Draft new ISOM specification now published

[mikey]

http://www.orientering.no/SiteCollectio ... 201305.pdf

Too many greens...

[graeme]

The most significant change is defining some features ISSOM-style as "forbidden to cross".
Undergrowth screen can be combined with green.
And apparently there's going to be a symbol for "Thicket loos".

[Gnitworp]

Multiple symbols for form lines are intriguing.

[roadrunner]

The thing that got me was at the top of page 4: "The map must contain parallel north lines that shall be parallel to the sides of the map" - and they clearly state that "shall" means there's no option but to comply. I can think of areas where the shape and orientation is such that following this would result in a very large map, most of which was blank: Pembrey Forest is a good example.

[madmike]

Multiple symbols for form lines are intriguing.

Do you have a preference for which one or two they should adopt Gnitworp?

[Spookster]

Multiple symbols for form lines are intriguing.

But aren't those all options, from which they will pick one (or possibly two)?

The thing that got me was at the top of page 4: "The map must contain parallel north lines that shall be parallel to the sides of the map" - and they clearly state that "shall" means there's no option but to comply. I can think of areas where the shape and orientation is such that following this would result in a very large map, most of which was blank: Pembrey Forest is a good example.

Tankersley (BNC 2013) is another good example. But we're perfectly happy to hold events on maps that don't fully comply with ISOM 2000 now, so why wouldn't we hold events (other than WRE or WOC) in future that involve maps not quite to ISOM 201x standard?

[madmike]

another change seems to be high fences and high walls will now become forbidden to cross like ISSOM - unless I am reading it incorrectly?

[awk]

another change seems to be high fences and high walls will now become forbidden to cross like ISSOM - unless I am reading it incorrectly?

No, you're reading it correctly (see Graeme's previous post). Uncrossable water and marsh is going the same way: shall not be crosssed. They've introduced a new "impassable/not to be crossed" green, like ISSOM (and presumably as difficult to differentiate when used in hedges etc), whilst olive is now out of bounds too. I assume it's to simplify matters between disciplines, as are one or two other changes (railway symbol for instance).

[andypat]

Just a thought for those of us who struggle along on OCAD 8, will we be able to get the new symbols when they come out? And do maps get updated only when they get old, or do we all need to spend money revamping our recently mapped at high expense areas?

[graeme]

"The map must contain parallel north lines that shall be parallel to the sides of the map" - and they clearly state that "shall" means there's no option but to comply.

But it doesn't say that the sides of the map have to be parallel to the sides of the paper it's printed on...
I believe that the Scottish 6-day features only two ISOM maps.

[Glucosamine]

"An area of dense vegetation (trees or undergrowth) which is impassable or which shall not be crossed, due to forbidden access or because it may constitute a danger to the competitor. It is forbidden to cross areas that are represented by this symbol on the map. Course setters should avoid setting courses where crossing such areas could be considered an option."

Sounds like good news to remove the lottery (or local knowledge) of deciding whether e.g. a neck of rhoddies can be crossed, but with all these 'not to be crossed' symbols appearing in ISOM, the question of enforcement so familiar in Nopesport posts about ISSOM would seem to become an all but impossible issue for ordinary events. Scope for taking controls out of order was resolved with SI/EMIT - will we all have to carry a GPS tracker to prevent us being tempted to cross that which shall not be crossed?

A new standard would indeed seem to be an opportunity for mapping software suppliers to force the purchase of expensive upgrades - were it not for open-source software. Will this be the milestone open-source needs to make it to the mainstream?

As to the 'eliminated symbols' (e.g. medium sized knolls), updating maps sounds the least of the issues - time in the forest with a shovel to reduce or increase the size of the features to the approved dimensions sounds like hard work ...

[graeme]

'not to be crossed' symbols appearing in ISOM, the question of enforcement so familiar in Nopesport posts about ISSOM ...

Must have been a dozen threads about enforcement in ISOM too, with all those lake district uncrossable walls. Even when its used, the current option of purple overprint is pretty ugly. Better to have the information on the map than "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

[rocky]

A new standard would indeed seem to be an opportunity for mapping software suppliers to force the purchase of expensive upgrades - were it not for open-source software. Will this be the milestone open-source needs to make it to the mainstream?

Or spend a bit of time creating the new symbols in whichever version of o mapping software you currently use?

[Ravinous]

North lines: No problem with Pembrey and Tankesley. There is always the odd good exception to the rule which BOF can give the nod to. #45 degrees.

You are thinking however like a Brit. All our maps (exceptions noted) have north lines parallel to the side of the page. Most of the maps I seem to be running on in Sweden these days have the North lines set to grid north or even true north. So you have anything from a 3 to 8 degree slant say, depending on when the mapper, age of the map and his reference.
Personally I find it a bit sloppy. Banning such slightly off north lines - I am all for!

Is this the case with ISSOM? Last Silva League Sprint 2 weeks ago I seriously doubted where I was running to #1 - the map was poorly mapped and the straight street I was running down was significantly going off in reality, in a very different angle to what my compass and map was saying. Maybe I should not be using the side of the page to orientate my map!?

[SJC]

North lines: No problem with Pembrey and Tankesley.

Can't comment on Pembrey, but the Tankesley map would have fitted on back to back A4 with the north lines parallel to the sides of the paper - much easier to read and fold.