pete.owens wrote:buzz wrote:The change in ISOM to use the same symbol sets and control sizes thoughout and just magnify to suit the scale makes it easier to adjust between the scales on the map, but still doesn't prepare you for 1:15,000 generalised mapping used in other countries.
The point is that the level of generalisation for an ISOM map is EXACTLY THE SAME whatever scale you choose to print it at. A 1:10k map is a straight enlargement of a 1:15k map. Everything is enlarged by 150% - the sizes of the symbols and the gaps between the symbols. The only purpose of enlarging the map is so that older competitors can see the symbols - not so that you can cram more detail in.
Err, that's what I said!
pete.owens wrote: The problem comes with poor cartography, when some mappers just plonk as many symbols as they can find features onto the map and don't take care to ensure that they are far enough apart on the map (or even overlapping) or that the feature is actually significant in the terrain.
All the features on the maps for the Lakes Weekend were significant and there were plenty of features missed off and I'm sure the mapper has the skills to generalise further if required. My point was that I think classic Lakes terrain suits mapping at a slightly higher level of detail than 1:15,000 allows.
Its not poor cartography to use different levels of detail - its just not ISOM. There was a brilliant race put on by CLOK this weekend on a 1:4,000 map of a small intricate forested area with courses planned by Cat Taylor. Really great use of an area which wouldn't have worked at ISOM levels of detail.
We need some 'proper' 1:15,000 maps to support aspiring internationals and those of us who enjoy classic long distance orienteering, but the important thing is to make the best use of the limited terrain we have.