Forum   |   Links    


Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70  


Show Profile  Michael Posted: 31 March 2017, 11:56 AM  
Copy of a posting on the Mapping Wiki under "Open Orienteering Mapper":

There have been some more OOM versions, the latest is 0.6.8. I installed it and re-did the test I described on 1 Dec 15 and 2 June 16, but it behaves pretty just the same. On a medium size (6mb) file it froze at first, but I got it to work on a 2mb file. There were a number of warnings when opening an OCAD file but I am uncomfortable about the kludges that seem to be necessary to load a GPX file in the right place. There seems to be a different way of depicting the map-to-real-world relationship. Can anyone enlighten us about these projection issues?

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 5 April 2017, 4:04 AM  
Copy of a posting on the Mapping Wiki under "ISOM":

After years of debate, the IOF council over-ruling the mapping committee, and the (maybe coincidental) resignation of the MC chairman, a new mapping specification has been published. From the IOF website: “For IOF events between 1 May and 31 December 2017, both ISOM 2000 and ISOM 2017 could be accepted, but which map standard is used at the event must be clearly stated in the Bulletin(s) for the event. For all events after 1 January 2018, ISOM 2017 should be used unless there are contractual limitations which would prevent this.”

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 5 April 2017, 1:33 PM  
Interesting to see what they have finally come up with. On first glance what will affect us:
1. Black north lines are now thinner and 30mm apart on the map at 1:10000 scale (300m on the ground)
2. Water trough (well) symbol is no longer a circle but a square - should no longer be confused with a conspicuous tree
3. Out of Bounds (event) - purple vertical stripe is gone and replaced by a hatching symbol similar to the Dangerous Area (new dimensions)
4. New symbol for a Railway line - a positive move IMHO
5. Symbol 404 (Rough Open with scattered trees) can now have green dots as well as white
6. Small green dashes for a vegetation boundary is an alternative to black dots option if there are lots of competing black features (e.g. sand, boulders, rocks)

No doubt there are other things I have missed. Mostly they are tweaks to symbol dimensions.

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 5 April 2017, 4:42 PM  
From a runners perspective I think the most significant change is the introduction of a fourth green - symbol 411. The other greens can now be modified to show easier running in a particular direction instead of the old symbol 411. The new fourth green shows impassable vegetation as distinct from fight. This could be used where fight becomes a bingo situation with animal tracks or tunnels influencing the speed of runners passing through.

Show Profile  fraser Posted: 6 April 2017, 3:36 AM  
Here is the link to ISOM 2017

They seem to have completely stuffed up the overprinting example on page 12. Both the examples look exactly the same to me.

(Link updated, now being called Version 1)

This message was edited by fraser on 7 April 2017, 12:33 PM

Show Profile  fraser Posted: 6 April 2017, 3:39 AM  
They actually have the correct looking image with the announcement

But it doesn't look like that to me in the pdf?

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 6 April 2017, 3:39 AM  
I missed the 4th green. I have always maintained there was a fourth green - I have always referred to it as "Hong Kong green" after my first encounters with it there back in the late 1980s. You entered it at your peril, and if you did it shredded your O clothing (and your skin).

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 6 April 2017, 3:42 AM  
umm...Fraser? The two examples look significantly different to me. Unless they've reloaded a new image since you last looked.

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 6 April 2017, 4:05 AM  
I was thinking more so of South Island Matagouri or similar where if you can look ahead on the ground and find an animal track before entering you can often pass through fight very quickly. This introduces an element of bingo into the race. It would be clearer to mark it as impassable so that everyone is using the same information on the map to determine their route choices.

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 6 April 2017, 4:19 AM  
There has been some resistance to the proposal to introduction the extra green but to me the option of having an impassable, out of bounds green (like ISSOM) is a good addition. Like mcrox it can be used to remove a bingo area that is impossible to map, or some other vegetation which may result in advantage to some but not others by luck.

Show Profile  fraser Posted: 6 April 2017, 4:25 AM  
This is what I see:

Must be a pdf issue. Pretty much sums up the difficulties everyone has with overprint simulation.

