Draft ISOM

[Scott]

For fairness reasons, it is forbidden to cross a gigantic boulder

sounds faintly ridiculous, although not as daft as

For fairness reasons, crossing a long impassable cliff is forbidden

where "long" is not defined anywhere, which will be a wonderful recipe for appeals at WOC.

[graeme]

A scenario - suppose a low fence is mapped as such (single tag), but an owner decides it shouldn't be crossed - does the map get changed to show this? If so who changes the map? If the landowner then changes his mind who changes the map again?

This is a good example.
It's a low fence, so the mapper maps it as a low fence - single tag. note: the mapper never has to speak with the owner.
At the first event, the owner decides it can't be crossed, so the planner puts a purple line over it.
The owner changes his mind, so the next planner doesn't put the purple on it.

None of this has changed.

[Scott]

Also, 403 rough open land

May be combined with symbols undergrowth slow running or undergrowth difficult to run to show reduced runnability

which sounds very good in principle, but is somewhat undermined by the fact that there are no longer symbols called "undergrowth slow running" or "undergrowth difficult to run".

[greywolf]

You simply don't plan legs with possibility to gain time by crossing a high fence, high cliff, river, lake, impassable marsh, building or such. And if you really really have to do it you put purple there. It really is simple as that.

Yes, one shouldn't, and should...but many planners do, and don't. (instead they believe, or rely on competitors believing, that some ISOM symbols do mean "forbidden to cross"). Good luck with your education proposal

[Big Jon]

A scenario - suppose a low fence is mapped as such (single tag), but an owner decides it shouldn't be crossed - does the map get changed to show this? If so who changes the map? If the landowner then changes his mind who changes the map again?

This is a good example.
It's a low fence, so the mapper maps it as a low fence - single tag. note: the mapper never has to speak with the owner.
At the first event, the owner decides it can't be crossed, so the planner puts a purple line over it.
The owner changes his mind, so the next planner doesn't put the purple on it.

None of this has changed.

Unfortunately the new spec states "An impassable or forbidden to pass wall/fence" so you'll have the situation where some low walls/fences will be marked with one tag and other with two tags - recipe for confusion and protests methinks.What you describe above is the existing system which it is proposed by IOF in its wisdom to change.

[Jagge]

Old standard had ways to map ruined, low and high fence. And for those passable and forbidden to pass variations, makes six options.

This new standard has no way to map a high and slow but allowed to pass fence, something that may be impassable for kids and old timers. This generates luck/unfairness factor.

In addition, the forbidden to pass symbol has so large footprint it is not practical and can also get misread as a road (same width). That may trigger some violations - squeezing through a hole in "a high unmapped fence" on the way to the road that does not exists.

But maybe removing useful mapping options, making symbols more ambiguous and keeping planners uneducated enough to plan unfair courses is what we want.

[Gross]

ut maybe removing useful mapping options, making symbols more ambiguous and keeping planners uneducated enough to plan unfair courses is what we want.

Doesn't matter too much really...you don't get too many high deer fences or cliffs in towns.... which is where orienteering seems to be going.... (Of course Hammerfest has both those )

[graeme]

Unfortunately the new spec states "An impassable or forbidden to pass wall/fence" so you'll have the situation where some low walls/fences will be marked with one tag and other with two tags - recipe for confusion and protests methinks.What you describe above is the existing system which it is proposed by IOF in its wisdom to change.

It specifies "normally more than 1.5 m high.". A bit of wriggle room to allow a sensible mapper to also use it for stuff like this. The current high-fence symbol is completely unfair - it gives the orienteer no useful information about the best route, which should be the purpose of the map. The vast majority of UK protests and DQs on ISOM maps come from the ambiguity in whether you're allowed to cross a fence/wall. Normally, this is because ISOM is so unusable that organisers resort to notes in the final details. I expect the new standard to have real benefit in reducing DQs in the Lake district.

One of our more experienced contributors once said that the symbol meant "forbidden to cross" prior to 1990. That thread is another example where failings in ISOM led to multiple DQs.

[graeme]

.you don't get too many high cliffs in towns....

Good luck with this one... (n.b. entries close today!!!)

Castle.jpg (88.64 KiB) Viewed 9433 times

[greywolf]

This new standard has no way to map a high and slow but allowed to pass fence, something that may be impassable for kids and old timers. This generates luck/unfairness factor. But maybe removing useful mapping options, making symbols more ambiguous and keeping planners uneducated enough to plan unfair courses is what we want.

So you think it would be fair to have symbols for features where many competitors won't know whether or not they can get over it until they go and have a look at it, and therefore their race result will depend on how locky/reckless they are feeling that day?

[Big Jon]

This new standard has no way to map a high and slow but allowed to pass fence, something that may be impassable for kids and old timers. This generates luck/unfairness factor. But maybe removing useful mapping options, making symbols more ambiguous and keeping planners uneducated enough to plan unfair courses is what we want.

So you think it would be fair to have symbols for features where many competitors won't know whether or not they can get over it until they go and have a look at it, and therefore their race result will depend on how locky/reckless they are feeling that day?

There are plenty of other features that may or may not be crossable by a particular person - streams, ditches, low walls, low fences, brashings. One skill in orienteering is being able to interpret what is mapped and whether going across/through it is faster than going round. The physical world is not digital - it is analogue with all sorts of variations of grey, so get used to it and don't try to impose a crazy black/white system onto it.

[pete.owens]

For fairness reasons, crossing a long impassable cliff is forbidden

where "long" is not defined anywhere, which will be a wonderful recipe for appeals at WOC.

Presumably for cliffs that are "not-long" there is no advantage to gained by rock climbing.
The other curious feature is paermitting a choice of square or rounded ends. I can see the logic of using rounded ends as it would help distinguish a line of untagged crags from a path - and there are probably arguments for square ends. But, the standard should settle on one or the other.

[pete.owens]

With fences and walls, the key issue from the competitors view point is whether or not the feature is crossable. This effects decisions on route choice long before you can see it on the ground - whether it is 1.4m high or 1.6m is of less interest than whether it is permeable. I don't think the new standard changes any of this - just tightens up the wording to make it less ambiguous. The existing symbol was always intended to illustrate impassibilty - and understood as such by most competitors and indeed explicitly stated on the key of many maps.

The wording brings consistency with several other symbols (lakes, marshes, hedges, crags - one passable variant (where the orienteer needs to use judgement as to how much of an obstruction this will present) - and one impassible (where crossing the feature should be ruled out for route choice). The rules are intended for fairness rather than legalities - if someone mistakenly chooses a route that is mapped as impassible, but turns out to find a way through then they may be unfairly rewarded for their mistake.

When it comes to fences there are many features that may make it uncrossable. It may (or probably will) be 1.3m high and topped with three strands of barbed wire, it may be a 1m high electric fence, It may be hidden within an impenetrable prickly hedge, it may be picket fence. And many high deer fences are easily climbable or passable and not particularly prominent on the ground.

[maprun]

It seems to me the aim is make the sport fairer and are arguably more pragmatic than the alternatives.

Why curtail the use of possibly large areas of the map (Jagge) in order to be fair? Apparently to be fair the planner should litter the map with purple lines if these areas are not to become no go areas for orienteering.

I'm not sure remapping gaps in all high fences and in rhodies for every single event is practical/achievable (a few have tried), or indeed good use of orienteering's limited funds, unless you are a mapper . However, when it comes to rhodies, with random and changing gaps, I can see the need to allow orienteers to pass through at their discretion without DQing (a pragmatic local variation perhaps).