Following a weekend of two urban maps that presented issues when competiting, one non standard, the other unreadable, I wonder if it is time that maps should have a (voluntary?) 'kitemark' or somesuch for quality assurance. I speak as a newish mapper myself who does seek feedback from those more experienced but maybe a formal channel would be useful for those who may not have the contacts? Or are there too many maps out there now? Is the map part of controlling under-valued?
Like the discussion on terrain maps a few months back, the increased drive for detail is creating issues, especially at 1:5000 - and ISSOM means a non-standard map also creates confusion.
Urban Map Standards
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
66 posts
• Page 1 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Re: Urban Map Standards
Orienteering has two map specifications:
For those concerned about the environment, my guess is that all the extra paper used by printing urban maps for the younger age classes at 1:4k will be more than offset by the paper saved by printing forest maps for the younger age classes at 1:15k.
- ISOM, which is designed to be legible at 1:15,000, but which in the UK is almost always enlarged to 1:10,000 or 1:7,500
- ISSprOM, which is designed to be legible at 1:4,000, but which in the UK is frequently reduced to 1:5,000
For those concerned about the environment, my guess is that all the extra paper used by printing urban maps for the younger age classes at 1:4k will be more than offset by the paper saved by printing forest maps for the younger age classes at 1:15k.
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
I agree that ISSprOM2019-2 should definitely be printed at 1:4000 normally.
Reduction to 1:5000 usually leads to problems.
However, I disagree re: ISOM2017-2.
Most areas in the UK aren't suitable for 1:15000 and using this scale in most cases would render a lot of current areas unusable.
I have to say that every time I've had a 1:15k map too, I've found it almost impossible to read.
That said I've also had some areas in competitions at 1:10k that was nigh on impossible to read too. The 1:7500 map that the oldies got was just about readable, suggesting it was mapped at that scale and only ensmallened for competition rules.
Most areas would need totally remapping if 1:15k is the new standard.
But to return to the original topic, the problem with urban maps is that I think many mappers still don't understand the 2019-2 specification and where to use what and also don't respect minimum gaps.
But it can be hard and I am certaintly far from perfect in my mapping.
The issue is that there is no forum for discussion of mapping and many mappers are (understandably) protective of their mapping solutions (including myself).
Reduction to 1:5000 usually leads to problems.
However, I disagree re: ISOM2017-2.
Most areas in the UK aren't suitable for 1:15000 and using this scale in most cases would render a lot of current areas unusable.
I have to say that every time I've had a 1:15k map too, I've found it almost impossible to read.
That said I've also had some areas in competitions at 1:10k that was nigh on impossible to read too. The 1:7500 map that the oldies got was just about readable, suggesting it was mapped at that scale and only ensmallened for competition rules.
Most areas would need totally remapping if 1:15k is the new standard.
But to return to the original topic, the problem with urban maps is that I think many mappers still don't understand the 2019-2 specification and where to use what and also don't respect minimum gaps.
But it can be hard and I am certaintly far from perfect in my mapping.
The issue is that there is no forum for discussion of mapping and many mappers are (understandably) protective of their mapping solutions (including myself).
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
I do definitely think that there should be some form of ongoing CPD as a mapper. I do it by running maps and bits I think may be wrong past the other mappers in my club (and we've got a couple of very experienced ones), but not everyone has that resource and it'd also be better to have a wider group.
Some clubs can and do get into a groupthink about certain things and mapping solutions and interpretations can be one of those things.
Some clubs can and do get into a groupthink about certain things and mapping solutions and interpretations can be one of those things.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
(and at the risk of drawing some ire from some people, I do think that there is occasionally some lazy mapping)
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
rf_fozzy wrote:Most areas in the UK aren't suitable for 1:15000 and using this scale in most cases would render a lot of current areas unusable.
I don't want to derail the urban map thread too far, but I'd suggest that the test for "this area is not suitable for 1:15K" should be "is it more complex than the area mapped at 1:15K for the 2011 WOC Long Final?" By that benchmark, I'd suggest that there are very very few areas in the UK that aren't suitable to be mapped at 1:15K.
There are, of course, quite a lot of existing ISOM maps in the UK that aren't currently suitable for printing at 1:15K, but that is in large part down to mapping which
doesn't respect minimum gaps
which is as much an issue on ISOM maps as it is on ISSprOM.
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
rf_fozzy wrote:But to return to the original topic, the problem with urban maps is that I think many mappers still don't understand the 2019-2 specification and where to use what
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.
