Discussion: the map scale/ readability issue

Recently on AP there have been a number of threads about, or sidetracked onto the issue of map scale, readability, and related issues. These were threads within Training Logs and Events Discussion, not under general O Topics.

I found the Events Dicussion thread especially disheartening, with the initial poster asking a very reasonable, relevant question, not getting any satisfactory answers (at least in my opinion), and ending with a plea to not discuss this any more.

Well, I'm going to do exactly the opposite.
I'm asking that this topic be discuused much more, not in low profile entertainment locations, but in front of decision makers, at all levels. This includes ground level people with map and event responsibilities, as well as IOF officials.

I have been trying to address this issue as part of a much broader response to the proposed revision of ISOM. I have worked to provide feedback not only to the Map Commission, but also to every other relevant IOF commission for which I could find contact info.

I encourage others to do the same. We may not have exactly the same opinions, but I believe a better situation is possible, as long as the responsible people address the issue, based on a genuine attempt to assess consensus and expertise. It seems like they need a nudge.

I am quite willing to share my submitted comments on request, but they are far too lengthy to post here. I will try to make them available as a link, but I am not the only one involved in the process.

A few general comments-

The readability issue is far more complex than simply the mapper's work.

The most overlooked issue is print quality, and frankly I think this outweighs the mapper issue. Only a few people seem to recognize that high tech printing produces an inferior image, except in the most skilled hands, to old fashioned offset, upon which the 15,000 scale concept is based. Simply pushing the "change scale" button, because "the rules say so", has consistently produced unacceptable 1:15 000 maps.

Other important factors are terrain selection, course format, course setting, and mapper selection.

For those looking to AP for light entertainment, you are welcome to change the channel.

I too have seen comments in various logs about map readability and how maps seem to be getting more detailed and harder to read. Most of the comments seem to be from older folks (like me), whose failing eyesight complicates the issue, especially for those who don't want to use some sort of magnification device.

However, I do not think the answer is to put fewer details on the map. Instead, I think the map scale should be adjusted so that the map is "readable". Terrains vary tremendously and 1:15,000 scale may be perfectly fine for one terrain while 1:7500 may be necessary in another. I've read arguments that by going to a larger scale like allowing 1:7500, the mappers will put even more detail on but I don't really buy that argument.

If I were going to propose a change and anyone were going to listen, it would be to let the organizers/mapper decide on what scale is appropriate for a given area instead of trying to dictate that one size fits all.

Terrains vary tremendously and 1:15,000 scale may be perfectly fine for one terrain while 1:7500 may be necessary in another.

Sure, but a lot of places where I have been given a 1:7500 map would have been perfectly fine at 1:15000 had they been mapped for it. Consider that the same area mapped for a 1:5000 ISSOM map will (rightly) contain a lot more detail than an area mapped for a 1:15000 ISOM map. It's nice to have some consistency with regards to the level of generalization, and that is helped by mapping for the same scale from the beginning. Start mapping for random in-between scales and you get random in-between levels of generalization. Some areas may never work (or be fun) at 1:15000 (or even 1:10000) but I think they are the exception.

EricW, I'm interested in reading your comments if you are up to linking to them. I agree that print quality is super important and often neglected in the post-offset age. Maybe I should start helping with this problem by shutting up about the other stuff. ;-)

I have been writing about by thoughts about these scale etc. things lately at FB, so I post links here.

Introduction:
https://www.facebook.com/177518995597572/photos/a....

https://www.facebook.com/177518995597572/photos/a....

https://www.facebook.com/177518995597572/photos/a....

conclusion:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=...

As a 42-year-old who frequently runs M21 (and is thus subject to 1:15,000 maps), I personally would prefer that 1:15,000 go the way of the dodo bird.

Let's suppose that:
1) The map was drafted properly at 1:15 scale.
2) ISOM was followed correctly (i.e., the map symbols are the correct size at 1:15, enlarged 50% at 1:10).
3) The map is offset printed.
4) I were given the choice between 1:15 and 1:10
There are very few circumstances (if any) where I would choose a 1:15 map over the 1:10 map.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of each scale ...
1) 1:15 has advantage of smaller piece of paper and thus easier to carry and more compact for planning long legs.
2) 1:10 has advantage that all map objects are larger on the piece of paper and thus easier to read.
For me, I'll take 1:10 map scale 99 times out of 100.

Thought experiment (which could be done). Suppose at some Long-distance event, competitors in M21 and F21 were given option of 1:10 or 1:15 map scale at start line ... How many would pick each map scale?

My comments don't even begin to touch on shady map drafting (i.e., mapping extra features with intent that map is to be printed at 1:10) or mediocre print quality (which is a fact of life given the advantages of on-demand printing vs offset printing).

Another comment ...

Why is it that we actually use 1:10,000 for Middle distance? Given that (according to ISOM) 1:10 is simply a blow-up of a 1:15 map with no change in mapping, it isn't to put more stuff on the map. It is because by making the map symbols larger on the piece of paper, they are easier to read.

So, if making the map symbols larger (i.e., printing them at 1:10 instead of 1:15) makes them easier to read, why on earth would I only want this benefit for Middle but not for Long? As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happier with 1:10 for all Middle and Long events.

I agree with your comments essentially in full (Brian). I will extend your points by adding the additional question: if a 1:15,000 map were mapped and prepared so it was equally legible on the run as the average 1:10,000 map, then why would any M or F 21 choose the 1:10,000 version? At least on some courses (more typically at the elite levels, but more generally among classes for ultra-distance, too) paper size does become an important consideration. I have on my wall above my desk a copy of the Jorat map used for the 2012 WOC Long Final. It's about 12" x 18 1/2" as is. It would be quite something to be handed the same map at 1:10,000 and have to cope with a piece of paper of about 18" x 28"!

The fact that there are so many positions and viewpoints on this matter, and that this problem has not only persisted for so long but continues to worsen (my opinion) suggests there is no easy answer that a high percentage of people would agree with.

My belief is that while it's good to allow for some flexibility for special circumstances, the rules establish a scale (whatever that scale might be--1:20000, 1:15000, 1:12500, 1:10000, whatever) and that the level of generalization of mapped detail should be adjusted to the scale based on the particular terrain at hand, rather than mapping all the detail and subsequently adjusting the scale to the level of mapped detail. In any event, the goal is to arrive at a map that can be easily read on the run and which has a useful amount of detail, and all the most important details. The goal is not to for the mapper to come back out of the forest with a complete inventory of all the objects in the terrain.

(That is all aimed at the elite level. Then of course it only makes sense to blow up those maps to scales as appropriate for younger and older classes.)

I ran M21E until I was about 48. I stopped because I couldn't read the map anymore.

I tried again at COC2014 which led to a near-OT disaster. Apart from the last 2-3mins of run-in, the course fits into my control description holder. I know "national elite champs" implies the event isn't meant for elderly foreigners, but I do wonder if anyone actually thought 1:15 scale improved the event?

Why is it that we actually use 1:10,000 for Middle distance?
A straight answer from the rulemakers to this question would be helpful. If the answer is that a middle-distance race at 1:10 will never give an unwieldy piece of paper, then why would we use 1:15 when the mapped area is tiny?

@swampfox - Even Jorat WOC2012 is perfectly managable with a map exchange at #14 ?

In the UK, many areas are overmapped (compared with ISOM). Of course it's much cheaper to use a larger scale than to remap the area. The insistence on 1:15 is a backlash against this. Some places are genuinely unmappable e.g. parts of
Lossie sanddunes where the threshhold for mapping a knoll is about 2m (i.e. you can't see over it).

ISOM has minimum sizes for inclusion of objects, but I think there should also be a maximum size for exclusion, which I'd put at knolls/rocks that you can't see over (2m) and cliffs that would kill you to fall off.

I think ISOM could learn something from ISSOM. In ISSOM, the mapper can choose between 1:5000 and 1:4000. In either case, the size (in mm on paper) of the symbols is the same. That is, 1:4000 is NOT a direct enlargement of 1:5000. The choice is intended to be made based on the complexity of the terrain (more detailed terrain dictates use of 1:4000).

I think I'm pretty much in agreement with Jagge (see link above) that symbol size should be independent of scale. Pick a symbol size that is readable (IMO maybe 25% bigger than current ISOM 1:15000 size) and use that size whether the map is drafted at 1:10000 or 1:15000.

... and this has led, around here, to almost exclusive use of 1:4000 for sprints.

There is no absolute level of detail that must be on a map, the history of orienteering mapping over 100 years is one of gradual increase in detail and scale, accompanied (I think) by resistance from some parts of the orienteering community. We may be just part of this ongoing movement.

I must add that I do enjoy a good maze-type experience and understand the desire to seek out terrains that offer it - karst and granite rock areas, sand dunes, the French WOC etc. On the other hand I enjoy the nervousness of navigating across "empty" terrain to a target feature too, and only seem to get this in rogaines these days. To some extent this is a debate about styles of course.

"The most overlooked issue is print quality, and frankly I think this outweighs the mapper issue. Only a few people seem to recognize that high tech printing produces an inferior image, except in the most skilled hands, to old fashioned offset, upon which the 15,000 scale concept is based."
This theme seems to have been overlooked.
I have two comments to add.
First, old-fashioned off-set no longer exists. When was the last time your printer used offset film? The only offset available here is digital off-set. Film is replaced by a digital raster.
Second, the high end digital machines available today use a similar digital raster and seem to me to print at a similar sharpness to digital offset when examined under magnification. They use much more complex colour mixes than CMYK as well. I think the HP Indigo uses 8 colours.
My conclusion is that the choice between the two is one of cost. Digital for small print runs and digital of-set for large print runs. The crossover point when I last did the calculation was about 400.
So, if you are getting inferior prints from digital, it is because an inferior digital machine is being used, or because the colour layers etc have not been set up properly.

Some relevant facts:

1. Middle distance courses are supposed to be the most demanding of detailed map reading in complex terrain.
2. Long distance races are supposed to be the most demanding of running ability on longer legs with disparate route choices and a predominance of rough navigation. Course setting guidelines specify that long distance courses should be designed around long legs with interesting route choices, first and foremost.

1:10,000 scale confers a clear advantage in the former case, whereas 1:15,000 confers a clear advantage in the latter, unless you enjoy large, flapping, bed-sheet like maps, or unless your long distance course is improperly set and is actually just a longer middle distance course.

While it is possible while racing to look at an entire very long leg at 1:10,000, it is easier at 1:15,000 to get a look at the whole thing without having to awkwardly hold the map at a greater distance from one's face, which tends to destroy the hand-eye coordination--remember: orienteering is a physical skill--that is developed with hours upon hours of practicing reading a map while running. Given that long legs are the centerpiece of long distance courses, and it is easier to read these legs at 1:15,000, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that long distance courses (for the elite, whose courses tend to have the longest legs) use 1:15,000 scale maps.

It is possible to purchase various forms of magnifying glasses, and some orienteers (both young and old) enjoy the benefits of using them.

I agree with EricW that map printing is a neglected art. It seems like a big deal is made out of map scale and that the importance of map printing quality is completely ignored by the people who do the technical work of course planning and map printing in many clubs. For example, it is now common for high profile events in North America to use maps that do not have transparent colors, such that the control circles obliterate details underneath them, and contour lines do not become darker (to maintain their legibility) where they cross green areas. In case you are reading this and do not already know, this is wrong.

The ISOM/ISSOM recommendation is spot colour offset printing; if you walk into a print shop and specify offset printing, it is highly likely that the operator will give you process colour offset (unless you specifically request spot colour, and accept the x-fold increase in price). Process colour offset will be better than maps printed on low-end machines, but hardly different from even high-end office printers. For example, even under magnification, I couldn't see any noticeable difference in quality between the 2013 World Games maps (process colour offset), and maps printed on a Fuji-Xerox C5005. I have heard that the 2013 WOC maps were also process colour offset, but haven't seen them - can anyone confirm that?

If the major feature on the map is rock, then process colour printing (either offset or CMYK digital) will give you a good approximation of spot colour printing for the black symbols.

I'm curious as to how printers such as the HP Indigo help - if the map is delivered with symbols defined as CMYK, wouldn't the machine simply use those? I can only see it as being useful where you could specify PMS colours, in which case the Indigo might give you a better approximation with eight colours to choose from.

It's been years since I've used an offset-printed map, but I remember turning the map over and thinking, "Wow. That's beautiful." CMYK printing of maps, especially at 1:15000, is a real problem.

I've suggested getting several people together at the place you're printing maps (for OCIN it's a particular copy shop). Everyone brings a favorite offset map or two. You get an ISOM/ISSOM spec and methodically go through it looking at symbols and adjusting things until it's at least adequate.

I remember the first thing we worked on was the brown contour lines. We adjusted the thickness and the darkness of the brown until they looked good. It was darker than the spec brown, but it looked more like the offset map than the "CMYK spec color". Small Rough Open and ROST clearings were another problem area.

To my shame, I've never seen an offset-printed IOF PrintTech sample. I've printed it from various printers, but I've never actually checked it against the IOF-produced test print.

I've seen maps with too small boulders and trails (possibly caused by drafting at 1:10000 with 1:15000 symbols then printing at 1:15000, as well as a multitude of other ways).

I think the IOF PrintTech is something we should take a serious look at. It's really difficult to actually measure the sub-millimeter lengths and widths required by the ISOM and ISSOM, and having verified "true size" samples might be an easy way to verify map prints.

Another topic I see being discussed (such as at PG's log), is enlarged overprint (e.g., 9mm circles) on 1:10000 maps. I have long been an advocate of 6mm circles for all maps, but I'm starting to come over to the other side. I tend to take accidental mispunches personally as coursesetter, and I know many people who have mispunched because of 6mm circles and poor eyesight.

