New map standard
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
43 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: New map standard
Shouldn't the spec give me the option to diverge if the consensus is that it's desirable? and that's what I'm trying to establish. ISOM 2000 allowed flexibility. I'm suggesting that an enforced increase in the spacing of the lines from a highly popular value is not an improvement.
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: New map standard
How easily can ISOM 2017 be amended in the light of coherent feedback, or will we have to wait another 17 years to correct any anomalies?
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: New map standard
Gnitworp wrote:I'm suggesting that an enforced increase in the spacing of the lines from a highly popular value is not an improvement.
Agree 250m spacing is quite common on 1:10 maps, and it will be slightly more difficult to take bearings if it is 300m. But having a standard spacing will be an improvement for some things, like estimating distances. With the variable spacing in the old standard it was/is rare to see the event details actually specifying the distance between the MN lines, and some maps didn't have a scale bar either.
Since the intention appears to be that maps should look identical at different scales, other than an enlargement / reduction, a common distance for both 1:15 and 1:10 scales is needed - and 250m apart for a 1:15 map (1.67cm) is perhaps a bit short.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: New map standard
Snail wrote:Since the intention appears to be that maps should look identical at different scales, other than an enlargement / reduction, a common distance for both 1:15 and 1:10 scales is needed - and 250m apart for a 1:15 map (1.67cm) is perhaps a bit short.
If 1:10000 is a proportionate enlargement for everything, why would 250m apart on 1:15000 look short? Closer on both is better.
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: New map standard
Gnitworp wrote:Shouldn't the spec give me the option to diverge...
You can diverge from the spec if you want, just make sure you tell people
Not sure why there's such a reluctance to give out useful information (he says, as he searches through the JK programme for info on how to get to Days 2 & 3 by train & bike...)
although given the errors in the info dor Day 1 i'm probably better off sorting it out for myself
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
Re: New map standard
snail wrote:Without going through it rigorously, other changes appear to include ...
I gather from the Map Commission that a list comparing and contrasting ISOMs 2000 and 2017 is nearly ready for publication on the IOF website.
- DJM
- diehard
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Wye Valley
Re: New map standard
Snail wrote:...
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.
115 should be orientated to N - old BOF platform symbol should point downhill.
I hadn't noticed renumbering of symbols - yikes!
There is also a change for Rough open scattered trees - both types of scattered trees are white on the original base colour - so easier (IMO) to recognise which is which.
There are also scattered bushes on both open terrains too, although not scattered bushes in open forest if I understand it properly.
JK
- JK
- diehard
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:22 pm
- Location: Warrington :-(
Re: New map standard
plain lazy wrote:"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
I can think of at least one map where the North lines weren't parallel to the side of the paper.
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: New map standard
roadrunner wrote:plain lazy wrote:"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
I can think of at least one map where the North lines weren't parallel to the side of the paper.
I've also seen some where I've used the OOB or undergrowth symbols to align my needle only to find after that they weren't orientated to N like they should have been!
At the World TrailO Champs in Italy we had MagN lines so small that we all used the CDs to align our compasses - they promised that the next day they'd be longer - but on Day 2 there were NO MAG N lines at all - printer error!!
I was at an NNAS Tutor course at the w/e and one tip I gave these mountain-training types that when using O maps (at 1:10 or 1:15) the MagN lines would be 250m apart ... of course on the map we were using they were 500m apart ... Doh.
JK
- JK
- diehard
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:22 pm
- Location: Warrington :-(
Re: New map standard
This is the map I was thinking of (or rather, about half of it): it would have been huge if the north lines had been aligned. But the undergrowth screen (and even the control descriptions!) are aligned to the north lines as it should be.
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: New map standard
I've seen several - but well done for keeping the MagN consistent - and at least on that map it is a "proper" angle, I've seen some which are maybe 15 degrees out just to squish onto a map and then you might not notice.
JK
- JK
- diehard
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:22 pm
- Location: Warrington :-(
Re: New map standard
Just spotted this on an Attack Point thread:
"copied and pasted directly from the new ISOM 2017 specifications...
"Note: dimensions are specified in mm at the scale of 1:15 000.
All drawings are at 1:7 500 for clarity only."
Oh the irony."
Says a lot really about map readability
"copied and pasted directly from the new ISOM 2017 specifications...
"Note: dimensions are specified in mm at the scale of 1:15 000.
All drawings are at 1:7 500 for clarity only."
Oh the irony."
Says a lot really about map readability
- Big Jon
- guru
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Dess
Re: New map standard
Groan!
BTW above link is invalid, ISOM2017 is here :
http://orienteering.org/resources/mapping/international-specification-for-orienteering-maps-isom-2017/
JK
- JK
- diehard
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:22 pm
- Location: Warrington :-(
43 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: grubby and 41 guests