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:but I'd suggest that the test for "this area is not suitable for 1:15K" should be "is it more complex than the area mapped at 1:15K for the 2011 WOC Long Final?" By that benchmark, I'd suggest that there are very very few areas in the UK that aren't suitable to be mapped at 1:15K.
That's not what I meant - more that many UK areas are much smaller and/or less intricate than that kind of area.
Mapping them at 1:15k would render them unusable as the detail/overmapping is actually what makes them usable! Might as well use an OS map on some areas if going to 15k.
Other than the Dales areas and Ilkley Moor, I can't think of many AIRE areas for example that could be mapped at 1:15k sensibly. But I'm happy to be corrected.
Yes, min gaps also an issue on ISOM maps. Which is why I struggled with the reduced 1:10k map for the British Middles on Summerhouse Knott a few years ago - I could not read it. Everyone should have got 1:7500 for that area.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
Scott wrote:rf_fozzy wrote:But to return to the original topic, the problem with urban maps is that I think many mappers still don't understand the 2019-2 specification and where to use what
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 think I know what you mean - yes, in some circumstances this is true, but not exclusively.
Pavement edges and *most* kerb lines should be mapped - always thought this. I know some mappers leave them off and it looks strange and for me is wrong. But yes, they need to be removed when things get tight to reduce clutter.
The issues I have are that things are just mapped too close together in general - because people zoom right in in OCAD and copy the OS Master Map/basemap and there are a lot of short fences that either need taking off or mapping as walls etc. Or other detail that just needs removing (I'm bad at this too - my mapping is far from perfect).
Or using walls/fences hedges to border olive green where they aren't necessary (especially in complex housing estates).
We'll not talk about 2 layer areas as we'll be here for months (which goes back to my point that all mappers should be critiquing each others work)
(and my current bugbear which doesn't relate to readability but is a clear misunderstanding of the specs - not all roads where cars drive should be represented by the darker beige - only the *busy* ones. Otherwise, if you map every piece of tarmac where a car *may* drive, it adds no information to the runner)
My solution is always to print out the "finished" map area to be used at the scale it's going to be used at and check the legibility in less than perfect light, at arms length - is it readable? If not, then gaps need widening or clutter needs removing.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
rf_fozzy wrote:That's not what I meant - more that many UK areas are much smaller and/or less intricate than that kind of area.
Yes, I'm not so absolutist as to think that every postage-stamp country park would be better at 1:15K - although, equally, those tend to be the areas where the existing map could probably be printed at 1:15K with no real loss of legibility.
Ultimately it comes down to what sort of orienteering you enjoy. I like the bit where you navigate between the controls. But I recognise that lots of people (at least in the UK) seem to prefer the bit where you have to find the control within the circle, and I believe this is ultimately what is driving the desire ever more detailed maps at ever larger scales, as well as what Arnold has called "control inflation" - a tendency from which my own planning has sadly not been immune.
But I've rambled on here about this often enough in the past and will endeavour to resist derailing this thread any further.
rf_fozzy wrote:there are a lot of short fences that either need taking off
I definitely agree on this point. I remember a major UK sprint on a university campus a few years ago where the previous, exceptionally clear, amateur map had been revised by a professional mapper, whose main contribution appeared to have been to add a lot of those 45cm-high single-bar crossable fences, which were of no relevance to navigation but made it much harder to work out where you could and couldn't get through.
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
I wonder if it is time that maps should have a (voluntary?) 'kitemark' or somesuch for quality assurance.
How much are you prepared to pay for such a service?
Is the service confirming that the map has been mapped to the correct spec (line widths, gaps etc) or that the map actually reflects the ground. The former might be possible with software, the latter would need a second person to run the map and that is going to add significant cost.
Who would police the use of such a kitemark - e.g. if it was legitimately granted and then modifications made that invalidated it or if it was granted for Area A but someone cut n paste the template across (inc the kitemark) to Area B. And what would the sanction be for misuse?
What might be more achievable is if your club's mapping officer reviews the map and if s/he is happy then they add the "Conforms to ISSOM2019-2" type label to the map file. Our club's mapping officer gets feedback from organisers after events on any issues and that can result in area being labelled "not to be used until remapped". Obviously, that sort of structure won't work if it's not your own club that has the issue.