I have to say that I'm not a fan of the "always map and draft at 1:15000" rule. I can see the utility for elite competitors where this is a (poorly followed) rule. The map scale fiasco in France for the WOC Middle a few years ago is the gold standard case study. It was mapped to a consistent standard by a thoughtful mapper, and then butchered to "meet spec", resulting in a (reportedly) unusable map. I hear everyone saying that they prefer a properly-generalized map, but what if the terrain truly isn't suitable for 1:15000 drafting? What if by "over-generalizing it", you make it confusing and harder to use? I can understand not using it for a WOC, but what if it's actually cool terrain?

@ebone: I know we've been unhappy with some of the transparent "overprint" effects. We should probably look at the newer software outputs, but several years ago, it was distracting and annoying, at least to my eye. I personally make it a point to cut all the circles at a ridiculous zoom setting (even for local events) and the lines (for A-Meets) in case it's printed without transparency.

The big problem in my mind isn't "special" terrains that need to be mapped with an unusual level of detail (some sand terrain, gold-mining areas, corn mazes, etc.). It's good ol' ordinary terrain being mapped as if it were trying to be special, and ending up illegible.

The main problem is scale/legibility has been used as a tool to keep generalization at certain level. Its been like that for decades, at least since 1:20 000 scale. If we can find alternative tool(s) for controlling generalization (= making it attractive for clubs/organizers/mappers to do generalized maps with less details), there will be no/less pressure to push this scale/legibility to the very edge. And also set generalization to the level good for the sport instead of "the legibility edge of the allowed scale". In my suggestion I presented the best alternative way to control generalization I could figure out. Our current maps are already detailed enough to leave room for implementing it.

A quick question for orienteering mappers: Do you work in a scaled environment or is everything drawn to the scale of the map that is being created?

When I survey for either environmental or engineering standards we always work in a scaled environment which makes it easy to adjust the scale and interpret what we want to show.

Traditionally, with pencils and mylar, when making a 1:15000 scale map, the fieldwork was done at 1:7500. For other situations, the answer varied.

but what if it's actually cool terrain?

Cool terrain is suitable for Elite orienteering only if you could use 1:10 blown up map from 1:15. Not exactly true because many WRE events here were organized on cool terrains and I don't remember that EA ask any organizer to provide 1:15K map before confirming the suitability of 1:10K (more detailed map) for middle distance WRE. It would be crazy to produce only 1:15K because at the end both maps would be more or less uselessness for the competition.

By the IOF rules these terrains are not appropriate but still....competitors like them, still do and nobody from the elite ever have had major complains because of the readability of the maps.

But we constantly hear that MC main reason against more detail maps is - readability and that more detailed map used for long would change the discipline into features hunt and route choice skills will be lost forever. These are two different questions and could you please make separate decision. I really don't know why they don't want to have a good MIDDLE map on a complex terrain.

For the second question i partly agree and partly disagree. I don't agree because elite orienteers are very skillful to do generalization by themselves and I don't believe that any map scale should prevent them to do their own generalization. To get more useful data it would be nice to have more tests (LONG) on very very...very complex terrains to measure the time differences and route choices made by two groups. One with 1:15 (ISOM map) and another with 1:10 (more details).

It would be interesting to know which group would do better. Group with less readable map or over-generalized map. Whole debate about the scale and readability is one sided. To balance this I would love to know if we've had a case where map commission decided to ban 1:15K map because of over-generalization or jury accepted the protest.

I suspect that virtually all orienteers that are at the very good or elite level have vision that is so much better than those who are clamoring for the 1:10,000 maps with 150% linewidth that they simply cannot comprehend the experience of someone who has always had pretty shitty vision. From Eric W.'s perspective, most of the difference in readability is apparently in the print quality. From my point of view, Rockhouse Mtn. at 1:10,000 on practically anybody's home laser printer is just incredibly more legible than the equivalent piece of Surebridge Mtn at 1:15,000 with the best offset printing available. The boulders are large enough so that I can see them on the map. The majority of the trails (those not running through thicker vegetation or along really steep sidehills) are wide enough so that they can be seen. Contour lines are far enough apart so that they don't just look like brown shading on most of the map. Why don't I just get my vision attended to, you might ask? Well, on some scale, my corrected vision with bifocal contacts isn't all that bad. The motor vehicles department thinks it is perfect. When I sit in my ophthalmologist's office, given a little time to adjust between my distance vision and reading distance vision, everything is just fine. And there is no question that it is better than having to walk halfway up to the wall chart to make out the big E at the top, the way I am without my glasses. But certainly even when I was 20 years old and didn't have to worry about the accommodation between near vision and distance vision, changing field of view and being instantly able to make out the details of the new scene was never something that I could do. And I imagine that is true of a large fraction of the population. Orienteering as a sport is much better for me than something like baseball (total inability to hit the ball with even a slow pitch) or golf (inability to ever find where the ball went off to after a drive), but reading the maps (as opposed to interpreting them) has always been a major problem for me, and the more detailed and the closer the line spacings, the worse the problem. It is likely one of the reasons that I have a strong preference for rogaines in comparison with standard orienteering courses, and why I find the appearance of more detailed maps that have recently been coming into use for the rogaining with the more frequent availability of lidar sets to be a mixed blessing.

As some sort of indication of the sorts of things that have recently caused me particular difficulty in map reading, one example is the US Ski Orienteering Champs last winter. The Sprint event was on quite a large scale (1:4000 or 1:5000), and was such that I could actually read the map on the move--even though, not having a lot of speed, I don't usually much care for very short races, it was lots of fun. The Middle event was on 1:10,000. I had to pull over to the side of the trail and come to a stop to make out the trail system, but at least when stationary I could read the map successfully. Not quite as much fun, but still an enjoyable day. The Long event was on 1:12,000. There, the separation between ski trails was so small in the denser part of the map that it really gave me the feeling of looking at a page where a pre-school child had been doing his best to fill in an area completely using a green crayon. While it was possible with great effort to focus down and resolve two adjacent tracks momentarily, I really couldn't trace one of those lines any significant distance through the nearby maze and still be sure which line I had been following. Couldn't get any sense at all of the pattern of the trail system. Probably half of my time on the course was standing by the side of a trail almost crying with frustration about my inability to see anything on the map. I think it is this aspect of things that those with really good vision just can't comprehend, in much the same way I often might find it hard to understand why an introductory physics student is having trouble with some completely self-evident intermediate step in a problem that has been worked out for him in the textbook. If you have never personally experienced some sort of difficulty, it can be almost impossible to understand why some other person with a different skill set should have a problem.

I forget which event of the last world champs I was watching the TV broadcast for, but it struck me that there were an awful lot of magnifiers being used.

CMYK printing at spec colours is a real nightmare if you also happen to be colour blind. We now have yellows that aren't yellow and all sorts of issues that end in colours that used to be distinguishable now all looking essentially the same. When clearings and thickets look the same, route choice becomes difficult. Sprint maps are even worse...

There was confusion between open yellow and rough yellow in a MTBO event I rode in earlier this year. Both looked like the darker shade so I was a bit annoyed to make a route choice that I thought I could ride on only to find when I got there that I couldn't.

I've had that colorblind* problem. On some laser printed maps, what is actually light green looks the same as light yellow to me. I've headed into what I was expecting to be a field, and found myself in slow vegetation. This was never the case with offset printing, you get an entirely different effect from small dots of the proper color ink.

*I have protanopia, which is not the most common kind.

Jagge says "The main problem is scale/legibility has been used as a tool to keep generalization at certain level." Why is that a problem? I say again, there is no absolute level of detail that must be on a map, we are somewhere on a spectrum between the ancient topo maps on which orienteering started and a "complete" representation where every toadstool is shown.

It is entirely possible to navigate on a simplified representation of the terrain, indeed a recent major rogaine appeared to have many of the tracks taken off heh heh. This might limit the available control sites and definitely calls for a different navigational style. So rogaining might be at a certain point (or range) on the generalisation/detail spectrum, the long distance a bit further on, the middle distance a bit further on, the sprint distance a bit further on, etc.

We wouldn't expect rogaines and sprint events to use the same mapping. The problem is that we expect THE SAME MAPPING to be used for the long and the middle. Certainly down at the club level there is rather low appreciation of the difference in the experience and what we are trying to test. And of course we don't want to have to map the same terrain in different ways.

As EricW said in the original post, map scale / readability depends on several aspects and each one deserves its own discussion thread.

To answer graeme about the COC2014 Long, the M21E course was very "narrow" east to west, but it did not fit at 1:10000 on 14x8.5 paper in the north/south direction, but we could have moved to 17x11.

In any case, our top athletes must still race the Long at WOC/JWOC/WUOC/WC etc on 1:15000 maps. We need to give them some races at this scale to at least give them a minimum level of exposure at the national level.

If there was a choice I would run with a 1:15000. And my wife is the same. Before this thread started we both made the comment after the COCs and WCOCs how much we liked running those two at 1:15000. Personally I just feel slightly more "tuned" to that scale. At 41 I'm lucky enough to still be able to read the map well even at 1:15000 if it's not ultra detailed and if it's well printed.

In terms of printing, these maps were printed with Alberta's high-end/high-res printer where the colors where matched to the IOF PrintTech offset printed reference.

It should be noted that I completely support "bigger" scales for non-elite classes. Whatever scales/symbol sizes work for young kids and older folks is OK with me.

In terms of ISOM, I have stated my opinion in several long AP threads before. I think it's actually mostly good. If followed correctly there is no such thing as "map for 1:10000" and similar nonsense. Sizes are given for 1:15 and 1:10 is a 50% enlargement. Shit happens when unprofessional mappers break this rule and give in to the temptation to shrink symbols (and/or don't know how to generalize and include too many small features). For terrains that truly are so detailed with large features that the symbols can't fit, it's still possible to go to 1:7500 or 1:5000 to create a readable map. The IOF competition rules don't allow those scales for sanctioned races, but that's a different debate.

I think Jagge's proposal is interesting and a potential solution, but it's hard to see the IOF being open-minded enough for that approach...

I agree with Gruver highlighting that a usually detailed middle map is generally not the same as a map whose purpose is for a long distance event. They would often require different level of generalisation. However this isn't usual practice for the majority of maps fit for multipurpose.

My thoughts on the scale issue is that we could have two such legit Mapping Guidelines;

One aimed for middle/relays (usually 1:10000 or 1:7500 for oldies).
The other standard aimed at long events (min 1:15:000 or 1:10000 for oldies).

It may be that we see some popular areas have two different maps of the same area, both offering differing event styles. This could benefit a club by 'almost' getting a new map.

Alternatively, if this is too much of a headache then we continue to strive for the perfect balance of 'normal' generalisation, and the print scale could reflect the complexity of the area. In this scenario I strongly believe that a long distance event may be better represented really well at a scale of 1:12500 as per some ski events. I believe this helps enlarge some of the tiny magnifying issues and at the same time offers a alternative distinction from the middle/relay scale.
I have printed some local maps at this and think they look great.

How long until we just start running with color e-ink reading devices and we can scale and pan with a pinch and a swipe?

@PinkSocks - 15 years?

But there is a way to do it now: Replace the cluesheet with a 1:5000 blow-up of the control circle, with a trail-O solution style pink dot at precise location of the flag.

The black and white only cluesheet is an obsolete throwback to the time before maps were printed especially for events.

All it requires is the ability to print out the little map segments: CONDES already makes them to help you cut circles.

@gruver The problem is that we expect THE SAME MAPPING to be used for the long and the middle.
@pi Sizes are given for 1:15 and 1:10 is a 50% enlargement.

I'm 100% with @gruver here.

Today many maps (at least ours) are not simple enlargement from a 1:15. Because there are no common specifications for 1:10, different practices emerged to cross this bridge. If mappers, competitors and officials found that some of them don't work it is nothing wrong as this was/is simply trail & error process. It is on-going process and eventually I assume that someone or a group of people will present the middle standard specification 1.0 (if Map commission don't want to work on this issue) as official way for clubs to cross this bridge.

Maybe IOF will still be against it but I'm sure that many organizers/mappers will demand/use it as de facto standard. In last 10-15 years many mappers developed their own standard as unofficial (not written) standard how to map complex terrain on 1:10. So we gathered more than enough information to politely ask these mappers to write down unofficial standard for 1:10.

Let's be realistic. If terrain is rather complex many clubs don't have the finance to draw two maps (generalized and detailed one) as Jagge suggest. If 1:15 is not appropriate scale you could end up with an over-generalized map and nobody wants to have a bad maps.

And it is nothing wrong that IOF protect 1:15 ISOM standard but it is wrong that they don't make it more flexible because there is a huge demand on recreational level. It is evident that at the end clubs and organizers/mappers decide which scale should be used for different age groups and what should be the initial standard to get most out of the terrain.

kofols, could you give some examples of symbol sizes on these non-standard 1:10 maps you talk about? Since this is complex terrain, I assume they are smaller than the standard? What do you hear from the people running on these maps who are say 45 years and older, can they read the map?

What about keeping the ISOM 50% enlarged symbols and instead use 1:7500 scale for your complex terrains? Wouldn't that be an easier map to read?

@pi
Facts from Cerkno cup 2014

For more info. I would need to ask organizer or mappers to give you a more detailed answer. I just want to inform you about facts so you could see that 1:15 and enlargement to 1:10/1:7500 would not be appropriate solution. Take a look at the maps and try to imagine what it would be like to map these terrains. I was a little upset when you wrote that:

"Shit happens when unprofessional mappers break this rule and give in to the temptation to shrink symbols (and/or don't know how to generalize and include too many small features). For terrains that truly are so detailed with large features that the symbols can't fit, it's still possible to go to 1:7500 or 1:5000 to create a readable map"

--
These maps were made by TOP mappers. Martin Lejsek and Daniel Lebar.
http://cerkno-cup.com/multimedia/dokumenti/2014_D1...
http://cerkno-cup.com/multimedia/dokumenti/2014_D2...

About symbol sizes please look the sample how map become batter in 2014
http://cerkno-cup.com/grafika/news_photoBig.php?id...

If you want to map these terrains and have a fair competition you just can't use 1:15 scale and then enlarge it. You would end up with over-generalized map. To make appropriate generalization and representation of the contours and features you need to use bigger scale to put more details on it. This is a fact well known to mappers who want to map karst terrains. From my point of view this is the right way. I bet that mappers use quite some time to decide what features they need to draw and to get a legible and readable map. It is really a hard work for mappers when you have that many features on so small area.

Organizers FB post (Rupe map):
This is probably the map with the highest price per km2 in Slovenia. More work for mappers, more joy for runners.

All classes run on 1:7500 on Day 1. In 2012 elite ran on 1:10 and all others on 1:7500. A good solution for older competitors. Older competitors don't want to have easier map (less details) just because it would be easier to read. All they want is to run on bigger scale of this detailed 1:10 map.

Just to clarify things for myself:
Working in OCAD10 you create a map and it asks for a scale 1:10000 or 1:15000. Use standard symbols at that scale and call it the drafting scale. Then when you print the map it asks for the scale again. That is the printing scale.

So if you draft at 1:15000 and print at 1:10000 let's call it D15000P10000 or D15kP10k.

ISOM says to use D15kP15k for long and D15kP10k for middle.

It is probably universally agreed that D10kP15k is an abomination.

As far as I understand Samo says that D10kP10k or D10kP7500 is needed for some terrains for middle.

As far as I understand Samo says that D10kP10k or D10kP7500 is needed for some terrains for middle.

Correct!

Kofols gives a very interesting comparison between a 1997 and 2014 version of some karst terrain. I think the 1997 version is not too bad, and I can see the overall shape rather better - where the high ground is. Whatever was done in 2014 makes it better on a micro level, but takes away that "perspective". So it comes down to what the map is for. This type of terrain is really really nice (especially for old guys who pass features more slowly), but it may not be suitable for the long distance style of orienteering, no matter how you map it.

That just means that you have moved the exact same readability problem one step down the scale ladder. Yes, you can now map more detailed terrain, but from a readability point of view we are in the same position. It's a slippery slope...

Sorry kofols, I can't tell from those map images what the symbol sizes are on paper. They look clean and well drafted and I'm sure the mappers are very good. Are you sure the symbol sizes on paper are smaller than ISOM 50% enlargement?

The map image from 1997 simply looks like a bad non-standard map. Symbol sizes are even smaller than the 2014 version, which you claim already use shrunk symbols, so I don't understand what that's supposed to prove?

You still have not convinced me why you can't keep ISOM 50% symbol sizes at 1:7500 scale in this terrain.

Take a look again where you have two or more almost equal depressions close together. There is almost no space between them. So drafting it at 1:15 you'd need to choose what is important and what is not or you would have unreadable map. There isn't any symbol in ISOM to have a "field of depressions". You just need to map both/all. So "50% symbol sizes at 1:7500" is not solving the initial problem.

About symbol sizes I just wanted to point out that mappers used shrunk symbols at 1997 map. Those symbols were corrected at 2014 map but I don't know if they are 50% or less. This is a question for organizer/mapper.

Most of our maps are non-standard maps and I thought you've already figured out this. That is why I'm saying that we need ISOM 1:10 guidelines so one day we'd be able to officially organize at least Worldcup middle event on karst terrain. IOF has no problem to confirm WRE on these maps because they don't really care ("ISOM says to use D15kP15k for long and D15kP10k for middle") as long organizer pay for the event and use 1:10 scale.

Sorry, if you still don't buy it but I tried to do my best. Hope someone else will explain it better than me; if and why we need "D10kP10k or D10kP7500".

But since I don't know what the size of the symbols are on paper for those example maps, I cannot draw any conclusions?

And why wouldn't it help to move to 1:7500, that's exactly what would create more space between your depressions!

As you can see from the discussions here on AP, many argue strongly against D15kP15k. Older folks can't read it. What you are proposing with D10kP10k moves us into a position where 1:10 maps are now the same as 1:15. No, I just don't get it...

D15KP7.5K will double the thickness of the contour lines as well as everything else. Consequently, for a given size of paper, it will have a lot of brown, black, etc. and not so much white. If you D10KP7.5K there will be more white or open space between the objects making them easier to see.

I was involved with an event which was D15KP7K. It was an introductory thing so we could do anything we wanted. But, playing around with the line thicknesses afterward, it was a much nicer map and easier to read if we made the lines thinner---basically more space between objects making them easier to see though it this case, that wasn't an issue.

No, ISOM specifies symbol sizes for 1:15, 50% enlargement for 1:10, but then the sizes stay the same from that point, thereby creating more space to map more detail without shrinking symbols.

@pi. Yes that is my understanding also. However in reality in the past here in NZ the 1:7.5 has almost always been further enlarged.

When keeping the 1:7.5 locked in at 50% it does indeed create a lot more white space and the map is very clean. The thing is it looks exactly like a 1:10 map which I find a little strange.
To me an ideal would actually be half way between which is probably too complex, so maybe do the full enlargement and just try reducing ONLY the contour with a little as @carlch has suggested.

two other things that should also be considered when printing at different scales:
- a scale bar on the map is much easier to interpret than a scale ratio, and is also useful when the map is displayed digitally

- in ISOM north line spacing is defined as 33.3mm at 1:15000 ie 500m. For maps with other scales lines placing should be at intervals which represents a round number of meters (e.g. 50 m, 100 m, 250 m, 500 m) and the spacing should be between 20mm and 40mm.
So for 15k map printed at 10k the line spacing is already outside the recommended spacing. If closer spaced north lines are provided this means that they can easily used for relative distances, but are they 200m or 250m apart? - easily answered if there is a scale bar on the map.

To me an ideal would actually be half way between which is probably too complex

It's not that complex. eg to change a 15000 map into a 7500 map with 75% enlargement of symbols:

>Map >Change scale, in the dialog box type in 7500 for 'New Scale' and UNCHECK 'Enlarge/reduce symbols'

>Symbol >enlarge/reduce, in the dialog box type in 175 for 'factor' and CHECK 'all symbols'

But you will still have to fix the north lines. One way to deal with that problem is to anticipate that the map will be printed/converted to different scales from the beginning - create 2 or 3 sets of north lines at different spacings appropriate for each scale. You can then hide or unhide them as the need arises.

@pi
No, ISOM specifies symbol sizes for 1:15, 50% enlargement for 1:10, but then the sizes stay the same from that point, thereby creating more space to map more detail without shrinking symbols.

I understand that you want to have ISOM 1:15, ISOM 1:10 (enlarged) and non-standard detailed map at 1:7500. I'm just asking myself why I would need to draft the map at 1:15, first enlarge it to 1:7500 and then add more detail if I already know that I need them? Even if you have more space at 1:7500 you can't just put more detail on it. You can't draft at 1:15 and than put some more detail around them on 1:7500. Maybe this approach can be used for black objects but not for brown because in many cases you would need to correct the initial contours along the way. We had a similar problem with this effect on our old Lipica's maps where mapper first map all depressions and than put contours around it. It was a solution at that time.

I 'd say it is much easier to start with D10kP10k (not ISOM today) and then use enlargement to D10kP7500 if needed. Yes, both 1:15 and 1:10 would end up with same symbol sizes (50% enlargement) but the contours lines would not be the same. I also don't have a problem if mapper decide to shrink the symbols (for very complex terrains) a little bit if this would give a more readable map. If you can read the symbols at 1:15 why would be a problem to read these symbols (40% enlargement) at 1:10? And If I understood you're afraid that mappers do that only to put even more detail on it.

So is it possible to control that with OCAD somehow? I've used it only for course planning so I'm not familiar if something like this is possible to do with OCAD - but it would be perfect to have embedded information for each feature. Lets say level 1 and level 2 (additional features used only if the level 1 features/symbols are less than 50%). So the mapper would need to make a legible map and than he could play around.

I'm not saying you have to draft the map at 1:15 first? Why do you think so?

I'm saying start out with a 1:7500 scale map in OCAD (or OOM these days) and just make sure your symbols are ISOM 50% enlarged. Done. Make your map.

Scale and printing aside, another thing that I think could be making some of todays maps more difficult to read is a tendency to "import" contours from lidar and not redraw them. I suppose there is a way to import "smooth" contours but that isn't always happening and the contours on some maps I've seen are composed of many, many points in a seemingly smooth line, which in reality, aren't smooth at all but jog back and forth ever so slightly. All these little turns make the contours appear thicker than the line width actually used. This isn't an issue when the area isn't detailed but could be adding to the congestion in detailed areas.

create 2 or 3 sets of north lines at different spacings appropriate for each scale

For many years, it's been my practice to space the north lines at 500 m, and to draw additional north lines between those using a separate symbol. For printing at 1:15000, the symbol for the additional ones gets hidden.

Those references to what happens to symbol sizes when you enlarge past 1:10,000 are I believe reading far too much into the IOF's intentions. Do you think the Map Committee, prior to 2000, gave any thought to these larger scales for serious competition? I think the words in the ISOM were merely an acknowledgement that non-standard things might be appropriate as part of a learning progression.

It is fruitless to debate mapping/printing scales in isolation, as Magnus has pointed out that just moves the same problems to a different point on the spectrum. This is about styles of orienteering; a widespread move towards more detailed navigation; and a (perhaps worthy) desire to save us from having a third specification.

OK lets bite the bullet.
1. The traditional long distance emphasis on route choice and endurance, terrain chosen to suit, without lots of small details. Something like ISOM, mapped as if for 1:15,000 but may be printed bigger for oldies etc.
2. The currently fashionable maze type orienteering in the natural environment. Karst, granite, sand-dunes, etc. A new specification, mapped as if for 1:7000 but may be printed bigger for oldies etc. Competitions will probably be shorter to prevent the map size being unwieldy, but with loops etc we could probably run 60-min races? I'll call this ISMOM where the first M stands for Maze or Middle, as you like.
3. Urban orienteering. Orienteers being what they are, we will seek out the most complex we can find. Favourite features are recesses and gaps down to 1-2m so we need a larger scale for the ISSOM, say 1:3000, of course may be printed bigger for oldies etc..I'll call this ISUOM because of course the rest of the world doesn't regard 12 minutes as a sprint. And we may yet bring even shorter disciplines into our repertoire:-)

Gruver, I have also come to the same conclusion regarding 'styles' being the best solution and a new way forward. Seems like common sense.
Some good ideas there in the detail just needs tweaking to an agreeable model ;)

@gruver - agree.
Pick one map style for each terrain.

This question isn't strictly about scale - but it is about symbol size. So maybe still appropriate for this conversation. Computer graphics programs, as well as computer input are getting better and better. It's now possible to draft in a computer using a stylus with variable input pressure to control line-width.

With old hand-drafted maps, this would occur naturally. 0.14 mm might be the 'nominal' line-width, but the actual line-width would have some variation, and a good drafter could use this to subtly increase readability. We've lost that ability with most computer drafting programs, for which the line-widths are ridgedly fixed.

So in a world that's moving rapidly toward CAD and GIS based programs, does anybody foresee orienteering mapping standards going retro and endorsing more of a hand-drawn look?

I disagree about the variable width when ink-drafting maps. Rapidograph pens were designed to give as consistent a line width as possible, given the realities of the mechanics and the properties of ink. Scribing was the next step, and its primary advantage was even more consistency in the widths of lines. A skilled drafter did not have subtle variations.

second JJ.
With ink, only weaker draftsmen, like me, were inconsistent. Most typical, after an erasure, the line would be thicker, becuase the mylar lost some tooth (texture more like glass).

I support the practice of reducing the index contour to normal width in areas of detail, but beyond that I think variaability in drafting standards witin a given map is not helpful.
However with map content (selection of detail), I think vaiability, relative to the setting, is well worth talking about.

There isn't any symbol in ISOM to have a "field of depressions". You just need to map both/all.

How about the "broken ground"-symbol? I have used it many times in areas where there are too many manmade pits to map them all. It could just as well be used for natural depressions. My policy for boulders/pits/dot knolls is that if there are so many that they can't be used as control features, then mapping them with boulder field/broken ground is probably the best solution. The problems won't start until the area is so detailed that there are no parts of it where you can put controls. But in my experience there are very few areas like that...

... And who would want to go to exceptional terrain anyway?

I've just mapped some areas of multiple unmappable knolls with the broken ground symbol so glad I'm not the only one.

I was reading Alex Tarr (AU) comments on ISOM 201X revision.

Comment on 10,000 scale maps:
I understand that under the new ISOM the 10000 scale maps must be a strict enlargement of an ISOM conforming 15000 map. In general this works well, however, for more detailed terrains it has been demonstrated (WOC France, recent WC’s in New Zealand, Slovenian karst) that the maps do not conform to either the detail of the existing ISOM or the above legibility criteria. Many of the new symbols may be designed to show this extra detail, but would probably fail the 15000 test. I anticipate that, at some point, the IOF Council will request the Map Committee to produce a Middle Distance Specification to resolve this.

Since everybody seems so sure about it, I'm just wondering where the "demonstration" of the fact that certain types of terrain are impossible to generalise enough to be drawn in 1:15000 is? Just the fact that someone says so shouldn't be enough to prove it. And a "demonstration" isn't that you show me a 1:10000 non-ISOM map with lots of details. Instead it's a serious attempt to draw it at 1:15000 and fully ISOM-compliant by applying all generalisation techniques available and then doing actual measurements in the terrain of objects that need to be omitted to make the map readable. Have any tests like this ever been done?

Sometimes I think the english translations of ISOM symbols leads to misuse. Broken ground sounds like it should mean rough ground that is hard to run over.

But if you actual read the ISOM definition, it reads:
An area of pits or knolls which is too intricate to be shown in detail. The density of dots may vary according to the detail on the ground.

So tRicky and Eriol are not stretching ISOM, they are using ISOM exactly like it was intended. And the common belief that there is no suggested way to map a field of depressions or knolls is wrong.

Of course, there is some pretty intense pressure on mappers to overmap these areas instead of generalizing. If you overmap, most people will be respond with "wow-cool" crazy technical terrain! And if you just generalize with a bunch of dots, you will not get that response.

I think most orienteers would say that they want their middle distance courses to have that kind of crazy technical terrain. But on a long-distance course, I'd just rather have a reasonably size map that I can read well without squinting.

I often feel like the more detailed maps are obscuring the important details, and thus making the navigating harder. I want the challenge to come from the terrain, not from interpreting the map. What's the point of having a bunch of detail, if the best navigation technique is just to generalize and run around the knolls anyway?

@kofols, where can I/we find Alex Tarr's comments?

"I often feel like the more detailed maps are obscuring the important details, and thus making the navigating harder. I want the challenge to come from the terrain, not from interpreting the map. What's the point of having a bunch of detail, if the best navigation technique is just to generalize and run around the knolls anyway?"

I think this is a very important point, with which I agree, and others above have addressed this as well. The map should help the navigation, not make it more difficult. I have seen some maps first hand (and suspected others) where the mapping of small details actually makes the map reading/navigation more difficult than the terrain.
The details obscure the large features, not the least of which is the contour picture.

It is risky to critique a map off site, and even more so when the screen image does not give a sense of scale, but at risk of being wrong, and to make some points, I'd like to comment on the Slovenian maps (by different mappers) which kofols has linked above.

The Rupe map, despite being at the larger 7500 scale, strikes me as being more difficult to read than the Lome map at 10000. Granted, the Rupe terrain seems to genuinely have more rock features, but the Lome terrain seems to have more and smaller depressions. Yet Rupe's bigger contour features seem more difficult to figure out. The problem features are the cliffs. I'm sure many of the large cliffs need to be shown exactly as they are, but I also see how much attention is paid to intricately map the smaller cliffs, showing very small bends and shapes, much of it appearing to use the 202 pillar symbol to accomplish this even though I suspect the dimensions are below the standard 203 small cliff line width.

Bottom line, I suspect the Rupe map depicts some very small cliffs, in a terrain where the standard for significant, mappable cliffs should be very high, because of the abundance of large cliffs, and a very significant contour picture that is more important than small cliffs.

It is worth noting that both top level M21E courses are conservative, relative to the terrain, clearly avoiding (wisely?) controls on the most intricate small features. If these features are below the threshold for M21 control sites/areas, how useful are they for navigation?

It is very important to know the actual symbol specs used. I suspect that these maps are not that far out of ISOM drawing specs, or at least flexible specs that I could support, such as a single reduced size boulder field (not group) triangle.The contours strike me as close to standard.

The main difference might be in the selection of detail on the Rupe map. This issue is very difficult to codify, yet crucial to addressing the readability issue. I suspect I would agree with the details on the Lome map, and I like the lighter brown contours (Norwegian/Luchsinger style) at least on my screen. They contrast nicely with the black.

Here are the Alex's comments.

@EricW
Thanks for your feedback about the maps. I'll send organizer/mappers this thread to read your post and ask them to submit personal view about generalization techniques they used and ISOM size symbols.

Looking for things to remove..

Some things on the Karst map don't tell me anything useful - the stony ground symbol: I'm sure in Karst terrain there is scatter stony ground to deal with, but I don't see how to use that information? Also, at 9 (Lome) there's a single-line undergrowth symbol. The wide-apart vertical stripe ISOM symbol isn't helpful for mapping small bits of undergrowth.

It also interesting that the planner chose not to go into the very detailed bits north of 11/23 on Rupe, or tell us how big the rock features are.

I quite like the variable contour line thickness.

I have been in Slovenia, and I don't pretend I could do a better job of mapping the terrain.

So - as an organiser of Cerkno Cup I can write these facts: the maps for Cerkno Cup you are discussing (Lome and Rupe) have symbol sets that are obeying the ISOM. For Lome I am 100% sure that there are no deviations (maybe some index contour shrunk in the most detailed sections) as we had WRE there, for Rupe I am 99% sure there are none and a fast check of the OCAD file shows no deviations.

The way of mapping can be questionable, however. There are features that probably do not obey ISOM (too short, too small, too small bends, etc.). I am sure, that there was mentioned somewhere, that even WOC 2014 maps had enormous problems with this. There were, for example, more that 2000 cliffs in the long distance map (when the map was submitted to the controller), that were not drawn according to ISOM. There is much less checking (and funds) for other, smaller events ...

Mapping is changing quite a lot - according to Jagge's picture: https://www.facebook.com/177518995597572/photos/a.....

The changes are good for older and slower people. And - those are the ones, that bring most of the money to the organisers. I am sure that many competitions decide to adjust the mapping to those people. I guess this is one of the main reasons, why scale is getting bigger and bigger.

Slovenia almost does not have maps for proper long distance races. Even in EYOC 2006, I think, we had an exception with the LD map, which was in 1:10 000 scale. Unfortunately. I was checking with the mappers quite often if we'd make our less detailed karst maps in 1:15k. The answer was that the terrain is just not suitable for something like this. I do not really agree.

I ran the WOC 2011 LD terrains. Generalization was significant, but in such cases course planning should take care about the fairness. The keyword for LD is "endurance", legs should be longer, orienteering should be done using larger objects. Also runners should learn about generalization (in general and in a specific terrain). But most of the runners prefer seeing all the details in the map and I think mappers are aware that with more generalization they risk many more complaints ...

I guess ISOM needs to consider some non-scandinavian needs, but in general I am against changes in the sense of shrinking the symbols.

@kofols, bubi, thanks and thanks

I'm sensing a lull in the conversation, and thats fine. I think there have been many good points made here, and some reassuring themes. Nevertheless, the point is to do more than talk on AP. I hope people will apply some of these themes on real maps, when they are in a position to do so.

I also encourage people to lobby IOF commissions on these issues. The immediately relevant project is the Map Commission's revision of ISOM, and I think the MC can use more feedback, especially if it is concise and carefully worded.

Perhaps even more importantly, I think MC needs to hear from IOF Council and all other relevant commissions on some specific greater-than-mapping issues, and the general direction of the ISOM and MC's work. Therefore I encourage people to provide feedback to these other IOF entities.

I recently became aware that Rules Commission provided some very appropriate feedback (in my opinion) to MC early in the process, and there may be plenty of additional correspondence of which I am not aware. Still, I am sure there are plenty of entrenched positions that need some additional nudging.

The IOF website (http://orienteering.org/) provides plenty of contact info.

I'm sensing a lull in the conversation

Nevertheless, the point is to do more than talk on AP.

There's your answer, people are taking action rather than talking!

Nice try @EricW.
I think lobbying is not a good way or at least not the only way. I think we can make it without it as there is no "big money" on the table.

All we need is more transparency about ISOM process and regular reports from IOF about federations, mappers feedback and current issues. Comments from MC should be presented in a more respectful way on the IOF webpage so we should always knew where are we in the process and how project evolved over the years.

Original timetable is outdated. Is anywhere a new one?
http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/13icom/tg2.pdf

If they don't have time or want to do it is ok with me but something similar as "WOC in the Future" page where anyone would have a chance to find all relevant information about latest issues and decisions made by MC or Council should be part of this project. If you look at Map commission page today you'll find that the last minutes are from Jan.13 and the only official info. about ISOM is from dec.11. There are no info, documents about first and second call, feedback from feds and mappers which might give you a base for further feedback. Maybe this is the way MC wants but anyone can see that there is a lack of communication within the orienteering community. I understand that these are mostly technical questions about symbols, generalization, etc but...
They have the power to say which questions are open for discussion and which are not. Additional materials which can be found on the web and lobbying is not what we (at least I) want from IOF. IOF is more open than 5 or 10 years ago but MC commission is more closed IOF entity as before, at least for ordinary website visitors. I was very surprise this spring that they tried to collect JWOC ideas also from orienteering community and not just by official ways. I didn't see any info but I hope they will share.

Your proposal to activate APters looks very honorable but I have a feeling that in this non-communication process where even asking - what is going on? - has become more or less inappropriate question it is hard to expect that people will have interest to do more. Maybe IOF Office will jump in and save the day.

I know the ISOM201x project asked for input from Federations, but is there a way for individuals to contribute, and would anyone care?

The name ISOM201x doesn't inspire confidence about urgency, and this is accurate - I still have an unanswered question with IOF about whether it can be used at WOC2015.

The most significant proposal, certainly for the UK where many areas are covered with stone walls and fences, is the introduction of "Forbidden to cross" symbol. For many of our events, the ISOM way to map would result in an illegible misch-masch of purple lines. So people rely on info in pre-event details, and other people get disqualified, and everyone gets annoyed.

As hoped for, the the officially submitted OUSA comments re ISOM 201X can be found at http://orienteeringusa.org/mappers/resources/best-....

Eric -- excellent.

Thanks for sharing.

I've noticed "EXCEEDING AUTHORITY" what I also greatly support. It is really not appropriate to have ISOM specifications and competition rules in one document. It'd be great to know what proposals went through if you've got feedback from the MC.

Very well-written piece of feedback. Bravo.

EricW
Did you also send feedback to second call?

The link to Alex Tarr's document went off the web and it seems that also other Australian documents about ISOM are not available anymore.
ISOM 20121212 _OA submission notes A Uppill to IOF.pdf
Comments on ISOM First Draft, 30 June 2013
ISOM 20130925_OA comments on stony ground A Uppill.pdf

It seems that OUSA is not lobbying :)

EricW and everyone involved in writing that: Reading it made my day. Thanks.

Kofols, I think in this context "lobbying" simply means "send a polite email or make a phone call to express your opinion" rather than "throw around millions of dollars."

EricW, nice work on that document! I was curious if anything was proposed about symbol 209. (Boulder cluster) I've always felt like it's too dominant to be useful in most applications (hence, I've been known to use boulder field instead). I can't find any links to the ISOM update draft... anybody know where I could find it?

Is this it?

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

@cedar creek, thanks for the ISOM 201X link, I forgot it wasn't already linked here. Difficult to follow the comments without this.

@blegg, no changes to the boulder cluster symbol. Yes, it is rather large, but I'm OK with it as long as the mapper saves it for the definition "...easily identifiable as a group of boulders..." which to me always meant at least 3 very distinct boulders, too close together to show seperately. This is a rare occurence.

I agree there seems to be frequent over- application of this cluttering cluster triangle, and usually the boulder field triangle is more appropriate for misc. large rocks. But then the ISOM (both versions) tries to legislate judgement with the "minimum of two triangles..." clause which adds clutter as often as it helps. Using a single, possibly smaller, boulder field triangle is the exact positive violation that I refer to in the Slovenian maps comment above.

@kofols, I was not aware of this "call" schedule. As far as I remember, the ISOM 201X was initially circulated in late spring of 2013, with a ridiculously short respond-by, national-fed-only date. I believe these comments were officially submitted on 2-18-14, and I've since circulated them to various groups, with seperate cover letters since then. I have gotten a number of positive responses, from some well placed people, at least in my book.

I said thanks for the Alex Tarr link, before I realised it wasn't working. I am still interested in reading comments from him and others on these issues.

and Graeme, even though this turned into an official federation submission, it didn't start out that way. I have a difficult time respecting this federation-only request, and leave it to individuals to make their own call on email to MC people. There is no limitation on contacting other comissions or commission members. Frankly, I think a mailing representing WOC 2015 course setters would carry some good weight, although I don't want any of you to get distracted from your real mission, which is obviously substantial.

and I owe thanks to my collaborator Greg Lennon. His input got me to edit out some comments that are better left unsaid, as valid as they might be :-)

Nice work, EricW and (edit)Greg.

This struck me...
"An explicit range of dot size is especially important for stony ground, more so than any other symbol, because these small dots are subject to great variations of bleed in the printing process.
Different machines and paper produce extremely different results, and the map producers need awareness and control of this process."

Isn't this a printing issue, not a mapping issue? ISOM should be defining how the printed map looks, not some computer-representation of the map, I thought.

The boulder cluster was put into ISOM at Australia's request, probably prior to the WOC at Kooyoora in 1985. I think it is useful - particularly in Australia, and particularly at 1:15000 - precisely because it takes far less space on the map than any multiple of single boulders or boulder fields (drawn so they don't touch on the final print scale), and also because of the prohibition on the use of a single boulder field symbol.

In Australia, you often find boulders in groups of 2-3, touching each other. You can't (shouldn't?) draw boulders to reflect reality and appear as touching each other, because on the printed map this will have the appearance of a line or blob, and make the feature much more prominent than it really is.

Note that the boulder cluster symbol is not included in ISSOM, where at 1:4000 or 1:5000 you can draw such features as separate boulder(s) and/or boulder field(s).

Also, you will find that many setters/controller/advisors will not set/allow controls on imprecise features such as 'boulder field', whereas that group of boulders is a perfectly acceptable control site when mapped as a boulder cluster.

@blegg
Yes of course. My post was rather an ironic remark about what happened to AO files. All materials were public for more than a year but when people have real interest to read them (probably because of this thread) they decided to pull them back. Why someone would have interest to put documents on the web if they don't want to allow people to read them. ooops! I downloaded them soon enough and sent to Eric as he ask me. I have no intention to publish them again if they decided (MC or AO) that their feedback must be confidential. But it is funny all this hiding and than saying "Comments, criticism and suggestions wanted". First step would be to allow all interested people to have access to the information.

Nevertheless, I think AO is doing a great job. Their proposals seems to me very good as we have same problems on how to map stony ground. Here is AO proposal which deserve discussion. I think it is a good proposal.

In this regard Orienteering Australia in June 2011 made a suggestion to the Chair IOF Rules Commission for further unification of the symbols used for control descriptions and mapping ie
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6h5lna985w55haj/Boulder....

@ Kofols - I think IOF rejected that proposal. Shame, it was a good one.

Agree with simmo on the history of the cluster (I was there), its relevance in Australian. granite terrain, and the course setting point.

Also, there is a great reference material on mapping Australian granite terrain (Alex Tarr?) that should be required reading for mappers everywhere. I don't know where it is currently hidden.

the links below are on the OA mapping Committee web-page:
http://www.orienteering.asn.au/administration/mapp...

OA-submission-notes-A-Uppill-to-IOF 2012
http://www.orienteering.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/...

ISOM-20130630_OA-comments-first-draft
http://www.orienteering.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/...

ISOM-20130925_OA-comments-on-stony-ground-A-Uppill
http://www.orienteering.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/...


mapping of rock features (OA Operational Manual 2.9) by Alex Tarr (2008)
http://www.orienteering.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/...

What I find difficult to understand is the OUSA suggestion for no minimum length for cliffs. Short cliff looks very much like boulder on map, but look entirely different in forest, at least in out terrains. When I look down hillside with cliffs and boulders, from above boulders stand out but cliffs does not. And in general, cliffs are kind of part of the land form and one runner can kind of use them to complement contours, and the other way around, if there is cliffs there must be drop in land form and that can be used ti figure out where cliff may or may not be hiding - boulder can be anywhere and is has nothing to do with land form.

All great documents with supporting ideas. A few comments from me with some consensus from NZ .
There are some differences between US and Oz views with some items. Oz appears not to wish many if any reduction in size of any point features, while Us does.
Here I tend to agree with US, apart from dot knolls where I think there should be two sizes. On the ground there can be a huge variety of small knolls, as per rocks, especially in sand dune terrain.

I dislike short cliff symbol with round ends, especially min length, and more so uncrossable ones. At that line thickness it looks like a blob.

Black for drawing pillars etc; I can not agree that this drawing method should go and cartographers are forced to use a thicker line 0.35?) In certain terrain like sandstone of limestone where you have steep escarpments, there are many narrow gaps and shapes that are important for routechoice and navigation. On many occasions it is impossible to draw with the thicker line and is visually untrue, ugly and clutters the map unnecessarily. I read in the Oz docs where they state that cliffs and pillars should not use the same symbol because you can't tell the difference (one shows height the other plan view). This is true however can be very difficult to show any other way well drawn I think it is still the best option.
A great example is Australias 'Carwell's labyrinth from 2009 WMOC, which is clean but not 100% ISOM compliant in regards to the cliff widths. it's a great map (at 1:10000 at least)

Rocky ground; I like the Oz definition and use thereof. Interesting to consider where some cliffs are too small it seems they sometimes use the rocky ground dot symbol instead. Another good option on very rocky maps is to reduce the size of the dot so as not to over cutter the map. Great ideas from them. Also with bigger variety of general rock symbol sizes. They have been mapping rock for a long time and developed a good product, why mess with it?

Black or grey rock. I prefer the option of either. But like US, if only one choice I would choose grey, however, from my trials it needs to be darker than 70% to get a sharper definition.
Seriously, grey roading/manmade objects looks terrible IMO.

I strongly support retaining the green dot for distinct bush/small tree. I like to have choice of one under contour and one above, for clarity in complex areas.

Green ground cover vertical lines; (I've given up with promoting my idea of a green,vertical version of the marsh symbol for the 'slow' even though I like it, seems no one wanted to try it) so next option I prefer like US I do see it better to reduce gaps but not as much as mc proposals. From my trials though I think it looks better when the lines are a little thicker. To me when they are thinned it looks strange, not like an area symbol, and does not convey the same color shade. Also, rather than use 100% green, a softer green is better to my eyes, although haven't tested it on 1:15000.

Black solid line road; support change to double lines. BUT not for vehicle track, dashed line to remain as is.

Form line; All agree that it is sometimes over use which has created a problem for mc to try to remedy.. Lidar doesn't help as the art of bending contours can get overtaken by the science of perfect heights. The symbol should only change if a better one is found. Like others none of the mc options are good. I did produce one myself that I like ok will only promote it more if my fellow nz mappers agree.

At times I really wish there was a scattered tree/green symbol, however agree with Oz that it can look too messy. Not sure what to do.

Other than these I pretty much agree with Oz/US views.

A few big ticket items for me are as follows:
1. If general theme for long distance is for 1:15000 to remain more of less obligatory then I believe the mapping style(generalization) should be different from other formats/scales. With a possibility that these maps get a separate larges size separate symbol set.
2. If not, I strongly believe that 1:12500 should be allowable for the long distance. To me it is a fantastic option where it is not just a compromise. Not so much need for a magnifier either.
3. All forbidden areas are represented by a clear range of purple/magenta symbols only, for the same legal and visual reasons. Possibly more variety of magenta symbol options could be available. In particular like a smaller, thinner version of the dangerous cross hatch as it is good to define smaller areas of out of bounds, and you can see detail through it. This may be a good option to highlight those no go walls and hedges in Great Britain perhaps?
4. I would prefer a larger symbol set that covers all terrain around the world rather than a smaller one where some people have to compromise greatly to fit into an ideological symbol set, which would most likely result in cartographers returning to make their own symbols of new sizes again.




Some of you may wonder why I have stated my views here. It is after considering all of your views that I am now forming stronger clearer ones myself, and so eventually we may begin to agree more after hearing others, and so develop a stronger consensus to put forward.
Great work everybody!

I wrote to the chair of the MC asking for a summary of the feedback, and what is going to happen next. He said the commission is now working on the final draft, and there will be significant adjustments (compared to the first draft). He provided a presentation made to the ICOM (mapping conference) in Italy this year. I have put it on the web at http://www.mapsport.co.nz/ICOM2014_ISOM201x-status...

Different direction to the discussion in this forum.

a 180 deg. mistake

"Alignment with ISSOM". I think they have gone off the rails.

Some parts of that document are sure surprising, like large control rings and 5 cm between north lines, if I got it right. And that they are still considering that forbidden cliffs/marshes silliness. The scale issue remaining the same is not surprise, it was hard to imagine that getting touched yet, this was supposed to be just a minor update. Not that it is not disappointing, effectively this means there will be no generalized maps in near future either, just these overly detailed ones as of today.

A simple Q:
How many federations support the decision Map scale 1:10000 strict enlargement of 1:15000 made by MC? If we don't know yet they should ask and not ignore.

Some quotes from discussion. Are we there yet?


Focus even more on generalisation
@Tarr "I anticipate that, at some point, the IOF Council will request the Map Committee to produce a Middle Distance Specification to resolve this."
@Swampox "(whatever that scale might be--1:20000, 1:15000, 1:12500, 1:10000, whatever) and that the level of generalization of mapped detail should be adjusted to the scale based on the particular terrain at hand, rather than mapping all the detail and subsequently adjusting the scale to the level of mapped detail."
@gruver "The problem is that we expect THE SAME MAPPING to be used for the long and the middle."
@OUSA "No one absolute standard can best represent all terrains, and it is foolish to think that strict adherence to a specification is more important than best portraying a given landscape."
@Tarr "However the sentence “Terrain that cannot be fieldworked at a scale of 1:7500 and legibly presented at a scale of 1:15000 is not suitable for international foot orienteering” should be deleted or recast. The IOF has already decided that international foot orienteering can take place in artificial terrains and has nominated a scale of 1:4000 or 1:5000 in its acceptance of the ISSOM for sprint events. Further, as listed above, major international events are regularly held on terrains not capable of legible use at 1:15000."
@bubi "But most of the runners prefer seeing all the details in the map and I think mappers are aware that with more generalization they risk many more complaints ..."
@guskov "As far as I understand Samo says that D10kP10k or D10kP7500 is needed for some terrains for middle."

Responding to input on ISOM symbols & minimum dimensions / minimum distance
@paul "If general theme for long distance is for 1:15000 to remain more of less obligatory then I believe the mapping style(generalization) should be different from other formats/scales. With a possibility that these maps get a separate larges size separate symbol set."

I probably speak for the majority in saying I enjoy both highly technical detailed terrain ad well as the different challenge presented with the longer more generalized race format. Unfortunately I believe that the 201x revision hss missed a great opportunity to develop and further advance or enhance both types. I think there is a need and a desire for separate long/middle ISOM around the orienteering community.
Look how much added value was made by the development of a purpose built ISSOM for sprints.
I could also see a huge benefit of two entirely different map types on favorite areas, thus adding vale to club map stock.

Instead, we will carry on the impossible of trying to satisfy everyone with a one fit approach. I predict continued breaches most likely.

pardon typo spelling *adding value, not vale.

@paul, you can edit your posts

I just ran on a moderately detailed area at 1:15000 at the weekend. With offset-printed maps it was not unpleasant, and I would say a better experience than running on a similar area on laser-printed map at 1:10. Not that they couldn't have removed a few form-lines.

Changing the mapping standards to allow more detail at 1:10 wouldn't solve the printing problem.

Two different map-types for one terrain, unless they are substantially different (1:5k vs 1:15 vs 1:30 vs skiO), will just be a headache for clubs, not adding value.

Neil, all of us who are preaching for 1:10 also love 1:15. I think two different map-types should not be a problem because at the end it is up to you, club, etc what specifications you will use for a given terrain. In our case we'd mainly use only 1:10, someone will use only 1:15 or 1:15 (+ 1:10 as 150% enlargement) and others may produce two maps 1:15 & 1:10 if they think the terrain is good for both. I don't think that we'd see an inflation of two map-types for one terrain just because there will be a chance to make it.

There will be just more options for mappers and what is more important; all maps would be legible also for international events.

@kofols it was hard to imagine that getting touched yet, this was supposed to be just a minor update
Which started in 2008 and is scheduled to deliver in 2016! So not much hope of a major update in our lifetimes - does anyone know who was responsible for this shambles?

I understood it that way (201x being just a minor update) for this presentation:

http://www.ssl.fi/ssl/sslwww.nsf/0/8B0C084AC134F6E...

I would say a club having just one small detailed area like this would not feel it is a headache to have possibility to map the detailed area at 1:7500 A4 size and also have more generalized way mapped 1:15 000 or 1:20 000 scale map over much larger area (would include generalized version of the detailed area). And arrange national race there every 5 years, every second time with different scale (making it 10 years between map revisions of same scale). Better use for the area and would make it cheaper too for not having to map larger less technical area detailed way just to make it consistent with the detailed part.

Jagge, but you can already do that with the current ISOM standard? If you want to have a WRE on your 1:7500 map you should lobby the rules committee, not the MC.

May I ask those of you who argue for a special 1:10k standard, what are the sizes of the symbols on the printed map in this new standard? Lots of fluffy talk, but show me the numbers! You don't have to list the entire symbol set, but to give us an idea what you are envisioning can you at least put some numbers on ten or so of the more common symbols? What are the sizes of some point features, like dot knoll, boulder, cup depression, pit? What about line widths of contours, form lines, passable cliffs, impassable cliffs? Minimum distance between browns?

I wouldn't see a need to change much at all from something that has been working quite well. Some slight point symbol size reductions, including rock, some reduction in cliff widths and min lengths allowing rocky terrain to be shown in slightly more detail. 2 sizes of dot knolls for dand dunes.
The bigger issue to me is that the new proposal dictates that more generalization is mandatory and the map should be prepared as if for a 1:15.
My vision would change the 1:15 symbol set to have larger dimensions which would well suit higher generalization and enhance readability. The problem I see, especially with digital, is that the current 1:15 symbols are very small and thin to read on the run.
Alternatively use 1:12500 but that's another story.

Paul, thanks, but still pretty vague... are you saying that the new 1:10k standard would have slightly smaller sizes compared to the current 50% enlargement? Can you give some numbers then for your two dot knolls, thinner and shorter cliffs? And that's it, no other changes?

pi, no, other scales can be produced for education and for other forms of orienteering, but not "foot O". If you are trying to say that scale part of ISOM should be ignored, and instead rules committee should say what scales should be used, then fine, that's what some others are saying here too.

And apparently you haven't yet read this thread if you ask symbols sizes for "other scales".

A reasonable middle-ground might be symbol sizes 25% greater than current 1:15,000 ISOM. If the same symbols sizes (measured as mm on paper) were used on maps at 1:10,000 or 1:15,000, then 1:10 would allow for more symbols (i.e., more detailed map) and 1:15 would allow for fewer symbols (i.e., more generalized map)

In my opinion, the fact that a 50% increase in symbol size is desirable for Middle-distance implies that the original symbols are too small (if they weren't, why would we bother increasing the size for Middle?).

OK, I missed that kofols says in one post about this D10kP10k concept: "Yes, both 1:15 and 1:10 would end up with same symbol sizes (50% enlargement) but the contours lines would not be the same." Then he says that maybe some symbol would maybe be slightly shrunk (like 40% enlargement). This is similar to what paul is saying.

So what are we arguing about?

The OOF MC.

Yes pi I was pretty vague. It's pointless giving an exact number on it, hey it's taken how many years for 201x and I need to come up with the perfect answer within a day?
My side of the argument is more of a philosophical one. I see that for technical terrain on 1:10 maps in many countries mappers/cartographers have struggled at times, and found a need to alter ISOM to suit their needs, much to the IOF mc disapproval. I do not wish to encourage a large change from the current 1:10 sizing, rather, see what the main problem items are and address those. For many years before ISOM2000 it seemed easy to accommodate detailed terrain. However I agree enlarged sizes from those were a good move but probably just a little too much. I would imagine the 40% of the current 1:15 might be a little too small for everything. Some may only require 45-50%. Testing would be required. I have seen plenty of 1:10 maps that some features using the current sizes but where the mappers have not adhered to the gap rules, thus creating a dogs breakfast. Smaller size symbols would have helped (because 1:15 would have it's own specs).
Regarding the dot knoll, I see people using two sizes illegally all the time. 'route gadget' just put up an example recently on fb. I don't see a problem with it as long as it is not being used to map things that should not be mapped, rather be used to create a better, clearer, more accurate looking map. Some mappers often struggle with other items such as distinct trees, earth banks, pits etc being too large in some terrain and often make them smaller, knowing they shouldn't be.
My reference to cliff sizing comes because I see problems with the larger thicker line size often creates a messy drawing, again where the gaps tend to get too small as mappers are struggling to get what is on ground onto the map using the correct tools. Again, it doesn't need much change to help a lot. Wouldn't it be wonderful if no one ever had to alter any symbol because the sizing was closer to perfect. This is one area where I see the removal of the free drawing 'pillar black' might be the cause of a lot of problems. It would be better to strongly educate people not to miss-use the symbol as to not start drawing under size objects etc. and making sure in tricky/tight situations the line widths and gaps don't stray very far from the tolerance.

It's all hypothetical of course because what will now stand has to be readable at 1:15. which changes the game hugely because as it stands, some current symbols and line thickness are already too small and require a magnifier. The two don't really mix easily. Now I'm just repeating myself - sorry.

Having separate long/middle ISOM has some disadvantages and it would not solve some of the scale / legibility problems, like printing technology issues. And the ink blob size needed to make eye see it is the same no matter what the scale is, or is the paper map at all. That's why I would rather prefer the approach in my first post.

As @paul said: see what the main problem items are and address those.

If we look into the past we can see that there were issues but as there were no guidance the trend went into different direction as MC wanted. I'm not saying that detailed maps are the only trend, I'm just saying that the MC didn't address it in full scale. So I'd also love to read the background why Oringen, Jukola, Tiomila has chosen 1:10? Is there any good article, analysis that anyone could recommend?

We're debating but it would be better if we can agree and officially send (via secretary of one federation) this question to IOF council members and MC with clear timetable and what we'd also like to be discussed on the next IOF meeting.

Here is my quick intro. I 'd love if interested people have time to edit (context, english) and post it on AP again and again so we can get a final version. Are we able to demonstrate that we can do it and than sent it to IOF?

LETTER
1. Please consider to establish a working group to look into 1:10 specs?
2. Make 2 years as maximum project timespan (put into IOF 2-years activity plan)
3. Invite mappers and people who have experience of mapping & running (not just elite) on different detail terrains to be part of working group. Don't bother with reference group. This could be establish later.
4. Publish all relevant background materials, maps, etc.
5. Make discussion paper within 1 year time (symbols set). Don't bother if it is not perfect on the start. It'd be better that after every meeting we could expect new version after 4mo/8mo....
6. Invite also O-community to contribute their feedback. Make forum so each member of working group would have a chance to debate with interested people on specific symbols to get better overview.
7. Prepare final draft. Don't bother if first version is not shiny. Just focus on feedback and make a new one within 4mo/8mo and final after 1 year.
8. Make decision about ISOM 1:10 specs. within 2 year timespan.


If they don't want to establish a working group than we could close this thread.

Looking even more into the past about 1:10 trend I remembered that I need to look into this thread @jjcote post.
The reason for 1:15000 has supposedly been that for a Long event, the length of a good long leg would be too large at 1:10000 to properly evaluate route choices, it would simply take up too much space on the paper, and unfolding the map to figure out what to do would be awkward. The real reason may be that 1:10000 has been considered a scale for children and old people, and not worthy for elite competition. Basically, stubborn tradition. I'm pretty sure that the first time a 1:10000 map was used in a WOC was 1993, for the Short events, and it was a long difficult argument with the controllers before they finally agreed to let us do that.

It is shame that IOF don't have any history about map development online so I thought WWW could find something more informative. I was very surprised that google found 21 years old Haavard Tveite email about 1:10 and how history begins.

Great find kofols! The reasoning was just as illogical and circular then as it is now:

Havard Tveite: "My argument against 1:10000 is that it is a deviation from the
standard."

Haha...

* One person makes decision, refuses to be swayed from decision for love or money.
* Second person says first person's decision is bad simply because it's Not The Way We've Always Done It.
* Second person says first person's decision is bad despite making it easier to organise minor events.
* Old people complain about map readability.

Good to see things have changed in the last 24 years.

Jukola is not elite only event. Majority of runners are not elites, lots of old runners with not that good vision. To make it more suitable event for the masses enlargement type of map was the way to go.

kofols, for that letter you need to be able to explain why such work needs to be done, what are the advantages. You can't say 1:10 maps are more legible. If one generalizes enough 1:15 maps will be equally legible. If you say 1:10 map with bigger symbols are easier to read, solution could be using bigger symbols in 1:15 map, not changing the scale. You can't say this and that area can't be mapped legible way at 1:15 scale, none of the example maps here support that idea, those maps does not look like well generalized ones, way too much form lines and short cliffs one could clean out. You can't say athletes run faster and 1:15 slows them down, again if one generalize map enough to make it equally legible and place flags high and visible enough athletes hardly will need those extra details 1:10 000 map can have. Orienteering does not necessarily need to be a detail reading sport for map nerds - one could claim running with compass bearing has always been and should stay essential part of orienteering, so the fact that such compass use is vanishing can be seen as sign of today's maps being too detailed and the scale too large. With those old argument you will get nowhere, to make it look smart move you need better ones. For example can you convince everyone this is parallel with IOF goals and such goals can not be achieved without this work?

Many words and letters, dying sport. With apologies to EricW.

Not in Finland or Slovenia, T/D, nor in Canada, nor Ireland nor France nor Italy nor...

No need, people will tell when and where ISOM is helpful.

A good solution would be the resignation of Mr Havard Tveyte.

He proved everything that is able: To protect holy 15 000. Nothing more.
He did not present it again, at least in a serious way.
There is no one to ask for his resignation?

IOF sanctions IOF events.
If you are not running one of them, then you can choose your map specification.
If we all choose different map specifications, we have chaos.
So we need some coordination.
The MC isn't interested in this task.
Seems logical to form a new group of interested stakeholders to work on this.
Then let the consumer decide on the outcome.

The thought of a revolution always seems so exciting.

There are some real jewels appearing on this thread, here's another telling piece of evidence of the current problematic situation. This was just posted on another orienteering discussion website by an ex elite national rep who has been mapping for 35 years. And as far as I know he may not even know this above discussion is going on or even exists. He's certainly never posted and doesn't have a training acc on ap.

The maps he discusses were all sand dune terrain, and the last one was the world cup middle 1:10.

Quote:
" We were allowed by the IOF for WMOC 2000 Harakeke a 9% reduction and we could get all the detail we wanted to map in.

APOC 1994 Knottingley was printed at 1:15000 for elites which was readable with offset printing (but also used a reduction in symbol size).

For World Cup 1 Oceania 2014 we used the standard symbol sizes (we would not have got clearance to use a reduced symbol set) - I was still mapping too fine and after draft fieldwork, the map was unreadable using standard symbols. I then went out and visited everything again and had to think what should be taken off. Generalisation (and some more detail added on) went on for several months. For a World Cup event (or any large international event) factor in a long period required for fieldcheck and map refinement (almost the same time as for the initial fieldwork) - also required endless visits of planner/controller/National controller and a few IOF controller visits followed by mapper going back to fix/correct things. Generalisation can be done but takes a lot of extra time. The whole process to create an IOF compliant map in detailed sand dune terrain probably ends up with a more accurate map as everything is checked and rechecked - the style of the map is different to many of the sanddune maps we are used to which have all detail mapped."

ISSOM and 1:5000 is often selected over ISOM 1:10 (enlarged 1:15) for World Games forest middle distances. IOF's key goal is making orienteering global sport, but "wrong" mapping standard needs to be used because using the right one just does not make sense, mostly for the scale restrictions. This can be seen as MC's failure. It should be playing along with IOF's key goals, not working against them, right?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gHZkiSFbnGE/SqNaeFYuLCI/...

http://www.danielhubmann.ch//images/stories/maps/2...

Yes, there were plenty ISOM deviations, exceptions and rejections during the last 24 years. It just mean that ISOM should not be consider as a standard but rather as a guideline. If we'd all have used ISOM (strict as MC wants) and orienteers would be pleased with the maps this debate and new ISOM could not happen. I assume that some talk is good after all. To know how far we are from this "standard" we need to put all maps from all international events together and if 95% maps are according to ISOM than I agree that we reached and agreed what is the standard.

I'm mainly interested in detail terrains but it is hard to get a quick brief what MC members think about 1:10 maps, technical terrains, etc. To get a feeling you need to go through a different documents: MC minutes, Evaluation of IOF events maps, ICOM presentations and probably other documents. After so many requests I think they need at least to write down one document what they think in general so anyone can understand their position.

France; WC 2006 and HT respons.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/137617603/MAP-COMMITTE...

Nobody was against the maze (Venice -WOC 2014). Nobody is against the details on sprint maps. Why a detail terrains and 1:10 get a mark of a bad seed and not appropriate terrain for international orienteering? Why IOF?

@jagge - both of those look more like really long sprint rather than middle distance races. I think the organizers were stretching the use of the Middle distance race format rather than stretching the 1:10,000 requirement ;-) (nothing wrong with a long sprint in my opinion, but calling it "middle" is a bit rich)

So, yesterday I was out on Black Magic picking up the water control debris from the Canadian Champs Long distance race. As some of you know it is unforgiving terrain - very steep with patches of tough forest that you seriously want to go around. At some point I realized I had lost my map - unrealistic to go and look for it. I knelt and said a silent prayer (just kidding) then started to bail out by heading downhill - hoping like crazy that I would not get stuck in any green.

After a few moments the trees parted, a sunbeam shone down upon me, and all became clear...

I reached into my pocket and pulled out my iPhone. Surfed up the RouteGadget for the COC Long and navigated my way around the course, no problem.

What's the point of that story? Well, clearly the rate of technological development versus the rate of ISOM change suggests that this thread is another pointless one since we'll be able to pick our own map scale (and change it at our whim) ages before people agree on what the right scales for orienteering shall be.

Nice.

kofols noted he is mainly interested in detail terrains, personally I am more interested in generalized maps of detailed terrains, I find them much more fun and challenging. In OOcup ultimate class has been popular, paths are taken a way to make it more technical. I am aiming for is a bit similar but even more technical challenge. instead of removing paths, I would keep them to keep it fair and not make race a lottery, but remove most of the small details not much affecting running speed, leaving just major features without capturing their personality too well (so you would not be able to identify this is this tiny knoll because it is a bit Apple logo shaped). Good navigator could be able to do just fine and map could be printed at 1:15 or 1:20 scale with largish symbols. Worse navigators who rely on re-location would be in big trouble. Would be very good map type for our long format and differentiate it from middle.

AZ, I think you are forgetting the issue is not just the scale, it is the generalization level. Pinch zoom equals printing map out as enlargement, it could be done already but the question is what stops mappers from putting there more and more unnecessary details. How the generalization level is controlled? And if you zoom out to make route choice, you would not be able to do it because map is not legible at that zoomed out scale. To make it work you would need to make generalized versions of the map or generalize map on the fly when you zoom out. Then, if athletes are able to navigate just fine with a certain generalized version without never having to zoom in to see the detailed versions, wouldn't making such detailed versions be just waste of time and money? But athletes might use/see the very same generalized map version in different scales, because some may use screen with worse resolution (larger pixels, actual scale is larger) or their vision is not that good (so they like keep it zoomed in a bit to see it better - without map getting changed to a more detailed version).

That why I think suggested 1:10 ISOM version is waste of time. Much better have only one ISOM symbol set with sizes and everything defined in mm on paper, independent of scale. And simply having some flexibility it the initial scale and generalization level, so mapper could choose good one for the terrain and discipline, and implement the default symbol sizes at that selected initial scale (analogical to the map generalization version athletes ended up using on screen). But instead of printing it out and using it always only at that initial scale, it could be used as enlargements, if users are not just young athletes with perfect vision, or if map is not spot colour offset printed (analogical to the screen resolution/vision issue of the screen example above).

"Bad mappers" could still do bad job by doing things all wrong, of course, but you can't stop that really. Better focus on making it possible for "good mappers" do good legible maps instead of forcing them to the situation where terrain, clubs expectations and ISOM quite don't overlap at all.

personally I am more interested in generalized maps of detailed terrains

I can't say that I have been following and understanding all of things people are saying here, but this one makes sense to me. Running on a map with thousands of small depressions and cliffs 2m long seems like a fun and interesting sprint-like challenge, but I think it would also be really fun to run on them generalized for regular 'interpret the general shape of the terrain' orienteering.

Yup. In some terrain (I'm thinking more south of France or corn maze or sprint than many other examples), the details really affect runnability and route-choice (micro & macro). That's where we need flexibility with scale. In Southern Finland "just run straight" terrain, blank sheet of paper would suffice.

Jagge has it - this is the way to go: only one ISOM symbol set with sizes and everything defined in mm on paper, independent of scale. .

I too like the sense of that.

So how do you deal with ageing eye sight issues if symbols stay the same size independent of scale? Is strict enlargement still available?

@Jagge I meant what you wrote (generalized maps of detailed terrains).

In my opinion ... all maps should be at least A4 and at most A3 and the course should take up most of the page. That would define the appropriate scale, and is probably the actual rationale for having middle at 1:10,000.

And yes, I have used A4 1:9,500 ISOM and 1:5,200 ISSOM maps, even at races with World Champions and prize money, and nobody has noticed.

This may partly explain why I am a bad mapper. No apologies on that. Some years ago, after much deliberation, I decided that given the choice between "bad mapper" and "no mapper at all", the first option is best.

Is strict enlargement still available?

Like I wrote, yes. Printing it out as enlargement is the the best and only feasible way to ensure legibility last minute, like if you by accident happen to publish courses day in advance and need to re-design and print out courses with laser printer the night before instead of using fancy offset ones. Not reserving possibility to print them out enlarged is just stupid.