95% of events get this wrong in New Zealand!!! Hopefully there will be an improvement on that percentage now the rules are completely unambiguous:

"All overprint symbols shall be printed over the map content (transparently). They shall never mask out other map

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 6 April 2017, 4:43 AM  
Agree we are supposed to use OP. Newer versions of Ocad are supposed to have the OP colours set as default. The last courses I did I thought everything was ticked that should have been along the way but only some things worked. Course setting got OP'ed (although the numbers never seem to) but the brown contours never did over green. I guess I made an error or was it because I need to tell the printer.
To my eyes sometime I think the maps look clearer when Overprint is not used on the course symbols as long as a lot of careful chopping is done.

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 6 April 2017, 4:47 AM  
ISOM2017 example above also has gone against their own strict rules. Gaps between lines and point symbols must be 0.15mm (about a contour width). Pretty sure those two boulders wouldn't pass any MC critique.

Show Profile  Paul I Posted: 6 April 2017, 5:04 AM  
My summary of changes I can see...

>Minimum gaps of 0.15 (approx. contour width) seem reasonable to achieve better clarity.

>No dark grey option for rock. >411 New Impassable dark green (polarising views - I like it but only for extreme situations to avoid confusion.

>103 New thinner, longer dashed, but smaller gapped formlines - ok to me but I have found some situations where it can disappear and so I would have been happy if it stayed as was.

>105-106 Thicker earth walls etc makes sense.

>108 Closer dots on small ditch an improvement.

>202 Slightly narrower passable cliff face - good.

> 201-202 rounded or square cliff end optional - good.

>208 Boulder field, slightly smaller shapes.

>210-212 Stony ground dots slightly larger, various densities, surely there is also an individual stone for precise use?

>213 Sandy ground, slightly smaller dot - good.

>215 New trench - great addition.

>302 shallow water body symbols - great.

>304-306 all watercourse items thicker - good.

>309 Narrow marsh, ever so slightly closer.

>311 Water Tank new Square symbol - better than circle to avoid confusion, however in NZ we use the black circle for Tank and a blue circle for cattle drinking water trough.

>313 New blue symbol.

>402 Open land w scattered trees, can also add green into dots - good.

>404 ditto, but there is an error where it states you can fill the white dots with either slow or walk in the text, however then it also states the dot colour can be 50% green... which one is correct?

>407 slow running good vis - same as old one!!!

>409 Walk good vis - almost same as old one but thickened line from 0.12 to 0.14 - IMO I think this is not dense enough to try and match the low vis green shading a bit more. (30% ave is not high enough).

>411 New Impassable green. (OOB)

>415 distinct cultivation boundary a little thinner - good.

>416 slightly closer dots for black - good, plus a new optional green dashed symbol for very rocky maps etc - good.

>417 Prominent tree slightly larger!

> 419 Prominent Veg feature cross slightly larger!

>501-502 All black lines bordering roads etc slightly narrower - good.

>508 Narrow ride options, the line itself has shorter dashes and smaller gaps - good.

>515 Impassable wall thicker - Good I think, not as thick as proposed ?

>516-518 Fences shorter gap for tag position, larger gap on ruined fence, shorter tag - all good.

>518 Impassable Fence thicker - Good IMO!

>519 Fence crossing point - NO change - IMO this symbol is a little too large.

>521-522 Buildings options to match ISSOM - Good.

>529 Prominent Impassable line feature thicker - theory ok could be messy?

>601 Black North line thinner - good.

>3.7 Overprinting Symbols for course setting, slightly reduced size but then wording says they shall be enlarged proportionately to print scale of map - not sure this is very nice!!

>708 OOB areas, now use old Dangerous cross hatching. They have gotten rid of old vertical lines. Not sure - cross hatch will look very overpowering on larger areas, but otherwise ok. Lines could have been a little thinner IMO.
>520 Olive green settlement now classed as OOB. Another great option to use instead of purple, and aligns with ISSOM.
> 509 Railway Much better symbol.
>511 Major Powerline has better tower symbol. - yay don't have to make our own!

All in all looks like a lot of minor tweaks with a few new and good additions, as well as maybe a couple of missed opportunities for change. Very good that any cliffs etc that had potential to be dangerous were not classified as forbidden to cross - which would have turned our world upside down!
Very safe update.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 6 April 2017, 6:53 AM  
Fraser, Paul: you can specify "overprint" in OCAD but various things that happen after that can foil you. Our print shop used to require us to put the job in a special queue before OP would be actioned (much like the settings in Adobe viewer). At some point though, they changed their workflow software and now action it without asking. Regardless of all this, I find OP is not a magic answer, and do a lot of circle and line breaking and number re-positioning.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70  

Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions