Urban Map Standards
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
66 posts
• Page 2 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Re: Urban Map Standards
This manual - just published - is intended to help those planning / organising sprint events; I think it covers most of the points noted above.
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
Re: Urban Map Standards
I like this a lot. The colour table for ISSprOM is vital but frequently disregarded.
One thing I would add to that manual is the need for control codes to be clearly visible. I can think of at least one major sprint event in the UK this year where multiple controls featured SI boxes that had been grippled to fenceposts, drainpipes etc so that the code was facing a solid feature. The only way of checking the code was to stop and try to prise the box up to see the other side.
Control units grippled so that they are swinging freely from the branches of a tree or bush are just as bad.
Ideally, all controls should be mounted horizontally for a serious sprint race. Trestles can be a lot of hassle, but it's usually possible to secure the SI unit to a normal fibreglass control stake and then gripple the stake to the fencepost.
One thing I would add to that manual is the need for control codes to be clearly visible. I can think of at least one major sprint event in the UK this year where multiple controls featured SI boxes that had been grippled to fenceposts, drainpipes etc so that the code was facing a solid feature. The only way of checking the code was to stop and try to prise the box up to see the other side.
Control units grippled so that they are swinging freely from the branches of a tree or bush are just as bad.
Ideally, all controls should be mounted horizontally for a serious sprint race. Trestles can be a lot of hassle, but it's usually possible to secure the SI unit to a normal fibreglass control stake and then gripple the stake to the fencepost.
British Orienteering Director | Opinions expressed on here are entirely my own, and do not represent the views of British Orienteering.
"If only you were younger and better..."
"If only you were younger and better..."
-
Scott - god
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:43 am
- Location: in the queue for the ice-cream van
Re: Urban Map Standards
Scott wrote:Back on topic, I think a particular issue with UK urban mapping can be a tendency to overmap kerb lines and small steps, probably because the base data is so easily available from OS MasterMap.
This is not so much about the edges of pavements alongside a road, and more about all the pedestrianised areas and (in particular) narrow alleyways can that end up cluttered with a lot of thin black lines representing features that nobody will notice at race speed.
I am with Scott on this - kerb lines should not be mapped and the thin black lines should be reserved for lines of a number of steps, and then not 1 for every step. These would be too close together - assuming each step is 0.5m deep at 1:4000 the lines would only be 0.125mm apart - far too close for minimum separation; 8 of them in 1 mm !
We would not add a form line to show the height gain of every 0.5m high step, so why have black lines for the depth ?
A kerb edge is not sufficiently significant to map = some speed humps are bigger and we don't map them as linear knolls.
At 2 recent urban events I have been to, a narrow gap was shown with 2 kerb lines crossing it and in both cases I saw these as a continuation of the thick black uncrossable wall to the side of the gap and took a longer route.
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
Re: Urban Map Standards
King Penguin wrote:I am with Scott on this - kerb lines should not be mapped
I do find such a line useful when the road itself is marked OOB (usually purple overprint) but the pavements are not, helping one clearly distinguish the two.
I've just been looking at a fairly complex urban area drawn at 1:5000 where there appears to be absolutely no issue over clarity, yet all the kerb lines are drawn, another where it's the opposite (drawn but not clear). I suspect it's once again down to the drawing and printing.
At 2 recent urban events I have been to, a narrow gap was shown with 2 kerb lines crossing it and in both cases I saw these as a continuation of the thick black uncrossable wall to the side of the gap and took a longer route.
Very much an issue on a regular basis with any lines drawn across gaps. I've had similar problems with contour lines. And as for uncut control circles/lines and numbers! The last two events I've been to have also used white background to highlight the control circles, adding to the problem of obscuring key details.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: Urban Map Standards
King Penguin wrote:
I am with Scott on this - kerb lines should not be mapped
Sorry this is totally wrong.
I shall demonstrate with a picture (a real extract from a map I'm currently working on, shown 5 different ways).
The kerb lines indicate information to the runner. It tells you if it's a road, a pedestrianised section, a busy road etc.
And absolutely crucial information for planners when junior courses are involved.
None of these maps are cluttered. But one is confusing. The one without the kerb lines.
There are situations where kerbs should be removed, but I'll show those in a 2nd post so I can attach a 2nd image.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
Here is where kerb lines should be removed/adapted.
Again, the same map I'm working on from a different area, but I've not yet cleaned this section up (this is how I work - I map all detail, then clean to make clear, I find it easier that way).
In this image, we can see that at points, like those shown at (a), the kerbs should be blended/incorporated in the black line indicating the edge of the OOB.
At (b), the vegetation/planters/etc should be the edge of the road, a thin 10cm of pavement round the edge is meaningless.
At (c), the fence needs blending/combining with the kerb edge - we need only one.
At (d), I would leave these as they, as with the examples shown in the previous post indicate the edge of the road.
Again, the same map I'm working on from a different area, but I've not yet cleaned this section up (this is how I work - I map all detail, then clean to make clear, I find it easier that way).
In this image, we can see that at points, like those shown at (a), the kerbs should be blended/incorporated in the black line indicating the edge of the OOB.
At (b), the vegetation/planters/etc should be the edge of the road, a thin 10cm of pavement round the edge is meaningless.
At (c), the fence needs blending/combining with the kerb edge - we need only one.
At (d), I would leave these as they, as with the examples shown in the previous post indicate the edge of the road.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
The issue with readability is any one thing - it's generally too much of stuff in general - particularly anything coloured dark or black.
And anything crossing anything else in narrow gaps (e.g. contours, tunnels etc).
I don't cut contours where they cross every narrow path, but I will check they don't inhibit readability. And I often shift them away from the ends of paths and path junctions - this is where they cause issues.
Contours also *must* be cut where they run through stairs (the OCAD stairs symbol overlays contours automatically).
And yes, not every step has to be mapped - you can generalise, and if you look at the ISSPrOM2019-2 spec, it specifies a minimum distance - mappers simply don't follow the specs.
I also have started using the passable wall symbol far more for short, but mappable, sections of fence, because the tags add clutter. And I often do something similar with uncrossable walls and fences.
And this leads me to my final example. Here's an urban area (not the same as above, but again one I've mapped), where I've (in this case made up to prove a point) where in a complex housing estate, the boundaries have been mapped using uncrossables.
In the post below, I'll show the same area how I ended up mapping it for the final map.
And anything crossing anything else in narrow gaps (e.g. contours, tunnels etc).
I don't cut contours where they cross every narrow path, but I will check they don't inhibit readability. And I often shift them away from the ends of paths and path junctions - this is where they cause issues.
Contours also *must* be cut where they run through stairs (the OCAD stairs symbol overlays contours automatically).
And yes, not every step has to be mapped - you can generalise, and if you look at the ISSPrOM2019-2 spec, it specifies a minimum distance - mappers simply don't follow the specs.
I also have started using the passable wall symbol far more for short, but mappable, sections of fence, because the tags add clutter. And I often do something similar with uncrossable walls and fences.
And this leads me to my final example. Here's an urban area (not the same as above, but again one I've mapped), where I've (in this case made up to prove a point) where in a complex housing estate, the boundaries have been mapped using uncrossables.
In the post below, I'll show the same area how I ended up mapping it for the final map.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
Here's the "cleaner" area.
Hopefully you agree this is less cluttered.
Hopefully you agree this is less cluttered.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
rf_fozzy wrote:King Penguin wrote:
I am with Scott on this - kerb lines should not be mapped
Sorry this is totally wrong.
No, you are partially wrong.
I think we all agree that the clarity of the final map is key, especially making it clear where you can run.
I am with Scott and KP in that I would generally not map urban kerb lines.
I would put in kerb lines in where they add useful navigational information such as unusual large traffic islands, but generally I would omit them. They don't tell you where you can and can't run, they usually don't give useful navigational information and they usually add to map clutter.
A side issue is that as a mapper, the more lines you put on a map, the more lines you have to check and get right which is another of my reasons for only adding kerb lines when I think they are useful.
- DaveR
- red
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Urban Map Standards
DaveR wrote:
I think we all agree that the clarity of the final map is key, especially making it clear where you can run.
Exactly - you've contradicted yourself.
