroundings, this feature is a clearing, and the copse feature is exactly the opposite, thicker than the surroundings.
Still, I'm glad to see it addressed.
...and thanks Clint, for being on top of this and publicizing.
It specifically says “description sheet” should be printed in black. To me, this references the loose description sheet. It does not seem to specify the color of descriptions printed on the map itself, or even if they must be on the map itself. As far as I know, there’s never been a requirement to print descriptions on the map itself.
18.3 The control descriptions, given in the right order for each competitor’s course, must be fixed to or printed on the front side of the competition map.
I think Mike's interpretation of "description sheet" as applying only to loose sheets is reasonable, but I am doubtful that this was intentional, since there is no mention of how any of these detailed rules apply to control descriptions if/when printed on the map.
Is the Rules Commission intentionally ignoring this option, and/or leaving this up to the Map Commission to regulate?
I doubt it. I suspect this is just imprecise language that should be cleaned up, perhaps by simply dropping the word "sheet".
We are still left with need for Map Commission and Rules Commission to coordinate the remaining loose ends.
I'm with Mike...
I claim no expertise regarding map specs, but it is my understanding that anything added to -- effectively overlaid on -- the map -- eg, OOB, crossing points, course -- must be purple. In my slightly OCD opinion, since control descriptions fall into that category, they also should be purple.
I guess the difference is that descriptions completely cover anything already on the map sheet (I've seen examples where that was not the case, and they were UG-LY), so they are not really additions to the map itself. For this reason, while I prefer purple, I have no problem with black, and think the rule should be "control descriptions on the map sheet shall be printed in purple or black" -- just to be clear that they cannot be printed in green, blue, brown or yellow (even though that should be obvious).
Also new is that 'If the clarification symbol in column C is not sufficient to unambiguously define the placement of the control flag then the feature is not suitable for a control site.' To some extent this answers tRicky's point if 'upper' or 'lower' does not unambiguously describe the location of the feature. Explanation of column C also defines that these should be used 'Where the control feature is directly above (or below) a similar feature.' Since the feature must be mapped there is a limited range of features that exist at both levels.
Of no practical consequence, there is a now a map symbol (419, green X) associated with the clue: rootstock.
It was absent in the previous version and was the source of my favorite bit of "stump the chump" orienteering trivia: What clue has no map symbol...
Now I'm only left with the negative space trivia question: What are some control locations where there is nothing on the map at the center of the circle? Saddle, terrace, spur, reentrant...
In honor of the fallen (trivia question), I'm placing a single rootstock on the West Point map during today's field checking...see if you can find it at April's event. As usual, the meet notes will still say there are no rootstocks, regardless of size, on the map:) Now I just have to find one...that's big and far enough from more relevant rock & contour detail to be meaningful...
Isn't a rootstock the circle with the cross in it? I've seen both green and brown X used for that on a map.
This shows how difficult it is to write directions and specifications. You try to simply state what color the control descriptions should be, and people immediately respond with, "Wait, no, there's a subtle language thing here and that's not what they meant!".
Hence why impassable became uncrossable (but hey, I managed to both pass and cross the feature so the guidance must be wrong).
So those little trees we call a copse which is a small stand of trees except when... uh never mind.
The copse thing is weird. I agree with EricW that clearing makes more sense.
I like that they added something for map flip but wonder why they don't have a similar symbol gor map exchange other than the mandatory route with start triangle. Is that the only situation where a map exchange is allowed in the international rules?
Also... what about when 'map flip' is actually two small maps printed.on the same side of the page. I had that at a local event on Sunday and flipped my map over to see a blank page staring at me before flipping it back over to find the second half of the course. And I had seen the entire map before the start but I guess when things aren't the norm you fall back on habits...
Agree with Canadian and Eric W - clearing would seem much more appropriate than copse. Or how about putting the copse symbol upside-down as a sort of anti-copse?
I think it's more an anti-thicket no? A thinnet if you will. :)
I'm with JJ on this one. The document says control descriptions should be printed in black, period. If they wanted you to use purple on the map and black on loose control descriptions, then they would have said so.
The use of the phrase "Description Sheet", while not super clear, presumably refers to the set of control descriptions (including the header lines, start, controls, map flip, finish). Given the absence of any instructions to the contrary, one can presume that it should be identical (including colour) whether printed on the map or given out loose.
The problem is there are "instructions to the contrary" in the ISOM, as well as huge precedent.
This is an area of overlapping jurisdiction.
These two entities need to cooperate, which has been a problem in the past (the uncrossable /impassable issue?)
The issue has been noted :-).
Maybe model a symbol for “opening in forest” on 3.8 “firm
ground in marsh”? The thicket symbol with a round hole in the middle.
I still think clearing is far better than copse, but maybe in some language translations, that too strongly implies an opening to the sky rather than just more open at running level?
Blair, glad to hear from you on this.
Since we're now discussing specific symbols I feel like railway icon is too graphically complicated. If thr rails could be brought closer together and the humber of rail ties reduced to 4 ot maybe 5 (from 6) I thunk the symbol would be faster to recognize and therefore better.
Not sure if the IOF is open to that type of feedback at this stage or not...
re the anti thicket,
I completely agree with Mike's suggestion of "thicket symbol with a round hole in the middle."
I'm slightly sympathetic to not wanting to create a new symbol for a seldom used feature, but if the "anti marsh" deserves one, so does this, and this proposal is the plain-as-day obvious solution.
Blair, can this issue be pragmatically noted? :-)
This new "copse" symbol should at least make the bag-in-the-forest crowd happy, as it will open up all kinds of possibilities to put controls in the middle of green areas in little areas of slight breaks in the green that might or might not be detectable on the ground. Not that they were ever limited by the notion that a control placement could be problematic in the first place.
Separately, I wrote David Rosen, and his reply was completely clear: the new control description specification (descriptions to be printed in black) will apply to all control descriptions, both on and off the map.
How often do you put controls on railways?
NZOC - Sprint last week, could have used Railway Tracks and Upper/Lower Symbols.
Line surrounding the fenced pool area.https://otrax.app/#/event/01HD6ASTAFFCMN3THWFGZFYE...
See Joe Lynch at 2:02 running on themhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_Enkiy-4NQ&t=...
Quantico has two mapped parks with little trains/train tracks like that. I don't think I've had a control on the tracks though ...
@jjcote "Wait, no, there's a subtle language thing here and that's not what they meant!" and then come all the translations into other languages, and more "subtle language things are introduced ;)
@Canadian - maybe they'll update the "map flip" symbol to represent all forms of "map exchange" whether as flip, exchange, or 2 or more mini-maps on a page
Haha tRicky. But railways are sometimes disused, as in historical or theme parks. Aside - last week's one was mapped as a tramway, and as such near invisible:-((
We've got a couple of adjacent maps separated by an active railway, and I've looked at the possibility of having courses cross between them, and keeping people off the tracks by using a control that could be described as "railway, under". But it would be more helpful to just describe it as being in the middle of a tunnel.
Please login to add a message.