But the print out scale and the initial scale should be seen as separate parameters. Initial scale would be chosen only terrain/discipline and spot colour offset in mind. And mapper makes sure map would be legible for young eyes if offset printed out like that. Without having to think while mapping will users be blind or will printer by clubs old inkjet. Should not be that difficult, because there would be some alternative initial scales available to choose from - without having to shrink symbols or do such violations.

The second scale - the actual scale map gets printed, I would rather call it enlargement, 100%, 133%, 150%, 200% instead of scale - would by chosen based on the printer's quality and runners' blindness rate. An because those are strict enlargements, symbols would be bigger on paper that the mm values mentioned in standard.

--

Here is some documents MC has about printing quality:
http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/11icom/ht.pdf
http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/article/omapprintingar.p...
To me it is easy to make conclusion something should be done to compensate the lack of sharp edges of contours and such if these methods are used instead of spot colour offset. But MC sees athletes simply will have to survive with these less good quality maps. http://lazarus.elte.hu/mc/specs/non-offset_wre.pdf

Many good ideas in this thread but unfortunately unworkable. I do not think MC will watch the topic with interest, but sure with irritation. Eric had a very constructive proposal from the beginning. I highlight: Please put your ideas in order and send them to the address MC. I'm sure it will not change anything, but at least MC will not be able to count on our immobility and say again:

No major change was demanded !!!

If you have already written by IOF affiliated structures, do it again.
So, for all who are interested,I hope you follow Eric's advice..

I would also proposes something: Let us summarize each of us only 3 issues that we believe need to be changed. Try to be essential in the way of working and thinking of MC, not detail. As in mapping, details, hiding the essential

How the generalization level is controlled?

Your description is great and I like it very much. To make it happen it seems that federations will need to propose a written rules not just comments. MC is not interested to do this as they only think how to close all the holes and make an absolute waterproof ISOM. I'd say that they are too long on power to be able to listen to other suggestions.

ISOM201X draft
-> The scale 1:15,000 shall be used for all long distance competitions.
-> No deviations from the dimensions given in this specification are permitted.
All line widths and symbol dimensions must be kept strictly to their specified values.
-> Terrain that cannot be legibly presented at a scale of 1:15,000 is not suitable for international events.

I need to give applause once again to OUSA and EricW for sending comments on ISOM draft and what they think about MC superiority. ISOM 1990 is already forgotten. There was a slightly chance that detail terrains can get a better future. Jagge can you able to write a draft rules out of your vision. I like this statement:

-> And simply having some flexibility it the initial scale and generalization level, so mapper could choose good one for the terrain and discipline


As EricW said:
We hope the final document acknowledges the relationship of scale and terrain and format.

ISSOM - relationship of scale and terrain

APPROVED!
Map scale - 1:5000 would probably be OK for most Norwegian sprint terrains, but we have had reports that 1:4000 is much better suited for some coastal villages (ports) with very narrow "roads" in a complex pattern.

ISSOM2004 final draft - comments and suggestion from Norway, Oct. 2004
The Norwegian Orienteering Federation
Technical committee
Map group

Dag Olav Rønning
Kristen Treekrem
Håvard Tveite (chairman)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ISOM relationship of scale and terrain

NOT APPROVED!
->ISOM should reflect the practice of the best mappers rather than try to direct it
->I want to continue to see 15000 maps, but in some areas or countries 15000 is almost irrelevant. It is time to allow use of 10000 for long races in some circumstances.
->I like the fact that there are different styles of mapping
->That is why we have training camps and model events
->I would like to see a little more flexibility in the application/enforcement of IS(S)OM and respect for different cultures
Rob Plowright
11th ICOM, 2005

The best way would be to follow the NOR approach:

Map scale - 1:15000 would probably be OK for most (French, Australian, New Zealand, Slovenian,...) long distance terrains, but we have had reports that 1:10000 is much better suited for our granite, sanddune, karst terrains with many boulders, cliffs and contour "details" in a complex pattern.

1 I was shocked by a affirmation made ​​by the MC at the first call:

No major change was not required.

  Does anyone know how many times asked by different nations, using scale 10 000 when the complexity of the field required?!? I think there are dozens of applications, perhaps hundreds. Many federations do not even require a derogation even if using for the WRE or national championships.
This is not a major request?

2.MC states strongly that 15000 is in all the cases the best scale. Who and how he came such a conclusion?!? .

3.MC says that athletes run faster on 15000 than 10 000. How reached such a conclusion?

MC must prove those assertions. Anyone can throw the words to the wind. More difficult is to prove that it is. As long as MC ignore the real problems will not be able to put the good questions and find good answers.

Of course, an answer will never come from the MC.

MC decided that 15,000 is Holy and will remain so as long as Mr. HT will stay at its head. Amen

Discussion of mapping as opposed to terrain would be better over here, I reckon.

What people like (as represented by the World of O course of the year entries). Of course there may be bias from whoever selected these. Maps where I couldn't see the scale excluded, but I don't think this would create bias.

Sprints. 1:5000, 4. 1:4000, 16.

Traditional. 1:15,000, 7. 1:10,000, 23.

There were also 4 at 1:7500.

Having orienteered since 1967 I have some experience with varying map scales and amount of detail: My first races usually took place on 1:20K maps, so they tended to be 4-5 controls in a very small (paper) area. At that time long distance senior races averaged over a km per leg, but the number of decisions per leg was significantly lower than today when an average leg is less than half as long, right?

The difference isn't only in the amount of details mapped, but also in the course setter's desire to get "the most orienteering possible".

Personally I have always liked courses which emphasize orienteering over running, but that is partly because I've never been very fast. :-(

It is quite obvious that the IOF MC are fighting a rear-guard action, trying to delay the ongoing trend of more and more detailed maps, but as long as both mappers and orienteers find them interesting and fun, the MC will lose. I.e. we will see major long distance events at 1:10K.

There is however one really good idea in the new ISOM standard: An explicit suggestion to enlarge the maps for those who simply cannot read a 1:15K map at competition speed, and those enlargements should go all the way to 1:5K (for the oldest competitiors), via 1:10K and 1:7.5K

In Sweden where they have always loved explicit rules that don't allow any local adjustments, they have banned the use of enlarged (to 1:7.5K from 1:10K) maps for any classes younger than H/D60, even if the major part of visual acuity is already lost at 50.

Re. graeme's suggestion of "just use the paper size" enlargements:

I think this is a brilliant idea, I have run a couple of events hosted by Egil W. Iversen where the map scale was stated as "Scale: A4", which happened to be something like 1:6500 when I checked afterwards. I have also done regular events where the map scale didn't match exactly what was stated, i.e. 1:10600 or so, but nobody notices this during a competition.

In my own course setting for local Oslo events I have done the same several times, but in the opposite direction: I.e. I start by saying that this map should be printed at 1:5K, so keep the course within an A4 segment of the full map.

Thanks Terje, you have mentioned an idea that I've put out around here, but failed to get any feedback on. To what extent do orienteers acquire a feel for a limited number of standard scales (a subconscious distance-counter), or can they cope with whatever scale is served up to them?

I've got a low-detail map covering the metropolitan area and surrounds, from which we extract bits for small urban rogaines. The scale is simply "as big as we can make it". (We always provide a scale bar, and often quote the control circle size in metres.) This is not top competition so we do what we like, but I'm interested in whether it would be acceptable for championship/national/A-level/topklass events/meets/races/tavlingar. I have older eyes and am grateful for all the visual help I can get.

Another graeme's idea posted in this thread:
But there is a way to do it now: Replace the cluesheet with a 1:5000 blow-up of the control circle, with a trail-O solution style pink dot at precise location of the flag.

The black and white only cluesheet is an obsolete throwback to the time before maps were printed especially for events.

All it requires is the ability to print out the little map segments: CONDES already makes them to help you cut circles.

Example how to do it.
http://www.fisofvg.it/wp-temp/wp-content/uploads/2...
1:7500 map and a 1:3000 blown-up segment but if you look at the south part in 1:3000 there are some differences of mapped details. Probably not intentionally. I don't see any reason why this kind of maps would not be appropriate for major events. If rules for min. dimensions are respected then I would not argue to see more details on blown-up part. It's fair and it would improve legibility of the map at basic scale where terrain is too complex for initial 1:15 scale. Somehow similar to Micr-O idea (changing the maps - scale in the middle of the course) but only one map/course as today.

We had some WRE legality discussion around using a larger scale blow up of the castle at RaceTheCastles Stirling. AFAIK, provided the whole course is shown at 1:4000, there no rule about what else is on the piece of paper: legend, sponsor logo, 1:1000 blow up. If competitors don't like the blow up, they can just ignore it.

To what extent do orienteers acquire a feel for a limited number of standard scales (a subconscious distance-counter)

The scale in itself is usually not a problem (I run mostly on 1:7500/1:10 000 and the occasional sprint at 1:4000/1:5000) but I´m usually thrown off by the habit of printing all these different scales using the same size control circles...

I tend to get a feel for the "area covered by the circle" as a "subconscious distance-counter" as long as they follow enlargement from the original scale (whatever that is...)

I do prefer scales that end in a lot of zeros. And something like, "1cm = 110m".

As bubo says, as long as the scale is a pure print scale, i.e. everything is enlarged, then it is fairly easy to adopt to any given scale. However, most good orienteers have an almost intuitive feel for how far/fast they will move along the map, so I can understand the need for a limit on the number of canonical map scales.

What we have discussed several times, is to have an optional field on the entry schema: Desired print scale!

Even if you had to pay an additional fee for the extra organizer work (10-20% added to the regular entry fee?), I know that many orienteers would gladly pay this in order to know that they would be able to get maximum enjoyment out of the race.

My brother Knut, who is the current leader of the NOF trainers' association, stated it like this: "This is an orienteering competition, not an eye exam!"

We're afraid though that HT's (and the rest of the MC) eye sight needs to become significantly worse before this becomes an official option. :-)

reposting from terrain thread:

That area looks ace.

It is an interesting question as to what should be mapped and what shouldn't (and a different question to what world class terrain is). Re. boulders/rock this is something I've been getting used to in Oz and there are some very different styles.

So, Mt Kooyora
http://www.bendigo-orienteers.com.au/mediawiki/ima... (sorry old link - ultralong RG doesn't seem to work.)

lots of rock on there but quickly worked out that if the rock is on the map it's fairly significant so pretty easy to see and navigate by.

2 weeks later, get to Wagga:
http://garingal.com.au/gadget2014/cgi-bin/reitti.c...
and it felt like everything over knee high was mapped and it totally blew my mind.

Not sure what the answer is but I do think that mapping is something of an art form depending on the terrain, and that blanket rules like "map all rock over 1m" should be avoided. As it stands the current ISOM rule seems to reflect this.

btw the terrain in both those areas was amazing.

Looking again at Wagga map (link not working here)

It is really difficult to spot distinct point objects - boulder, boulder cluster, rock cliff, rock face against other black generalized symbols - boulder field and stony ground. Maybe a few options could be tested with the aim to quickly distinguish what is what. As it stands now the black is so dominant.

207 (Boulder field) = Light red triangle, no fill
210 (Stony ground) = Light red area used in similar way as bare rock (light grey) or light green (406).

Point features (black) and generalized area/features would pop out more than today. I think that CZE mappers suggested red color a few years back but I can't remember for what purpose. When I read MC report presented at this year ICOM this is still open and it needs to be decided (Tightening up the definitions for broken ground, stony ground and boulder field).

Red is not a good choice for a color on maps that may also have green, due to the problems this would cause for colorblind orienteers. This is why red is not one of the colors used by ISOM/ISSOM, and why control markers are now orange instead of red.

Yeah. I'm just thinking out of the box. It seems that maps where you have almost all possible rock symbols on small area don't do the job. Maybe this is not a big problem but I feel that we might need a better solution than what we have now.

If red is excluded than I would experiment with grey as the best option. We don't have bare rocks here so we could use grey for stony ground and grey triangle for boulder field. Two definitions of grey for different terrains or two greys....

Jayne. To get the full granite experience you also need to run on the Seldom Seen map.
http://jwoc2007.orienteering.asn.au/images/maps/se...
I think of this as the counterpoint to Connorton. It feels like almost all the rock is mapped as generalised rocky ground and only the very obvious (and I mean VERY) are mapped as point features. These photos are an indication of mapped features.
http://jwoc2007.orienteering.asn.au/Menu_Archive/T...
To me this terrain is rockier than Connorton, but the map doesn't seem as busy.
It all points to mapper choices about generalisation. For a long distance event I prefer the Seldom Seen style. For a middle the Connorton approach might be appropriate. To me the Kooyoora map is somewhere in between. I can enjoy running on all three, as long as I know what to expect of the mapper.

Seldom seen looks awesome.

Or Gumble pinnacles. Same style, good map. Lots of nice granite around Molong. Thats from someone who lives 30 minutes from Kooyoora.
http://jwoc2007.orienteering.asn.au/images/maps/Th...

Thoughts about grey. Maybe too radical ideas but it is a new different view on stony issues. Maybe this would not work. It is just an idea. I read again ISOM 201X first draft and OUSA comments, maybe I overlooked something but I got the feeling that there are already some similar ideas about graphic implementation for some symbols. How to implement grey.

Symbol 207 (Boulder field)
Black open triangle (instead of black triangles, full fill). Similar implementation as proposed 118.1 (brown open triangle)

Symbol 117 (Broken ground)
no change (same thoughts as OUSA)

Symbol 210 -> 213 (Stony ground)
Light grey (instead of black dots)

Symbol 212 (Bare rock)
Two options
a) Two greys as suggested by OUSA. To distinguish between stony ground and large bare rocks we could add tags. Flat (light grey with black thine line around grey + tags - similar implementation as we have for 106 (Quarry); for bare rock on slope maybe just a few tags to indicate downhill fall line.
b) I also feel that modification of 211 (Open sandy ground) could be a much better solution. Tags could be used for variations of 213/214/215. I don't know how fast someone could run on bare rock but I go very slow on smooth stones.

New symbol 213/214/215
With grey we could solve also these variations. Black thine line around grey with rectangular tags as we use them for cliffs and in appropriate interval as we use it for fence (522, 524). This would give clear information about how stony is the ground and no need to use dots.
213
214 (2 tags)
215 (4 tags)

Using grey for symbol 210 and changing bare rock graphic implementation could give better legibility than dots because we have maps with a lot of dots and when mapper use too much dots this add clutter. Also area symbol would give more chances to use "stony ground" and its edges for suitable control point location. Maps would probably become half grey and dots could be used only for vegetation boundary. No need for us to use green line in stony terrains (F416.2)

Think I might have been to Gumble - tagged along to NSW junior training last year. First ever experience of Australian rock.

Re. grey. ran on a map the other day that had a building canopy next to some bare rock. On the map they are the same colour.

It is really difficult to spot distinct point objects - boulder, boulder cluster, rock cliff, rock face against other black generalized symbols - boulder field and stony ground. Maybe a few options could be tested with the aim to quickly distinguish what is what. As it stands now the black is so dominant.

I don't think that at all. That map (Connorton ) looks fine to me. I haven't been to that area so I can't comment on the how well the map matches what is in the terrain or if it is under/over generalised. From the point of view of the drawing it looks very well drawn with careful attention made to maintain gaps between the black objects. I have plenty of experience in similar terrains (mapping and competing) so I have no trouble identifying what I think will be significant features - in particular I can immediately and easily 'see through' the black detail to the underlying contours and have a good impression of the shape of the land. There are lots of good strong contour features to be found. This is an essential skill in such terrain. If you are having trouble Kofol maybe it is just because you are not used to this sort of terrain. A bit of practice and you would have no trouble. That is true of many terrains and is why serious elite level competitors try to spend time in similar terrains before major competitions. This is just part of sport and part of the appeal of the sport - the challenge of adapting to new terrains and different styles of mapping - it is not something to be complained about and blamed on mappers.

Also often the reason It is really difficult to spot distinct point objects in the rockiest parts is because that is exactly what the terrain is like - a sea of jumbled rock with no particularly distinct features. It is not a failing of ISOM - quite the opposite - the map is accurately reflecting the terrain. It would be ridiculous to try to make the map show features more distinctly than they appear in the terrain. The question in such circumstances is then one of intelligent course setting and control site selection. But that is not a concern for the mapper - the mapper's job is to show the terrain as it is - a smart course setter will decide not to site controls in inappropriate areas.

Interesting you mention Seldom Seen Neil. I haven't been there either so I am a little reluctant to comment on it. Also I am reluctant to criticise the mapper who is one of the very best mappers around and would usually be more likely to be criticised (not be me but by ardent advocates of greater generalisation) for insufficient generalisation.

BUT I have heard, from varied and reliable sources, that there were major problems with Seldom Seen - many areas appeared not to have been properly mapped at all with large and distinct rock features missing and the whole areas simply 'generalised' with triangles and 'stony ground'. The reason I mention this is as I say not to knock the mapper but to point out that while this map is being put forward as a good example of generalisation it is just possible that there is another way of looking at it. While so much of the talk these days is about the evils of 'over mapping' and 'generalisation' has become the biggest buzz word, it is also possible to 'over generalise'. Sometimes when I hear people extolling the need for greater generalisation it sounds to me a bit like an excuse for just plain bad mapping.

Symbol 210 -> 213 (Stony ground) Light grey (instead of black dots)

OK I am all for experimenting with new ideas (at minor events) to improve maps. But I am doubtful this one would work. Firstly in practice it is very hard to get the printing of greys right and to distinguish between shades of grey- especially for small areas. Just look at the problems of passable and impassable walls on sprint maps. For similar reasons I am doubtful those proposals to use grey for rocks and black for roads, paths, etc (or vice versa) will work in practice.

Also if you use grey for 'stony ground' the mapper loses the ability to vary the size and density of the dots to reflect the variations in appearance runnability.

In general I think ISOM is pretty good as it is and needs only minor tweaking - not the major (and as far as I am aware, untested) changes in some proposals I have seen. In my experience, in most cases where people propose major changes to ISOM the solution to the 'problem' is not to change the the norms - it is in more careful drawing by the mapper. For example - careful placement of stony ground dots by the mapper (not too close to cliffs, boulders, etc, and not on top of contours where the contour detail is important) can greatly enhance the legibility of a map. It just requires a bit of extra time and skill. Similarly the 'solution' to the problem of paths in rocky areas is not to make the rocks grey, it is for the mapper to take the extra care to ensure no rock features are drawn too close to the path. Sure it's not perfect, even with the most careful drawing small paths can be hard to see on maps of rocky terrain, but actually the best orienteers are aware of this 'problem' and train themselves to spot paths that the less skilled miss. Again instead of seeing it as a 'problem' with ISOM you could also look it at as one of the nuances of the sport - part of what makes it so interesting and challenging and that those who train themselves to be more skilled at picking up on these nuances get better results. That's what sport is supposed to be about: training to improve physical ability and skill levels.

...a building canopy next to some bare rock. On the map they are the same colour.

Yeah, that should only be on sprint maps - there is no canopy symbol in ISOM, just buildings. But some mappers do you use the canopy symbol on non-sprint maps.The thin black line around the canopy should distinguish it from bare rock which has no black border.

Rob. My mention of Seldom Seen was in the context of previous comments on the enjoyment of very generalised mapping for long style events. There are a number of ways of spinning Seldom Seen. I was spinning it as very generalised mapping. There isn't much like it in Australia except if you go back quite a few years earlier (before my time). And Connorton is the most under generalised granite map I have run on. They are two book ends. Yes, there was some grumbling about Seldom Seen when first used (and about Connorton for the opposite reason). It was not the style of mapping we were used to from the mapper in question who does indeed know how to map granite. He clearly ran out of time given the marked unmapped areas of the map. I think there were also some health issues hindering the task. But, that said, I managed to navigate my course with minimal issues and to enjoy the experience once i understood the mapping style. (That may be a testament to good course setting as well). I learnt from the model map to expect lots of unmapped detail withing areas mapped as rocky ground, and that if a feature is mapped, it was big. This meant the course emphasised navigation by contours and route choice. Whilst I personally tend to gravitate to technical terrain and detailed maps, I was acknowledging jagge's point that there is a place for more generalisation in the long format.

"under generalised"?

That's an interesting way to look at it.

I am working hard not to criticise any mapper. I know from experience how hard it is to map to everyone's expectations.

Really funny :) how "one word" play major role when someone need to express feelings about something. "under generalized" = "over mapping" so vice versa "over generalized" should probably have same meaning as "under mapping" but I haven't heard anyone say that. ISOM is also not telling me what these words should exactly mean so maybe tRicky can find a proper definition for these words as valuable contribution to ISOM terminology.

Rob, thanks for your thoughts. As I said, it is an idea in progress. Regarding paths; If stony ground area would be grey screen symbol all paths inside could be white. No confusion. This kind of map could be something new and attraction for one of the days at summer multi day competition. And if you have read the whole post I did try to explain how to represent "density of the dots". If anyone feels comfortable to try using grey in this way I am sure there are other ideas how to do that.

See, I think we are getting lost in semantics. If there were problems with Seldom Seen (as I said I can only go on what I have heard, and you just added to that Neil) then it is not a question of mapping style and 'under' or 'over generalisation' - it was just a map that was not up to the expected standard. Major features were left off. They weren't generalised - they were just never mapped. Saying it is an example of a very generalised' style doesn't cut it for me.

The debate about generalisation is about smaller marginal features: do you leave off the 2m boulder next to the 5m cliff. When the 5m cliff is not on the map that is not 'generalisation' - it's just wrong.

I am prepared to hold an open mind on this map. There may have been major features left off the map, but I didn't find them. I simplified the intervening terrain even further.
As I said, I had a good run and hit everything with little bother. Assuming those inconsistencies existed based on the reports of others, and if they were corrected within the context of the overall mapping, then its still an interesting question as to whether this level of generlaisation is acceptable. That's the point Jagge was making. I admit that when I attended the model event, I was initially shocked. It took quite some time to appreciate what was different from the normal style of the mapper. This was early in my orienteering career and I was prepared to accept that I knew very little other than the work of a couple of mappers. I feared I was a sheltered orienteer. So for this thread, the question of any errors or inconsistencies on the map is a diversion from the main point, which is, how much generalisation is acceptable. And I doubt the map is ISOM compliant, but it was still useable. Rob, I would have loved to have heard your views on this after experiencing the map. Maybe one day.

Rob, maybe this could be even better option. To keep grey for bare rock (just changing to dark grey) and in the same time using different light grey's patterns for stony ground and runnability (instead of density of dots). Same approach as we use dark and light blue for uncrossable water body (301), uncrossable marsh (309), marsh (310) and Indistinct marsh (311).

Here is a good example how all these blue patterns work just great side by side. In the middle of a long leg between CP5-6 there is a marsh where all possible variations of these symbols give really great information about the terrain. Small distinct hilltop in the middle of a march really pop out. Also all three uncrossable marshes pop out. I can imagine that same level of map legibility and runnability can be achieved also for stony ground with this approach. What do you think?
http://news.worldofo.com/2014/12/11/route-to-chris...

Terje said: If direct is fastest, then the stony ground pattern should have been less dense! As it is now the map don’t seem to indicate true runnability.
http://news.worldofo.com/2014/12/18/route-to-chris...


I agree.
1) Stony ground -> It's very hard to see boulders close or inside this area, contours or even blue.

2) Vegetation border symbol = stony ground -> more black

Using black and density of dots for "stony ground" might be good for some terrains but in such rocky terrains overall comparative information is lost.

When the 5m cliff is not on the map that is not 'generalisation' - it's just wrong.

If you fall off a 5m cliff that is not on the map, did it really happen?

Ask Helen Palmer, she fell off a 7m (mapped) cliff near Halden when her head lamp broke and she tried to find a road. Was the cliff really there?

Yeah, we used to have a cliff mapped like that, too. Black line about 7cm long on a 1:15000 map, with tags -- one on each end. People who know what they're doing understand that all the contour lines disappearing into it means something, but many an intermediate orienteer has looked for that "road" and found something very different. (You don't want to fall of of this one!)

The great example of is it a cliff or a road:
North west of this map
http://www.kartor.jarla.com/show_map.php?user=dahe...

Or the SE side of this one, between 12 and 13.

http://adalgleish.net/maps/show_map.php?user=andre...

This confuses me all the time in sydney - seeing linear cliffs on the map in a line, thinking it's a trail.

I like to put a jog into my contours as they pass through a cliff that runs up and down a hill. That to me is a more realistic drawing of how the contours really work, and gives a bit more indication that its not just a trail.

If no-one read tRicky's posts, would they exist?

Who's tRicky?

This has a longer cliff. http://omaps.worldofo.com/?id=2780

Apologies for going back to the Czech Day 18 stony ground issue, but I think the mapper deserves an advocate.

This terrain, at least on paper, is remarkably similar to many of my club's maps in eastern Pennsylvania, although arguably a hair better :-) This is not my favorite terrain type, but I have probably spent a few thousand hours in it, mostly mapping, but also with course work, training and competing.

First, as I mentioned on World of O, I am not surprised that the direct route was so sucessful, especially when checking it in detail. Despite the volume and density of rock, the best route only had to cross a few dots worth (5-10?) of stony ground. The rest was careful map reading along a relatively straight and climb-efficient route which deserves to be rewarded.

I think it is noteworthy that the course setter found such a great leg with significant and honest (at least to me) time differences, using control features that were near beginner level in difficulty. Many (most?) course setters would have turned this terrain into 300m 400m 350m legs with technical control sites, perhaps suitable for a Middle, but not a Long, without route choice interest, little variety/ drama, and arguably less emphasis on rough, en-route map reading. Congratulations!

Second, the mapping- I know this is risky from my computer screen, but at least "on paper" I think I see a number of things that appear well done.

Most importantly the mapper has shown great controlled variation in the density of stony ground dots.

Also the mapper seems to have avoided using the boulder field triangle symbol in principle (I see a few "group" triangles), which would only add clutter, not useful info. Given the normal number of large boulders, I am confident there is much more larger misc rock here, especially in the densest sections. Many mappers would have applied triangles, including myself, until I was educated to this no/fewer-triangle option by my Russian mapper friends.

The comment about individual boulders being difficult to read, has some truth, but as robplow mentioned this is probably completely appropriate in the terrain. Do you want strong contrast on the map, when there is only subtle distinction in the terrain?

The mapper could have avoided placing dots on contours, at least in the med. and low density areas, but here there is not very much contour detail being hidden.

hiding blue?- I see a few cases, but this might also be appropriate since streams through stony ground/ boulder fields can almost disappear.
Perhaps a side issue, but my eye wants all blue lines to be thicker, and/or have streams upgraded, which often seem too weak for what I see in the terrain.
Note- I am very glad to see the blue north lines (carefully broken for streams), on this map/terrain, rather than black, but how about a little thicker?

The stony dots might be slightly larger than average to my eye, but I find this believably intentional.

Yes, the stony dots are very similar to the veg boundary dots, which is a slight problem on this map, and in general for the ISOM. No simple answer at this time.

It is difficult to evaluate if the dots are shown as the mapper intended, since this symbol is inevitably subject to much post-OCAD fluctuation, in printing and additional processing, until it appears on our paper and screens.

At the very least, this point, and map/terrain example, strongly illustrate the importance of keeping the stony ground symbol flexible and in the hands/ eyes of the mapper, which is directly contrary to the proposed ISOM revision.

The great example of is it a cliff or a road:
North west of this map

It finishes at the triangle so I imagine it's a road to get drinks out on the course.