See my example above. How do you tell the difference between a road (where you need to be aware of traffic and a pedestrian precinct?
Without the kerb lines you can't. So you can't tell where to run.
It's like the people who map every single roadway with the "busy traffic" paved area symbol - it makes it meaningless.
In the ISSprOM2019-2 specs, kerb lines are mapped as standard. I'll go with that.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
rf_fozzy wrote:Here's the "cleaner" area.
Hopefully you agree this is less cluttered.
Only in the way that a map of Culbin would be less "cluttered" if you removed all the squiggly brown lines.
On an urban map THE most important thing to show are the thick black lines showing uncrossable features. The clutter is caused be too much other detail shown by thin black lines that can be mistaken for actual barriers.. The clutter on that map is the extensive depiction of 10cm high steps and the representation of open areas below the mapping limit.
Think about how those maps would would appear to someone who is colour blind and cannot distinguish olive green from yellow - try printing in grey scale rather than full colour. Think about how you would label the thin black line on the legend.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
pete.owens wrote:rf_fozzy wrote:Here's the "cleaner" area.
Hopefully you agree this is less cluttered.
Only in the way that a map of Culbin would be less "cluttered" if you removed all the squiggly brown lines.
On an urban map THE most important thing to show are the thick black lines showing uncrossable features. The clutter is caused be too much other detail shown by thin black lines that can be mistaken for actual barriers.. The clutter on that map is the extensive depiction of 10cm high steps and the representation of open areas below the mapping limit.
Thick black lines (e.g. Uncrossable wall, 515) around Olive green OOB *are* usually clutter - the OOB tells you that you can't run there. And definitely don't aid navigation. The ISSprOM2019-2 map specs clearly state you don't normally map them: https://omapwiki.orienteering.sport/sym ... entered-2/
"No feature shall be represented in this area, except very
prominent features such as railways, large buildings, or very large trees"
And to correct, there are no 10cm steps shown on that 2nd map extract. I'm not claiming it's perfect - it certainly needs a bit more cleaning up, which I'm going to be doing this coming winter. But the edges of the roads where you may encounter traffic are shown and will remain, because it's important information (as per the 501 spec: "edge of Distinct differences within the paved area can be represented with the symbol Step or edge of paved area (501.1), if they serve navigation."
And for me, as per my first example, you need to tell people the difference between a road (A) and pedestrian precinct (C).
pete.owens wrote:Think about how those maps would would appear to someone who is colour blind and cannot distinguish olive green from yellow - try printing in grey scale rather than full colour. Think about how you would label the thin black line on the legend.
Why would I print in greyscale? Maps are always printed in colour.
I would always border the Olive Green and yellow with the thin black lines so that you can differentiate - that is problematic, but you properly use the 502 black line to indicate the border. I do this even if it's not clear on the ground now for precisely this reason.
As for colour blindness, I'm not sure how you allow for this, but it's not for me - it's for the IOF to set the colour tables correctly - I use the IOF standards.
How would I label on a legend? As per the IOF specs: 'Step or edge of paved area'
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
I should say that my original point was about internal boundaries within pedestrianised paved areas, which I think are almost never required.
I also agree that a 501.1 border line is usually required as the border of a pavement bordering the darker "heavy traffic" 501. Expecting people to distinguish a thin strip of paler beige next to a much wider strip of darker beige without a border between them is not realistic.
I am much less bothered either way about including a border between pavements and "light traffic" roads where both are mapped with the lighter shade of 501. I don't really think that information serves much of a navigational purpose, in the sense that I can't ever remember it informing a route-choice decision or being helpful in figuring out where I am and where I'm going. But it also rarely causes the same sort of problems as unnecessary 501.1 in pedestrianised areas and alleyways.
To be fair, that is pretty much the opposite of what ISSprOM says about 501.1, which is that "Edges within paved areas are generally not represented, unless they serve navigation" (bold in the original!)
My dream change to ISSprOM would be to scrap the uncrossable fence symbol and just use uncrossable wall for everything. All I really care about is whether I can get through, and not what materials were used to construct the linear feature blocking my way. The tags are just clutter.
It would also make sense to do the same thing for crossable fences/walls. The wall blob protruding 0.2mm either side of a line is generally much less clutter-inducing than the fence tag protruding 0.55mm on one side.
I also agree that a 501.1 border line is usually required as the border of a pavement bordering the darker "heavy traffic" 501. Expecting people to distinguish a thin strip of paler beige next to a much wider strip of darker beige without a border between them is not realistic.
I am much less bothered either way about including a border between pavements and "light traffic" roads where both are mapped with the lighter shade of 501. I don't really think that information serves much of a navigational purpose, in the sense that I can't ever remember it informing a route-choice decision or being helpful in figuring out where I am and where I'm going. But it also rarely causes the same sort of problems as unnecessary 501.1 in pedestrianised areas and alleyways.
rf_fozzy wrote:In the ISSprOM2019-2 specs, kerb lines are mapped as standard. I'll go with that.
To be fair, that is pretty much the opposite of what ISSprOM says about 501.1, which is that "Edges within paved areas are generally not represented, unless they serve navigation" (bold in the original!)
rf_fozzy wrote:I also have started using the passable wall symbol far more for short, but mappable, sections of fence, because the tags add clutter. And I often do something similar with uncrossable walls and fences.
My dream change to ISSprOM would be to scrap the uncrossable fence symbol and just use uncrossable wall for everything. All I really care about is whether I can get through, and not what materials were used to construct the linear feature blocking my way. The tags are just clutter.
It would also make sense to do the same thing for crossable fences/walls. The wall blob protruding 0.2mm either side of a line is generally much less clutter-inducing than the fence tag protruding 0.55mm on one side.
British Orienteering Director | Opinions expressed on here are entirely my own, and do not represent the views of British Orienteering.
"If only you were younger and better..."
"If only you were younger and better..."
-
Scott - god
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:43 am
- Location: in the queue for the ice-cream van
Re: Urban Map Standards
Scott wrote:rf_fozzy wrote:In the ISSprOM2019-2 specs, kerb lines are mapped as standard. I'll go with that.
To be fair, that is pretty much the opposite of what ISSprOM says about 501.1, which is that "Edges within paved areas are generally not represented, unless they serve navigation" (bold in the original!)
The picture on the spec says map pavements: https://omapwiki.orienteering.sport/wp- ... d-area.svg
It's unlikely to make a major routechoice or navigation difference, but it does tell the runner where to expect traffic.
If I see no pavement lines == pedestrian precinct - I ain't gonna look for traffic or parked cars when I run out of an alleyway at full speed.
If I see pavement lines == road, so I'm going to look as I run out to make sure I don't get run over. Addititonally, the difference between "light" and "busy" traffic can be somewhat subjective.
It is possible I might choose to avoid pedestrian precincts too (e.g. in York) because I know there will be lots of human traffic. So here is where it helps with routechoice.
So for me, *on an urban race* - as distinct from a sprint, I think knowing the difference between A-D in my example above is crucial. And adds no clutter which is the point.
Anyway, just finished the final updates/surveys to my urban map for Whinmoor/Swarcliffe next month (I checked kerb edges as I went round, they added 0s to my surveying time).
If you want complex housing estates and hopefully sustained intense orienteering, I highly recommend.
But if you're going complain about mapped pavements, then don't bother coming! As they're staying on the map! (Of course there will be probably other things to complain about )
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
Scott wrote:My dream change to ISSprOM would be to scrap the uncrossable fence symbol and just use uncrossable wall for everything. All I really care about is whether I can get through, and not what materials were used to construct the linear feature blocking my way. The tags are just clutter.
It would also make sense to do the same thing for crossable fences/walls. The wall blob protruding 0.2mm either side of a line is generally much less clutter-inducing than the fence tag protruding 0.55mm on one side.
This change has been mooted. I expect it might appear in the next version of ISSprOM.
Occasionally there are good reasons to have a distinction between fences and walls though. Certainly there is good reason for hedges. And I'm really glad they brought back the impassable vegetation symbol - didn't understand why they removed it in the first place. That was silly.
But you are right, passability is the key piece of information. Which is why they need to stand out and not encompass every OOB area.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
66 posts
• Page 2 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 214 guests