The IOF sent a final draft of the new International Specification for Orienteering Maps to Federations. They have just been published on the BO Website. https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/index.php?pg=1&action=news&id=MzM0OQ==&rtn=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5icml0aXNob3JpZW50ZWVyaW5nLm9yZy51ay8=
The deadline for comments is 17 January. However, there will be a few days leeway. The IOF Map Commission will be meeting to discuss any comments on 22/23 January.
Draft ISOM
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
29 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Draft ISOM
Can you link the BOF feedback and whether we got what we wanted? I tried to find it on the BOF site, but all it linked to was the IOF request to Map Group for feedback...
... in 2008!
So after seven years, a three-day turnaround time . IOF - you couldn't make them up
... in 2008!
So after seven years, a three-day turnaround time . IOF - you couldn't make them up
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4725
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Draft ISOM
So after seven years, a three-day turnaround time IOF - you couldn't make them up
While not seeking to defend the length of time this ISOM revision is taking, the latest draft was actually sent out to Federations in early December. It needed a prompt from me yesterday to BO office to get it published.
Chair
IOF Rules Commission
IOF Rules Commission
- david_rosen
- white
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:09 pm
Re: Draft ISOM
It seems that the uncrossable line features issue is still there, we now have no way to show a crossable high fence or wall. A wall is either crossable or not. Height doesn't come into it anymore. I think this is a mistake personally. I'll email to make my point known.
There is an interesting discussion on the ISOM 201X development on attackpoint here... http://attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/message_1099951
There is an interesting discussion on the ISOM 201X development on attackpoint here... http://attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/message_1099951
-
plain lazy - blue
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:26 am
- Location: Costa del Stonehaven
Re: Draft ISOM
The feedback from the British Map Advisory Group in July 2013 can be seen (with feedback from other Federations) at http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ISOM-comments-2013-komp.pdf
Chair
IOF Rules Commission
IOF Rules Commission
- david_rosen
- white
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:09 pm
Re: Draft ISOM
I don't have any mapping background, but as a competitor I have always wanted to have a special symbol for "crossable on one level but not another", ie for example a road with an underpass, where you can't get off the road but you can cross it by the underpass.
Currently the road will be thick black, with some dots between to show the underpass. Buy it's often impossible to see the underpass dots especially if it's short. I'd like the thick black symbol to change to something else when there is an underpass, so it's easier to see.
I realise this is probably ISSOM not ISOM but it's a good opportunity to get it off my chest!
Currently the road will be thick black, with some dots between to show the underpass. Buy it's often impossible to see the underpass dots especially if it's short. I'd like the thick black symbol to change to something else when there is an underpass, so it's easier to see.
I realise this is probably ISSOM not ISOM but it's a good opportunity to get it off my chest!
- Arnold
- diehard
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:24 am
Re: Draft ISOM
I see that IOF mapping group have made the retrograde step of making double tag fences and double dot walls "uncrossable or not allowed to cross" Mixing up a size definition (uncrossable) with a legal definition (not allowed to cross). What happens if there is a deer fence in a plantation area that competitors are allowed to cross - it will have to be mapped with the single tag fence symbol - despite it being uncrossable to children and older runners.
This is sheer utter stupidity - the map should show what is physically on the ground. Any legal restraints on access etc should be marked on as purple.
This is sheer utter stupidity - the map should show what is physically on the ground. Any legal restraints on access etc should be marked on as purple.
- Big Jon
- guru
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Dess
Re: Draft ISOM
Probably its a good idea to kick ideas about here before sending anything.
Is it correct that a 1:5000 ISOM map has symbols directly enlarged from 1:15000. This is stated for 1:10, and for the overprint, but I don't see it for the main map?
This would mean that the symbols on a 1:5000 map would differ in size by 300%, depending on whether its an ISSOM or ISOM map.
The new 411 ...
"areas that are really difficult to get through (10% and slower) shall be represented using 411". "For fairness reasons, it is forbidden to cross an area of vegetation, impassable. (411)"
The first means that rhodos will be mapped as 411. The second appears to put a requirement on the organiser to DQ anyone pushing through an unmarked gap in the rhodos. I predict that this will cause trouble.
The 409 (thick brambles) should still allow you to run through at 50% speed, more than that is mapped as solid green. Is this new? or something we always did wrong in the UK?
I like the new "Rough open land with scattered bushes". It will be ugly combined with vertical stripes, but the message "keep out" will be well conveyed.
I like the clear statement...
"In orienteering terrain, there may be features that are forbidden to pass or effectively impassable. Such features need to be clearly identifiable on the map,"
Which finally resolved that perennial nopesport problem of DQing people for things that were in the details, but not on the map.
Is it correct that a 1:5000 ISOM map has symbols directly enlarged from 1:15000. This is stated for 1:10, and for the overprint, but I don't see it for the main map?
This would mean that the symbols on a 1:5000 map would differ in size by 300%, depending on whether its an ISSOM or ISOM map.
The new 411 ...
"areas that are really difficult to get through (10% and slower) shall be represented using 411". "For fairness reasons, it is forbidden to cross an area of vegetation, impassable. (411)"
The first means that rhodos will be mapped as 411. The second appears to put a requirement on the organiser to DQ anyone pushing through an unmarked gap in the rhodos. I predict that this will cause trouble.
The 409 (thick brambles) should still allow you to run through at 50% speed, more than that is mapped as solid green. Is this new? or something we always did wrong in the UK?
I like the new "Rough open land with scattered bushes". It will be ugly combined with vertical stripes, but the message "keep out" will be well conveyed.
I like the clear statement...
"In orienteering terrain, there may be features that are forbidden to pass or effectively impassable. Such features need to be clearly identifiable on the map,"
Which finally resolved that perennial nopesport problem of DQing people for things that were in the details, but not on the map.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4725
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Draft ISOM
Big Jon wrote:I see that IOF mapping group have made the retrograde step... the map should show what is physically on the ground. Any legal restraints on access etc should be marked on as purple.
The new uncrossable fence symbol is for great big objects, like deer fences, which the mapper can figure out shouldn't ever be crossed. For small features where the uncrossableness is a legal restraint, the organiser still uses purple overprint. This makes perfect sense, that a big fierce symbol shows a big fierce object, the mapper maps what's on the ground, and the organisers only need to use purple.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4725
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Draft ISOM
graeme wrote:Big Jon wrote:I see that IOF mapping group have made the retrograde step... the map should show what is physically on the ground. Any legal restraints on access etc should be marked on as purple.
The new uncrossable fence symbol is for great big objects, like deer fences, which the mapper can figure out shouldn't ever be crossed. For small features where the uncrossableness is a legal restraint, the organiser still uses purple overprint. This makes perfect sense, that a big fierce symbol shows a big fierce object, the mapper maps what's on the ground, and the organisers only need to use purple.
What happens when there is a large section of deer fence (6-8ft high) that is crossable in some places (holes in fence or fallen over, or the landowner isn't against folk climbing over). How is this mapped? Is it mapped as a crossable complete fence, or part complete crossable fence and part ruined crossable fence, or does every reasonable gap in the fence get mapped as a gap in an otherwise uncrossable fence? That could be an awful lot of work.
It's going to make it really confusing. The fence symbols were perfect as they were, why bugger them up trying to combine it with ISSOM in this instance?
-
plain lazy - blue
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:26 am
- Location: Costa del Stonehaven
Re: Draft ISOM
Plain Lazy has reinforced my comment about high fences. Let the map show physical features and the planner/overprint can show legal issues.
- Big Jon
- guru
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Dess
Re: Draft ISOM
plain lazy wrote: (broken down high fence) How is this mapped?
But that's not a new problem. How do you map it now?
The current symbol means "There's a big fence, you might be able to get over it, or you might not." Only if you've been there before can you know, which is simply unfair. The map has to tell you whether its best to go straight or round.
Probably what you want here is "high ruined fence", which I've seen on maps but isn't currently available.
plain lazy wrote: What happens when ... the landowner isn't against folk climbing over
big jon wrote: Plain Lazy has reinforced my comment about high fences. Let the map show physical features and the planner/overprint can show legal issues.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4725
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Draft ISOM
Orienteering maps are maps of physical features. A fence is high or low. Map them as such. Don't piss around with legal, political decisions of whether fences are allowed to be crossed or not.
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? Its a recipe for total fuck-ups at events with all sorts of disqualifications/arguments/appeals after the event.
Leave the symbols as they are.
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? Its a recipe for total fuck-ups at events with all sorts of disqualifications/arguments/appeals after the event.
Leave the symbols as they are.
- Big Jon
- guru
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Dess
Re: Draft ISOM
Big Jon wrote:Orienteering maps are maps of physical features....Map them as such. Don't piss around with legal, political decisions...
So, just to clarify, you're saying that all features in ISOM are (and should be) crossable unless specifically overprinted in purple or black hatching? 304 river? 309 marsh? 526 building? 527 (olive green) settlement?
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
Re: Draft ISOM
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.
No-one swims over a lake or climbs a fence or climbs over a building if it just makes them loose time, and if they do so and loose time that's not a fairness problem. If a planner tends to plan unfair courses the correct fix is education, not making mapping standard worse by changing symbols to overly thick forbidden ones with huge footprint and force mappers to make map distorted to make details fit it.
No-one swims over a lake or climbs a fence or climbs over a building if it just makes them loose time, and if they do so and loose time that's not a fairness problem. If a planner tends to plan unfair courses the correct fix is education, not making mapping standard worse by changing symbols to overly thick forbidden ones with huge footprint and force mappers to make map distorted to make details fit it.
-
Jagge - white
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 1:40 pm
29 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: spitalfields and 162 guests