ISOM2017 is here
Nothing really major, but lots of small improvements including a new brown symbol for "thing" (e.g. platforms) and a new darker dark green meaning "fight, and we're really not kidding".
They were told at a very late stage by IOF council that crossibility was out of their remit, and will have enjoyed writing
"a feature that is mapped using a barrier symbol could turn out to be passable/ crossable, but to what extent it is possible to pass/ cross cannot be determined by inspecting the map"
I hope that ISOM2017 will make its UK debut at the Scottish Relays at Binning Wood.
New map standard
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
43 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
New map standard
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: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: New map standard
I struggle to see the difference here
Fac et Spera. Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Scottish 6 Days Assistant Coordinator
-
Freefall - addict
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:08 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: New map standard
The overprinting effect is a nasty thing which depends on the printer set up, and whether you print from OCAD, CONDES or pdf. Having one colour "under" another may (or may not) result in extra ink on the map.
I got caught out at JK2012 where 50% grey crossable walls were mapped on yellow. It looked fine in the pdf and the proofs, but came out closer to 70% grey in the final version, leading some people to think they were forbidden to cross.
So I expect the difference is clear in the printed version!
I got caught out at JK2012 where 50% grey crossable walls were mapped on yellow. It looked fine in the pdf and the proofs, but came out closer to 70% grey in the final version, leading some people to think they were forbidden to cross.
So I expect the difference is clear in the printed version!
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: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: New map standard
Freefall wrote:I struggle to see the difference here
So do I in your extract.
But I see the differences clearly in the pdf file, e.g. the boulder SE of the hill shows through the overprint circle in the right-hand illustration, obviating the need to break the circle.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: New map standard
711 Out-of-bounds route
A route which is out-of-bounds. Competitors are allowed to cross directly over a
forbidden route, but it is forbidden to go along it.
An out-of-bounds route shall not be used.
Minimum length: 2 symbols (6 mm – footprint 90 m)
I'm confused by this one. If I saw either of the examples shown, I would assume I could neither go along nor across it. Is it just a matter of the distance between the crosses?
Sorry - I can't get the symbols to cut and paste.
A route which is out-of-bounds. Competitors are allowed to cross directly over a
forbidden route, but it is forbidden to go along it.
An out-of-bounds route shall not be used.
Minimum length: 2 symbols (6 mm – footprint 90 m)
I'm confused by this one. If I saw either of the examples shown, I would assume I could neither go along nor across it. Is it just a matter of the distance between the crosses?
Sorry - I can't get the symbols to cut and paste.
- Karen
- red
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:50 am
Re: New map standard
You are allowed to cross it - you just can't run along it. If you are not allowed to cross the feature (typically a road) it should have a 708 line along it.
In practice most planners seem to adopt fairly random spacing of the Xs, perhaps because with some planning software (eg Purple Pen) the Xs have to be added individually. But irrespective of the actual spacing it is usually obvious which feature they refer to. (I guess IOF controllers are more strict to enforce the correct spacing)
In practice most planners seem to adopt fairly random spacing of the Xs, perhaps because with some planning software (eg Purple Pen) the Xs have to be added individually. But irrespective of the actual spacing it is usually obvious which feature they refer to. (I guess IOF controllers are more strict to enforce the correct spacing)
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: New map standard
Snail wrote:You are allowed to cross it - you just can't run along it.
This wasn't clear in the previous version. I had believed the old rule was as you say, right up to the moment when I got DQed from the SHIs Its nice to have it clarified.
and to be vindicated after all this time, it was so long ago Scotland didn't even win
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: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: New map standard
Thanks, Snail. I must try to remember that!
- Karen
- red
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:50 am
Re: New map standard
Freefall, in the pdf it looks more like:
- DaveR
- red
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: Glasgow
Re: New map standard
graeme wrote:ISOM2017 is here
They were told at a very late stage by IOF council that crossibility was out of their remit
they made one change though: 527 is now 520 and is now out of bounds....but you can still go through or over buildings
Last edited by greywolf on Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
Re: New map standard
When I opened the pdf document directly from the link the example showed up exactly as I published earlier - this was a screen grab and indeed both examples were identical. I saved the file locally and when I opened it using Adobe Reader it did indeed look like Dave's example. This is curious - I use CutePDF for generating pdfs but obviously there are pdfs and pdfs!
Fac et Spera. Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Scottish 6 Days Assistant Coordinator
-
Freefall - addict
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:08 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: New map standard
Same here - the pdf viewer plugin in my browser doesn't show the difference. When I save it and open in Acrobat Reader I can see it.
- Rosine
- red
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:46 pm
- Location: Not mainland UK according to most couriers...
Re: New map standard
Having not long returned from a week in Fontainebleau, I'm really disappointed that the idea of allowing mappers to distinguish paths from rock features in very rocky areas by making either the paths or the rock grey hasn't made it into the final version.
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: New map standard
I don't really think the overprint effect is useful. Yes, you can see the boulder through the purple when it is blown up on the screen, but on a printed map you are simply not going to notice that the purple line is very slightly darker at that point. The circles really need to be cut to show important detail All the overprint effect does is reduce the contrast where the lines cross areas of green.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
43 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests