New map standard
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
43 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: New map standard
The moral being: do not rely on a computer screen to replicate what will be printed on paper.
- cbg
- red
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:45 pm
Re: New map standard
Another issue is that the overprint symbols will be straight enlargements. At most of our events using 1:10000 maps we still use 6 mm circles with slightly thicker lines. With the new standard it will be 7.5 mm circles and 0.525 mm thick lines... and for 1:7500 it will be 10 mm circles and 0.7 mm thick lines.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: New map standard
for 1:7500 it will be 10 mm circles and 0.7 mm thick lines
although of course ISOM does not recognise scales larger than 1:10,000.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: New map standard
I think it does:
ISOM 2017 wrote:For larger map scales the symbols shall be enlarged proportionally (to 150% for 1:10 000, to 300% for 1:5 000).
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: New map standard
IOF have moved the document, it is now here
- charles2
- orange
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:50 pm
Re: New map standard
Even if the map commission were told to ignore crossability, symbols like 515 and 518 are now officially named "impassable" wall/fence (rather than "high") - which will start to appear on map legends and may cause some confusion if they are actually crossable.
Hopefully the new prominent landform symbol (115) might mean that BOF can adopt ISOM2017 unchanged, and not need to add the platform symbol again. (Although there is no alternative for the BOF 'stile', with ISOM just retaining the crossing point symbol 525).
Without going through it rigorously, other changes appear to include:
- new gigantic boulder 206
- two densities of boulder field 208/209 to distinguish those that affect runnability
- two densities of stony ground 211/212
- new trench 215
- blue circle (well) replaced by blue square 311 (well, water tank)
- blue X special water feature replaced by blue star 313
- new canopy 522
- new map issue point and marked route to start triangle 702
- new out-of-bounds overprint (merged with old dangerous ground) 709
- firing range & grave dropped
Slightly surprised that the new spec means that many unchanged symbols are re-numbered. Not sure if this will be an issue with some mapping software, if say it would mean that you can't import the new symbol set to update an existing map? E.g. old 304 was an uncrossable river, but new 304 is a crossable watercourse.
Hopefully the new prominent landform symbol (115) might mean that BOF can adopt ISOM2017 unchanged, and not need to add the platform symbol again. (Although there is no alternative for the BOF 'stile', with ISOM just retaining the crossing point symbol 525).
Without going through it rigorously, other changes appear to include:
- new gigantic boulder 206
- two densities of boulder field 208/209 to distinguish those that affect runnability
- two densities of stony ground 211/212
- new trench 215
- blue circle (well) replaced by blue square 311 (well, water tank)
- blue X special water feature replaced by blue star 313
- new canopy 522
- new map issue point and marked route to start triangle 702
- new out-of-bounds overprint (merged with old dangerous ground) 709
- firing range & grave dropped
Slightly surprised that the new spec means that many unchanged symbols are re-numbered. Not sure if this will be an issue with some mapping software, if say it would mean that you can't import the new symbol set to update an existing map? E.g. old 304 was an uncrossable river, but new 304 is a crossable watercourse.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: New map standard
Snail wrote:other changes appear to include:
the dimensions of some symbols have also changed, including form lines, earth walls, watercourses, rides (which are now rides and linear traces, including extraction tracks), and north lines (which also have a new spacing)
IMHO the extra section on minimum spacings between symbols is very welcome, though given how often this is ignored in ISSOM....
Last edited by greywolf on Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
Re: New map standard
"601 Magnetic north line
Magnetic north lines are lines placed on the map pointing to magnetic north, parallel
to the sides of the paper. Their spacing on the map shall be 20 mm on the map which
represents 300 m on the ground at the scale of 1:15 000. If the map is enlarged to
1:10 000, the spacing of the lines will be 30 mm on the map."
Has this always been the case? I am sure I've used many maps (and probably produced/updated a few) where the spacing was 250m
Magnetic north lines are lines placed on the map pointing to magnetic north, parallel
to the sides of the paper. Their spacing on the map shall be 20 mm on the map which
represents 300 m on the ground at the scale of 1:15 000. If the map is enlarged to
1:10 000, the spacing of the lines will be 30 mm on the map."
Has this always been the case? I am sure I've used many maps (and probably produced/updated a few) where the spacing was 250m
-
plain lazy - blue
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:26 am
- Location: Costa del Stonehaven
Re: New map standard
plain lazy wrote:Has this always been the case?
Nope
As per the post above, the new spec changes the spacing - the old spec said "Their
spacing on the map should be 33.33mm which represents 500m on the ground at the
scale of 1:15 000. For maps with other scales lines placing should be at intervals
which represents a round number of meters (e.g. 50 m, 100 m, 250 m, 500 m) and the
spacing should be between 20mm and 40mm on the map."
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
Re: New map standard
greywolf wrote:plain lazy wrote:Has this always been the case?
Nope
As per the post above, the new spec changes the spacing - the old spec said "Their
spacing on the map should be 33.33mm which represents 500m on the ground at the
scale of 1:15 000. For maps with other scales lines placing should be at intervals
which represents a round number of meters (e.g. 50 m, 100 m, 250 m, 500 m) and the
spacing should be between 20mm and 40mm on the map."
25mm spacing for 1:10000 maps is/was usually used. ISOM 2017 now only says that on an 'enlarged' 1:10000 map the spacing will be 30mm, implying that lines at 25mm should not be substituted, making it harder for people (like me) that use them to set bearings.
25mm was, and still should be, a permitted (recommended?) spacing for 1:10000 maps.
OK, some may argue that rapid assessment of distances, for people who frequently switch between 1:15000 and 1:10000, is facilitated if the ground distance is constant, but IOF officially recognised entities, older veterans, never use 1:15000. So the new specification should specifically allow a closer spacing in its text.
While we're at it, can we have a vote on preferred MN spacing for this year's Middle Champs, for which I'm joint mapper? Bear in mind that ISOM 2017's 'will be' is not 'shall be', should be', or 'may be', so there is presumably no compulsion here, or is it implying an inevitable immutable concomitant?
Last edited by Gnitworp on Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: New map standard
For larger map scales the symbols shall be enlarged proportionally (to 150% for 1:10 000, to 300% for 1:5 000).
Interesting that this only appears in the Overprinting section at the end.
But who thinks that at 1:5,000 scale the use of 15mm diameter control circles and 12mm high numbers will make the map more readable ?
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: New map standard
SJC wrote:For larger map scales the symbols shall be enlarged proportionally (to 150% for 1:10 000, to 300% for 1:5 000).
But who thinks that at 1:5,000 scale the use of 15mm diameter control circles......,. will make the map more readable ?
...or give enhanced perception of their centres?
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: New map standard
The veteran courses at the 2015 Northern Champs had 12mm circles on a 1:7500 map - and certainly some of them were unimpressed.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: New map standard
IMHO any map or overprint symbol printed at more than a 50% enlargement just looks silly and wrong. For a detailed area to be used at 1:10000 for elites and 1:7500 for the visually challenged then it's logical to just blow up the 1:10000 maps to avoid having to change control descriptions/circle cutting. But perhaps then the 1:10000 map could be drawn using 1:15000 symbols. If an event has three map scales then this would become problematic.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: New map standard
Gnitworp wrote:is it implying an inevitable immutable concomitant?
yes
Gnitworp wrote:an we have a vote on preferred MN spacing for this year's Middle Champs
Whatever you decide, make it clear. So if you claim the map is ISOM 2017 but the MN lines are 250m apart you must advertise this (and any other departures from the spec)
Last edited by greywolf on Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
43 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 109 guests