Discussion: ISSOM: passable cliffs vs. impassable walls?

I've been puzzled about this for some time: in ISSOM, impassable walls are represented by black lines with a thickness of 0.4 mm while passable cliffs can be represented by black lines with a thickness of 0.3 mm. Are we really supposed to be able to tell the difference? This came up for me again at the Flying Pig, near control #60 (the one at the S edge of the olive green that was the subject of a different discussion): look at the two short black line segments running E-W at the southern edge of the olive green, just W of the cliff that was the site of #60 (#5 on Brown). Are those passable cliffs or impassable walls? In this case, it didn't matter since they border an out of bounds area, but clearly in some cases it could make a big difference for route planning.

Anyone have some guidance here?

Note: if you weren't at the Pig, you can see the map on OCIN's RouteGadget site.

I had a similar issue with a sprint event I ran in on the weekend where I wasn't sure about a cliff symbol. This cost me a few seconds (and possibly a place) trying to figure it out but in the end when I got to the feature, there was a way down through it and it was about a 1m cliff anyway so correctly mapped as passable but I couldn't tell at a glance.

You shouldn't be having to compare a passable cliff with an impassable wall - the comparison should be between passable cliff (0.3mm) and impassable cliff (0.5mm), a distinction which should be quite easy on the run.

IMO it's all about context - in a bush setting, at least in the terrain I've seen, an ISSOM "impassable wall" makes no sense...or is a cliff anyway. (this may not be the case in Europe, but Australians aren't in the habit of building high walls in the bush) In tRicky's example, the cliff in question would have been 0.5mm thick if it was impassable.

By the same token, a passable cliff makes little sense in an urban setting, so any thickish black line is probably an impassable wall - and any passable cliffs should be shown with tags to make that clear.

ISSOM is, well, not the best stadard in our sport. Plenty of issues like this.

We have plenty of cliffs in our urban areas and there is no room for any tags. Our latest guideline tells we should not use passable cliff symbol much at all for urban areas. Instead map cliffs as passable wall or just not map them. Or if it is big enough map it as impassable cliffs and put tapes around it.
http://www.ssl.fi/ssl/sslwww.nsf/0/ADC5B228D8A0F2E...

there is other issues described with map images there too, like not drawing anything anywhere near passable fence to not make them look thicker impassable fence like symbol on paper.

The minimum width for forbidden to cross green is 0.4mm, same with black (fence). Can someone tell what it is for olive green, a much lighter and less visible tone? I can't find it ande one problem is way too narrow olive greens. Something like minimum 2mm would force mappers to use more prominent color like forbidden green. Or purple.

My main problem in this instance was trying too hard to not break a rule, which I shouldn't be bothering with given some of the attendees at our events.

Jagge this issue has been discussed in AP before (I forget the thread title). One solution (which I always use) is to use surround gardens with 0.7 line (414 or 529). I think they used this at WOC in Norway. The other solution, if the area of narrow gardens is not too great, and the event is important, is to tape it.

@ tRicky - very commendable of you, keep it up!

On the original topic, in general I agree with Juffy, but also passable cliffs tend to be much shorter than impassable walls, and both have context, eg if the black line were adjacent to a grey area, you could probably assume it to be a cliff. Contours are also a good indicator; I would expect a cliff to run parallel to a contour (and in most cases actually be along a contour line). The same could be true of a wall, but walls could also cross a contour line, or be nowhere near a contour.

We had a lot of DQs at an event where people jumped down a 1.5 m vertical drop, only to find that the "cliff face" was made of bricks and mapped as an uncrossable wall (which is how it looked from below).

ISSOM is generally pretty good for a first effort at a standard, but this is certainly one of its problems, I hope they fix it (e.g. by requiring tags on cliffs in urban sections).

Tags are so useful, I wish they were used more. As a mapmaker I know they can get inthe way, and may look ugly, but to the runner they convey the correct information quickly.
BTW I would define a wall as having two vertical sides, a cliff as having only one face verticle,no matter what it is constructed of.

BTW I would define a wall as having two vertical sides, a cliff as having only one face verticle,no matter what it is constructed of.

ISSOM doesn't really work like that though, since a lot of walls in urban areas are retaining walls. There's no way I'd map a rendered brick wall as a cliff, that would confuse the *#$* out of everyone.

@Juffy, yes I see your point, I have not done any urban sprint maps.
But again, a runner coming from above will never see the retaining wall as a wall.
The only give away may be some contours, but not even those would not show a 2 meter wall.
Perhaps another symbolis needed, but personnaly, and I have run many urban sprints, an uncrossable retaining wall shown as a cliff with tags, would not be confusing to me.

Problem is, there's usually stuff where the tags would go!

Coach and T/D, you may remember the US Sprint Champs at Franklin Park Zoo a couple of years ago. After the spectator control, there was a long, black line, situated along the contours in such a way that it could have been a passable cliff - or an impassable retaining wall. Deciding before you got there whether to go all the way around or directly over was a significant route choice decision - this long before you got close enough to see whether it was a wall or a cliff. Turned out it was a stone retaining wall, which at least for me was hard to tell it wasn't a cliff until I got almost right up to it. Seems to me one should have been able to tell what it was by the map long before one got there.

But again, a runner coming from above will never see the retaining wall as a wall.

I see the impassable wall symbol as a big warning sign saying "YOU CAN'T GO THIS WAY" - how visible it is (as a wall) from the top is entirely secondary to the fact that you're not allowed over it.

Sure, the cliff symbol (with tags) is more descriptive in that you can show which side is down, but at the end of the day it's the wrong symbol for the job. IMO a wall is not a cliff, and I would almost never map something man-made as one - the only exception being in quarries, and even then the surface is natural even if the feature itself is artificial.

Dennis' example of a stone retaining wall is a nasty one, but it's still a wall.

But isn't the main issue that an impassable wall symbol looks nearly identical to a passable cliff symbol? And that a person needs to know well ahead of when he/she gets there which one it is?

Yes, to me that's the main issue. I gather from what every one is saying that there is in fact no simple way based on the symbols alone to tell the difference. If the black line is short, I guess it doesn't matter much, you can always just go around it. And if the line is long enough that going around it would be a significant addition of time, then perhaps one should assume that a natural cliff wouldn't be that long and that, therefore, it must be an impassable wall?

No I don't think that is a good way to go ;-) In this case (again) I think it is up to the course planner to do something - perhaps use the purple "forbidden" line to clarify so that the race isn't affected by this problem with ISSOM. But then I suppose the question is "what if it wasn't the forbidden symbol" - would the absence of a purple line mean that you could cross it (obviously not).

The course planner’s job is to design a course that tests orienteering ability, and to communicate this course in a clear and unambiguous way to the athletes. The athletes will then compete to see who can pick the best routes and execute them the quickest.

[EDIT: By the way, this isn't intended as criticism of that particular event, rather as a general comment. I have my nose stuck in the rules book more than most and I'm not sure I would have noticed that problem ahead of the race ;-( ]

Problem is, there's usually stuff where the tags would go!

Yes, another problem with the ISSOM spec is that the tags are too long.

So what if you make the passable cliff the same colour like the passable wall? At least it would be obvius that both symbols are passable objects. Ok, it would be confusing in the beginning switching from ISOM to ISSOM in wooded area.

Since they're both uncrossable, why not make them the same width:

0.5mm for uncrossable cliff or wall
0.3mm for crossable cliffs

I honestly don't see the issue with using a different symbol for a brick "cliff". If you can fall down it and get hurt, who cares about the distinction between natural and manmade?

I always see the 0.3mm as "normal" and the 0.5mm black lines as "impossibly thick". And I frequently miss the gray crossable wall symbols.

Should now 0.4 mm uncrossable fence be 0.5mm too? Or keep it right in the middle. If we make them all 0.5mm, would there be room left for anything else in tricky places, 0.4mm makes it already tight?

http://forum.nopesport.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=135...

0.4 mm for impassible wall is a minimum value. It's nice to have the option for 0.4 mm in urban areas, where it can often be hard to squeeze in the walls, and still insure that the footpaths around the walls meet minimum thickness (0.35 mm). (Recall, 0.4 mm on the map translates to 2 meters thick in real life, so a footpath bounded by 2 impassible walls takes up nearly 6 m of map real-estate)

But if you have an impassible wall in forested areas, there is no rule against using a wider line thickness for clarity. The same is not true for Fences. For Fences, the 0.4 mm is a fixed value. But if the fence is too short to sqeeze in tags, it can be mapped as an impassible wall...

ISSOM doesn't really work like that though, since a lot of walls in urban areas are retaining walls. There's no way I'd map a rendered brick wall as a cliff, that would confuse the *#$* out of everyone.

Huh, well that answers that question. I had always assumed a wall was something you'd have trouble crossing in either direction but that a cliff you could fall off from one side, whether man made or not.

To my eyes, rock, stone, brick and concrete are the same stuff. To attempt to distinguish them is a waste of symbols. Passable or not is the main issue. I guess thick and thin, and an unscientific statement is that a ratio of 1.5 is the bare minimum that may be distinguished by a runner. Given that we must recognise the symbol in isolation (ie it may not be next to the other sort) I would prefer 2.0.

If we removed "or stone faced bank" from both specifications we would make a useful improvement. I like to know whether a feature mapped as 519 has one or two sides. In fact is there any point in distinguishing a two-sided stone/brick/concrete wall from a fence?

Yes, generally you can see through a fence to the control you are now unable to reach because you are on the wrong side of it.

I am glad that Dennis brought up the uncrossable wall at Franklin Park. I think that all this discussion is a great example of why orienteering is killing itself by becoming more and more complicated. I have been orienteering for over 35 years at all levels, but I have not spent any time studying the difference between ISOM and ISSOM. Therefore at Franklin Park I read the "wall" as a cliff, saw a way up through it, and went that way. Only after the race did I learn that this was an "uncrossable" symbol in ISSOM and I could be disqualified.

Do we want local orienteers and newcomers to come to our national events or not? If we do, we better not expect them to have to learn the fine points of symbol sets.

By the way, I won M70 in that race; should I be disqualified and lose my Championship??

I have been orienteering for over 35 years at all levels, but I have not spent any time studying the difference between ISOM and ISSOM.

This isn't just limited to orienteering. I play volleyball. There are different rules between indoor and beach. I play softball as a pitcher, and there are different rules for fast-pitch and slow-pitch, and even types within slow pitch (ASA vs. USSA, open vs. co-ed). And then there's different rules for high school basketball, college basketball, NBA, and international. And those are just the sports that I'm familiar with.

If you're serious about competing, then you ought to know the rules. ISSOM isn't that long of a read.

But I think Dennis's original point is that in some cases, it's borderline ambiguous unless you have a micrometer.

I'm glad to see the comments from gruver, cedar creek and others(?) pointing out the pointlessness of considering material and cause (manmade v natural) in O mapping, especially as it relates to cliffs. I think this is a fundamental principle of O mapping.

In addition, I think tonyf has made some very critical points regarding the trend of serious urban sprints, and the role of sprints as a gateway event for newcomers. I have always thought that this growth/developement role was one of the important rationals for promoting sprint events, however the mapping issues and trick/trap course setting attitudes, especially in urban settings, have made this event downright hostile for beginners. A few unfortunately ignorant beginners and experienced rulebreakers can ruin the event for the rest, at least as a serious competition.

"If you're serious about competing, then you ought to know the rules. ISSOM isn't that long of a read."

I think this attitude further proves the point. There is a thread of truth here but hardly justification for problematic situations, and is directly hostile to beginners. Also, even as an experienced mapper/setter/orienteer, I don't don't agree that ISSOM is a trivial adjustment especially in combination with adversarial or careless course setting, then consier what it is like for a newcomer.

I think it is long overdue to reconsider the sustainability or direction of the Sprint event, at least for urban events as serious competitions, in light of the constant controversies, the poor attendence (US, not necessarily Europe), and failure to generate publicity and growth as intended. The current appeal is only to a small subset of the general O population, with the trends making it even more esoteric and limiting.

You're right Eric. It's kindof a shame how sprint events gone...there's so much potential, but I haven't seen effectiveness. The format that was supposed to bring orienteering to the masses seems to be dragging it into more and more obscurity.

I really think that park orienteering has an important place in getting newcomers started. Simple, easy to read maps. A little adventure, but a sense of safety and some distinct boundaries. Casual and fun emphasized over technical competition. These are the types of events that beginners need to get up to speed.

The small parks were a sanctuary for recreational orienteering. ISOM didn't really work. You couldn't really hold advanced courses. At least once or twice a year we had to throw aside the rulebook, have a little fun, and throw a low-key beginner focused park event.

Unfortunately, I think that the sprint format has provided a Trojan horse, letting the technical-competition mindset infect the beginners sanctuary. I'm afraid that sprints, with all their super-wonky rules and maps, may actually be choking off the pipeline of new enthusiastic participants.

If you're serious about competing, then you ought to know the rules.

There is a thread of truth here but hardly justification for problematic situations

I'm not excusing the problematic situations. Can the mapping standard be better? Yes. Can course setters avoid setting legs into problematic situations? Yes.

I think my general frustration with sprint orienteering is the attitude towards it. It's obviously the least favorite and least cared about discipline in US orienteering. We've got 35-year veterans good enough to win their age group who are don't care enough to spend any time reading the rules. We've got people who willfully break the rules. And we've got event officials who witness people breaking those rules at a nationally sanctioned event and not disqualify any of them.

I'll admit that I really enjoy sprints and that I've run more than most (Vancouver Sprint Camp x 6, Sprint the Golden Gate x 2), and that my enjoyment stems from the dreadfully poor wooded terrain where I live. So I won't argue that I'm one with a "technical-competition mindset" when it comes to sprints. ;-)

But I don't necessarily think that ISSOM-mapped sprint terrain itself is hostile to beginners. It's certainly more convenient to a larger population of beginners. You don't have to drive a few hours to get a short 1.5 km beginner course. Instead, it's right there. And while the interpretations of sprint terrain aren't always easy, they aren't always easy in wooded terrain either: shades of green, sizes of types of rock features, etc.

I think the problem with sprints and beginners isn't so much the sprint terrain, but just how orienteering is marketed to beginners in general (which we've discussed about elsewhere).

So what we've got with sprints is a format that is neither taken seriously by the regulars, nor is the event tailored properly to beginners. If you fail to reach both categories well, of course it won't work.

Now before we further bash the sprint format (or defend it, in my case), I'd really like to hear a perspective from GVOC. Because here's a club where a majority of their maps are sprint maps on sprint terrain, and I don't get the impression that they are choking off a pipeline of beginners. Perhaps they've found a good way of getting both the competitive spirit of the elites, as well as a steady stream of beginners. Or maybe they use sprint terrain differently that works better.

Yes. Subset. Unless you are in Vancouver, in which case it's the whole set.

Consider obstacle urban Sprints vs. the non-obstacle park kind. The latter don't really have the drawback of a distinct and esoteric symbol set, perhaps the trails look funny but that's it. It's not really possible to trap people with adversarial-ness in most of the areas I think of, such as our Golden Gate and McLaren Parks. Course philosophy is pretty consistent with what's out there for longer events... there's just a higher feature density, and courses are shorter. Furthermore, there definitely are high-quality areas such as the ones I mention, as compared to a random bland slice of backwoods better fit for a Long.

But for both kinds of events, I see the exact same distinct attidude ranging between indifference and hostility, correlated strongly with age and perhaps number of years spent orienteering. I think what's more likely going on is that the U.S. orienteering population is so inbred and focused on The One True Way that no amount of attractiveness would work for a format that's not a Classic; other formats are dismissed out of hand, regardless of merits. Middle is somewhere between grudgingly and enthusiastically accepted at A events, but few clubs put on local Middles that would follow the correct Middle philosophy. What seems to have happened is that people who could fathom a different idea of serious fun were all rejected by the group at some point way back, and the population homogenized around a core belief, with deviations incessantly punished.

So, I'd say the problem is not with the format; it's with the people. The same group of people keeps putting on the same kind of event that works best for them, and it chicken-and-eggs around bringing in new people. In other words, newcomers aren't not drawn in by Sprints because the newcomers don't like them. Rather, oldcomers just don't put on Sprints because they don't like them, so given the overall low coverage and low appeal percent of most navigation activities, there are never enough chances for newcomers to experience enough Sprints (of either kind) to become hooked.

The problem is not apparent in Europe nor in Vancouver, where both kinds of Sprints are well received.

I've been known to confuse gully and index contour in the past. Damn ISOM.

Thanks Neil.

tRicky's been known to confuse the edge of the map with a valid route choice, but it's a real stretch to blame that on ISOM.

@T/D: there is also the issue of permits -- most of our rec areas cost $0 to $100 and we have established relationships and know how to talk to them. Adding a new rec area is easy because you just ask for a reference and one park manager calls another and we are in.

For urban parks and campuses I do not even know where to start, some would probably cost $300+, and for some you need participation from the group associated with the facility. But mainly it's the lack of experience in getting these permits.

A wall is a resistor, a cliff is a diode. They have different symbols in electronics. What they are made of is irrelevant. ;-)

Sheesh, I'm sure I'm not the only person who's ever run off a map, sprint or otherwise!

I find some of the problem is in not teaching newcomers the difference between forbidden or other symbols. At our sprint events, there never appears to be a legend on display showing the few symbols that you cannot cross and the first time you are presented with the legend is when you start running. Maybe these people don't bother looking at the legend after the event (perhaps they should) but I have seen cases of orienteers calling out to rule breakers that they are breaking the rules without explaining how, although yelling out "You're in out of bounds" is about all you can do as you run past on your own course.

@tRicky, I've taken a route choice intentionally using the edge of the map, and wound up missing the edge and going much further, on my own map.

Main thing that jumps out at me in the flying pig map linked to the original query is the amoungt of detail mapped in the olive green OOB area. It'd be interesting actually see that slope and why it was mapepd that way. ISSOM states only signficant features such as large buildings etc should be mapped in olive green. I wonder if it could have been mapped differently to be less confusing?

At the recent British Sprint Champs (Loughborough Uni) there was barely any OOB vegetation mapped. Most of the flower beds were passable - very few flowers out this time of year. Made for a fast and exciting set of races IMO.

The OOB at IU was problematic in a couple of ways. The IU Architect did not want us going through the area, and it was a fairly long, narrow strip with a couple of sidewalk passages. To avoid going across it on courses would have meant sending people through some fairly bland (and busy) parking lots farther east or possibly going through a relatively bland gap between two large buildings. I was concerned that people might have problems with this area, so I specifically mentioned the olive green on both the event information and the practice area map. A small legend of special symbols including the olive green was included on the map. How many times do you need to try to tell people "this symbol means you can't go here" and still expect that they won't get it?

Should I have included he rock and cliff detail in the OOB area? I thought it was useful for people to see the relationship of the various cliffs, especially from below (from the south), and would help them identify where they were along the edge of the area. The course designs we ended up using came through from the north which was more problematic. The approach was across a flat area and if you were not reading ahead and identifying the olive as OOB, then you were suddenly confronted with a steeply descending slope covered with plantings, flowers and numerous outcrops and small boulders. At that point your choice was to pick your way though the flowers and rocks (at risk of dq) or to go either left or right to the paved walks crossing the area. If you read ahead, you could save a few seconds by aiming directly for the paths.

We possibly could have streamered the north edge of the OOB, but that would have reduced the advantage to people who read ahead and aimed straight for walkways over those who just saw the streamers ahead and used them as a guide. Maybe this would have been more fair. Tough call.

I also agree with an earlier suggestion that I could have slightly widened the walkway symbol thru this area and better cut the contour line crossing the walkway right at the 90 degree bend in the walk, both of which would have called increased attention to the legal routes through the olive.

In other parts of the map, another issue with this early spring meet, was the many places where daffodil bulbs suddenly emerged and grounds crews spread tons of mulch, all of this in the final two weeks before the event. Many areas that looked bare and runnable two weeks before the meet suddenly became densely packed beds of flowers. I don't think anyone had much problem with these areas because in addition to showing them on the map, they tended to be small and very obviously visible in the terrain.

As far as cliffs and walls, I tried to be as consistent as possible using the grey for anything crossable and the black for anything uncrossable, agreeing with those who stated here that the crossability of the feature is what is important, not whether it is native rock or man made concrete.

Based on suggestions and comments here, I plan to make a couple small adjustments to the map, and I'm looking forward to using the area again.

From the way you've described it I don't think it's a tough call at all - streamers would have been quite appropriate at that boundary. The point of the olive green is to indicate where you really can't run, not because the course setter wants it that way but because it's a real world limitation. The first concern should be that people don't run there, not whether or not they could navigate off of a streamer. A building is also a real world limitation, and it's not like we try to hide them.

The way I see it, olive green can contain anything, so if it's not obvious where the boundary is, or it's really hard to see on the map, then it should be streamered in terrain. Runners shouldn't ever be worried about accidentally running into olive green areas because the boundary is ambiguous or the strip of green is really small. It doesn't take anything away from the difficulty of the course (that should come from the real navigational and decision-making challenges, not a test of eye-sight) and it greatly enhances the fun.

Take this example. There are a lot of olive green areas that border open/yellow. Many of the olive green areas were just grassy "back yards". It would be very difficult to tell whether or not you were OOB. The point of the olive green was to keep people out of yards, not present a ridiculous trail-o level of precision challenge, so almost all of the yards were streamered. As should be apparent from my route, this did not make the course trivial. It did make it more fun, not worrying about accidentally landing a foot inside a forbidden area.

Re: daffodils - There were a few places at IU where I encountered daffodils that had me double checking for olive green -- which was not there. Of course, with my current "speed", the effect of such hesitation is insignificant; not sure if it would make any difference for the fastest runners, though...

yes, there were many places where a few came up but either were sparsely distributed enough that I didn't worry about them or small enough plots that I figured people would have sense to go around rather than through with no significant loss of time. And of course with the map changing daily, at some point a few days before the race, we had to print and "go with it".

Cristina, I really thought that most people on hitting the edge of the plantings would question whether they should proceed and check their maps. But obviously several thought of creative excuses like running on the contour line (yeah, right, but someone actually said that!) or rock-hopping across. So we all learn.

In any event, it was a nice map, a great venue, and good course. I will look forward to another chance at it, so I'm glad Mike will give us another opportunity.

I enjoy the pedantry of map minutiae as much as the next person, but what are the tips to getting access to a campus? I have tried searching the topic without success.

Well, out here campuses usually have a special-events person who you talk to. Sometimes—usually—there are stipulations that come with the use of a campus, such as, for example, that the event has to be open to the public and cannot discriminate on certain bases. Some jurisdictions will require that you be affiliated with the college in some way; for example, BAOC cannot hold an event on the campus of Stanford University (a private institution), but a "Stanford Orienteering Club" can. The special-events person usually is the one who is also in charge of say filming; campus directory people may have a better time understanding who it is that you need if you come from that direction. Once you get a hold of the special-events person, you should be able to find out what the stipulations and restrictions are. We have two campus venues and both are very helpful and both persons in charge seem to understand 100% what we are doing, although one venue is also quite expensive, $600 or perhaps more for a single use.

In our case we worked with the local convention and visitors bureau. They did the legwork and arranged meeting with campus authorities. Permission was a snap and cost us nothing. Their biggest concern was youth safety and that we were not doing any coaching or other youth activities without all volunteers completing their background check process. Once we assured them that interaction at registration, start, and finish lines was minimal, they were fine with whatever we wanted to do.

Mapping tip. It helps legibility to add a distinct veg boundary around the olive green. Olive green does not stand out well against yellow. In many cases, a flower bed (or similar) does indeed have a distinct veg boundary to the surrounding lawn, so it makes sense. When reading the map on the run it can be very hard to see the olive green areas, especially thin strips.

Personally I prefer the solid line of the cultivation boundary symbol but either works.

Sure, either version works.

Good idea Pi and Canadian. I think it makes sense and should help highlight the OOB area.

Darn you Pi - you beat me to it!

I disagree. The black line (cultivation boundary) implies there is a boundary that is distinct on the ground. If the olive green is a, say, a flower bed surrounded by lawn and there is distinct edge on the ground - then yes it is obvious to use the cultivation boundary symbol. But if there is just lawn and one section is OK to enter and another section is out of bounds and there is nothing on the ground to distinguish the boundary between the two then putting a cultivation boundary on the map is highly misleading - it is suggesting that there is a boundary that can be seen on the ground when there is none. And in fact this can make it even more likely that runners will mistakenly enter the OOB as they will say to themsleves that since they did not cross any visible boundary (as shown on the map) then they have not entered the OOB.

