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: 18 March 2018, 1:19 PM  
Thanks Jim. Paul will be glad that OCAD provides a "green for point features" above "brown for lines" so he can drop his special green for distinctive trees:-))

Slightly related, Ken Dowling who is the Australasian OCAD agent and also a printing expert, has assessed the colour "recipes" provided with the OCAD-ISOM2017 symbol set, in an email to his clients. That is, their revised CMYK values for digital printing.

He feels the colours are an improvement and worth adopting; though it must be said that printers (and screens, and papers) all handle colours slightly differently and you should do your own tests. He produces MTBO maps with orange open land and would use a darker brown there (10/56/100/25).

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 19 March 2018, 5:18 AM  
Another change in the draft ISSOM relates to scale - they have recognised that almost ALL sprints are using 1:4000, so have made that the standard scale. Plus (and with a miniscule amount of thought this applies now) a larger scale still is recommended for older and very young age groups.

Standard maps theoretically 1:15,000 are commonly printed at 1:10,000, so scales around 1:2666 should be considered. I'm not against a "funny number" but some may prefer a "round number" such as 2500 or 3000. The demands on eyesight are much greater in urban terrain and short races than they are in natural terrain and the long distance.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 10 April 2018, 9:26 AM  
The Mapping Committee has compiled a NZ submission on the proposed new Sprint Mapping Specification. You can see it at Thanks to those who contributed.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 10 April 2018, 11:49 AM  
The Mapping Committee has collected various Hints, Difficulties and Issues with ISOM2017 Symbol Conversions into a web page. The interim location is at Comments and additions are welcome.

Show Profile  mcroxford Posted: 13 April 2018, 9:36 AM  
So one of the interesting things I noted about the Nationals maps was the printing of the courses.

For the sprint, a white background was chosen for the numbers that blocks out detail below and the circles were not overprinted. Viewing routegadget, three competitors on Course 3 appear to have been affected by this when the number 8 was placed over an uncrossable barrier.

For the Long and Relay, the overprint option was selected but the vegetation shading wasn't particularly obvious nor brown features.

For the Middle, the course and numbers blocked out the detail underneath including black features such as tracks. Although the planners did their best to snip circles - this isn't possible for the numbers.

I'm interested in the process for consistency between maps in an event. Any thoughts? At Nationals 2016, Bryan Teahan was appointed as a technical expert to ensure consistency between all maps.

Show Profile  fraser Posted: 16 April 2018, 2:06 PM  
Your comment about numbers blocking out detail on the map is particularly relevant given that the proposed new Sprint Mapping Specification is looking to formally add this technique. (And yes, I have experienced the same problem at previous nationals too.)

> 703 Control number: Possibility to have a white border with 0.1 or 0.15 mm in width. Reason: to improve course readability in high running speed.

When a white border (framing) is added to numbers they become opaque and have no overprint simulation. This is due to a technical limitation that seems to effect all orienteering software.

The new proposal goes on to suggest that black, brown and blue 100% colours should be printed above purple.

So essentially they are planning to get rid of overprint and are advocating layering the colours. I am really quite surprised that IOF want to implement this as it seems like a backwards step to me!

Show Profile  The Map Guy Posted: 17 April 2018, 3:56 AM  
The problem of a control number with/without a white background blocking out a feature should be picked up by the Controller, and preferably first by the Course Planner.

Having a third person in the role Bryan did (above) allows a fresh and independent set of eyes checking the Technical bits.

Taupo OC has been using a Technical Map Controller for a number of years - with Katoa Po, and last year's NISS Champs. It works.

The default software placement of a control number is rarely the optimum location for map reading legibility.

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 17 April 2018, 10:43 PM  
I would always recommend an independent check of the cartography, courses and map consistency (look and feel) for a large event.

Mark Roberts did a very good job checking for any problems (eg contour end, stacked formlines, symbol standardisation) for WMOC 2000. I was happy to do this for OWC2013 and Nationals 2016. I should have done more for Nationals 2014 and had an independent checker.

For larger events I've been involved with, I've created a check list for planners/controllers with a final sign-off from the controller / IOF adviser before the maps head to the printers.

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 14 May 2018, 2:51 PM  
For mappers who want to convert data from one format to another, I would suggest you register for the free home use of the FME desktop software (which can convert from over 400 different formats) and convert from any projection.

Only for non-commercial or education use at home.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 25 June 2018, 7:32 AM  
A couple of significant announcements on the IOF website. Maps at 1:10,000 will be allowed in WRE's and regional championships, during a test period up to the end of 2018. I'm sure that this will herald the extension to world cups and WOC in due course. I would expect that maps must still be prepared with symbol sizes "as if for 1:15,000", so that everything will be 150% at 1:10,000. Ie this is to improve legibility, not to cram more stuff in:-))

The other one is the recognition of CMYK printing, thru the publication of an appendix to ISOM2017. Unfortunately the IOF-suggested CMYK values differ from the OCAD-suggested values. We'll seek some advice on that.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 7 July 2018, 5:51 PM  
From the IOF Council meeting in June: "..extensive feedback had been received regarding the ISSOM revision. MC therefore needed more time to complete the revision and would address this at their meeting in October." What a surprise:-))

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 12 July 2018, 2:13 PM  
The various world championships (MTBO, JWOC, WMOC and WOC) are all fascinating opportunities to see the latest work of the world's top mappers - as far as cartography is concerned. Handling of over/underpasses in the sprint, changes from the new ISOM which we may not have noticed, that sort of thing. Suggest comment here.

Show Profile  Taupoite Posted: 29 July 2018, 9:07 AM  
I have come across a problem in mapping Kinloch to the new specifications. There are a lot of sealed roads, effectively driveways or private roads, that are about 3-4m wide. Many of them don't have kerbs. The majority of roads in the town are mapped using the smaller of the 502 symbols in the OCAD12 dataset with the main roads using the bigger one. Most of the general roads are 6-8m seal width between kerbs. Should these driveways be mapped using the same symbol as the smaller roads or done using the solid black line 503 symbol? They are maintained all weather roads less than 5m wide as per the 503 description, but is convention in NZ that this symbol is only for gravel roads?
I believe it should be 503 but I am interested in other's views.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 29 July 2018, 2:01 PM  
I don't think we have a convention that 503 must be gravel. But a convention need not be written down and others may disagree. (MTBO is different, its explicit in the spec.)

We did codify some NZ conventions way way back, and once ISOM2017 is in widespread use I think it would be good to reconsider those and stick them in our rules for all to see. I'm pretty sure that the "fences may be hidden on farmland" would be confirmed; and another which barely raises a mention is "we don't generally show power lines".

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 31 July 2018, 3:09 AM  
Doh. The fences and powerline thing are already codified (rule 15.2). I was thinking of a revised Appendix 8 (special NZ symbols) so as to separate the mappy stuff from the rest of the rules.

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