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
Referring back to Len's original post, the 'unreadable' map at 1:5k was pretty tough at 1:4k, and both controller and planner (who planned excellent courses) recognised the issues. Those were very much what have been highlighted above: unnecessary features (for instance, all benches), including thick black in and around olive green, narrow gaps and, my other regular bugbear, small flights of steps, several of which made gaps look like they were blocked. Lots of black squiggles too which I never worked out. I had a very interesting conversation with Dave Peel (not the mapper) afterwards, where, I having commented that I needed a larger scale to read the map, he rightly suggested that this was only one possibility, the other of course being a clearer, simpler, map; whilst nothing new was discussed, it was illuminating in putting what I already knew in theory into context. Good CPD (or CAD in my case as no professional)!
Last edited by awk on Thu Jun 22, 2023 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: Urban Map Standards
awk wrote:Referring back to Len's original post, the 'unreadable' map at 1:5k was pretty tough at 1:4k, and both controller and planner (who planned excellent courses) recognised the issues. Those were very much what have been highlighted above: unnecessary features (for instance, all benches), including thick black in and around olive green, narrow gaps and, my other regular bugbear, small flights of steps, several of which made gaps look like they were blocked. Lots of black squiggles too which I never worked out. I had a very interesting conversation with Dave Peel (not the mapper) afterwards, where, I having commented that I needed a larger scale to read the map, he rightly suggested that this was only one possibility, the other of course being a clearer, simpler, map; whilst nothing new was discussed, it was illuminating in putting what I already knew in theory into context - very illuminating! Good CPD (or CAD in my case as no professional)!
I shall look forward to 'feedback' after Whinmoor & Swarcliffe in a month's time.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
The main issue is overmapping - irrespective of map scales or standards.
Mapping tools provide the mapper with a palette of symbols which can be placed on the map. Those symbols will be the correct colour, shape and size and it is fairly easy to position them accurately. What is much more difficult is ensuring map clarity by ensuring that those objects comply with minimum area and length dimensions and are sufficiently far apart to be legible or are significant enough to appear on the map at all. The trouble is mappers tend to be working on a segment of map blown up to a huge scale so the legibility issues are not apparent.
Modern symbol sets help by providing point symbols for things such as minimum length crags, minimum sized hills and depressions and so on. OCAD now has a tool to spot legibility issues by highlighting things that are too close together. The difficult bit for the mapper is deciding what to do about all the red dots. It might be as simple as offsetting a path or widening a gap in a wall. It might be exaggerating the gaps between buildings. It could be moving or cutting a contour to keep clear of a point symbol or replacing form line depression with a cup symbol. It could be replacing closely spaced individually mapped trees, pits or boulders with scattered trees, broken ground or boulder fields. Or it could mean that there is simply too much detail in that corner of the map and something has to be removed completely.
Mapping tools provide the mapper with a palette of symbols which can be placed on the map. Those symbols will be the correct colour, shape and size and it is fairly easy to position them accurately. What is much more difficult is ensuring map clarity by ensuring that those objects comply with minimum area and length dimensions and are sufficiently far apart to be legible or are significant enough to appear on the map at all. The trouble is mappers tend to be working on a segment of map blown up to a huge scale so the legibility issues are not apparent.
Modern symbol sets help by providing point symbols for things such as minimum length crags, minimum sized hills and depressions and so on. OCAD now has a tool to spot legibility issues by highlighting things that are too close together. The difficult bit for the mapper is deciding what to do about all the red dots. It might be as simple as offsetting a path or widening a gap in a wall. It might be exaggerating the gaps between buildings. It could be moving or cutting a contour to keep clear of a point symbol or replacing form line depression with a cup symbol. It could be replacing closely spaced individually mapped trees, pits or boulders with scattered trees, broken ground or boulder fields. Or it could mean that there is simply too much detail in that corner of the map and something has to be removed completely.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Urban Map Standards
Scott wrote:Orienteering has two map specifications:My proposal would be to try printing maps at the scale that the relevant specification was designed for and to offer enlargements for those age classes where near vision becomes an issue. ...
- ISOM, which is designed to be legible at 1:15,000, but which in the UK is almost always enlarged to 1:10,000 or 1:7,500
- ISSprOM, which is designed to be legible at 1:4,000, but which in the UK is frequently reduced to 1:5,000
Exactly. If you map using standard ISSprOM then print at 1:4000, and if necessary enlarge to 1:3000 for the older age classes (eg JK Day 1).
The problem can arise when people use this standard not for sprint events but for urban events covering a larger area, and (understandably) don't want to end up with what might need to be an A2 map, so produce it at 1:5000 instead. If you need it to be 1:5000 to fit on A3/A4 then in most places you probably need to modify the standard spec to increase gaps etc, and leave off some of the detail.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
66 posts
• Page 1 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 23 guests