ISOM and ISSOM both say that an indistinct vegetation boundary is shown as just a change in colour (with no black line or dots).

I agree it can be difficult to see (on the map) the boundary between olive green and yellow - but adding a boundary that does not exist on the ground is not the solution. The problem is with the ISSOm colours.

If these boundaries are all taped it is OK I guess, although technically a taped boudary should be shown with a thick purple line. Though overuse of purple lines is problematic in terms of being able to see the course on the map.

The practical consequense of all this is that if there is an indistinct boundary on the ground then it really needs to be taped. But that is a lot of work in area area like Cristina's example.

If there is something out of bounds without out a distinct boundary at then we have a whole other problem.

In most cases I find the boundary is distinct enough to warrant a black line but when it isn't I take it case by case. If it's a small patch I might add the black border anyway for visibility but if it's a larger area it's typically. It needed.

The practical consequense of all this is that if there is an indistinct boundary on the ground then it really needs to be taped. But that is a lot of work in area area like Cristina's example.

This reminds me of WOC Sprint disqualifications thread from 2011 http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/me...
and I am wondering what we have done so far. Are there any new ISSOM solutions in pipeline? It would be great to have a guidelines what to tape, how, when to use purple lines, etc.

tips to getting access to a campus
Someone from the campus needs to be asked, and they have to say "yes".

So your first job is to identify who the most senior person on the campus who is likely to say "yes", and the person in the club who is most likely to get a"yes" answer when they ask.

Once you have your "yes", you can approach other people with the question -
"So-and-so has agreed we can do this is that OK with you?"
rather than
"Would you please take responsibility for authorising us to do this"

In the first instance, it helps to collect examples of similar events elsewhere.

On the IU map, the olive green area in question is 3 cm long and 0.5 cm wide (on red-line). This is not a 'narrow slit' of olive green. Boundary on the ground was clear - lawn to dirt etc. In this case, most violations were 'cut straight through', not 'accidentally landing one foot'.

And half of control circle was olive green. It is not possible to read the control circle and not see the olive green. Of course, the orienteer must distinguish it from other greens, 'process' the olive green, react to it, and find one of three sidewalk routes.

I found the mapping and lack of tape fair. I support improving the sidewalk mapping and dropping the rock detail in olive green.

If I read ahead and save 5+ sec, I've earned it. If I ignore olive green and cross it, I've earned a DQ.

Orienteering is not a sport in eyesight. Whatever can be done to improve legibility should be done (within ISOM/ISSOM rules). Why wouldn't you add a distinct boundary on the map, if there is a distinct boundary in the terrain?

Well, robplow, obviously you are not drawing a boundary on the map when there is nothing on the ground. If you have that unfortunate situation you will have to purple hatch on the map and tape on the ground, without exception.

Well, robplow, obviously you are not drawing a boundary on the map when there is nothing on the ground

Well, forgive if me if I misinterpreted your meaning but when you suggested adding a vegetation boundary to improve legibility it seemed to me to clearly imply that was irrespective of what was on the ground. And I have a feeling I am not the only one to interpret it that way.

Why wouldn't you add a distinct boundary on the map, if there is a distinct boundary in the terrain?

I was never suggesting that. Just discouraging the oppposite.

If there is a distinct boundary on the ground it should be mapped because it is there - not to improve legibility..

Then we agree! ;)

We looked the wall/cliff thing up over the weekend. It doesn't do a great deal to help legibility but crossable cliffs can have rounded ends to help differentiate them from the impassable walls.

A small vertical rock face may be shown without tags. If the direction of fall of the rock face is not apparent from the contours or to improve legibility, short tags should be drawn in the direction of the fall. Minimum height is 1 m. For passable rock faces shown without tags the end of the line may be rounded to improve legibility.

From this document

but crossable cliffs can have rounded ends to help differentiate them from the impassable walls

Yeah, but not necessarily if the ends butt up against other black objects. And that's where it's likely to matter most, if the wall/cliff is across a gap between two buildings or whatever.