To: The IOF Map Commission, chairman Laszlo Zentai
Copy to: The NOF map group
NOF Technical committee leader, Kjellrun Sporild
Contributors and "others"

Below, you will find the official Norwegian comments and suggestions on "ISSOM2004 final draft". The document has been edited and approved by the The Map group of the Technical committee of the Norwegian Orienteering Federation.

Håvard Tveite
Chairman of the map group

***********************************************************

To: IOF Map Commission
Chairman László Zentai
Date: 29 October 2004

Official comments and suggestions from the Norwegian Orienteering Federation on the current ISSOM proposal (dated 24. April 2004).

We have received your request for comments on the "ISSOM2004 final draft", dated 5 October 2004.
We have comments to some ISSOM symbols, some general comments/suggestions (issues), some comments on map scale and contour interval and finally some remarks on missing control description symbols for the sprint discipline.

Overall, we find that the "ISSOM2004 final draft" is a good specification, and our experiences with applying it have generally been positive.

1) Comments to the individual symbols, in numerical order:

407 and 409 (Undergrowth).
This is a suggestion to fix a very important inconsistency introduced in the ISOM. It should also be fixed in the ISOM, but why not start with the ISSOM?
The line widths and spacing should be ajusted so that the amount of green corresponds to 406 (30%) and 408 (60%).
One possible solution:
For 407: 0.12 line width, 0.24 gap (or 0.36 mid-to-mid).
For 409: 0.12 line widht, 0.12 gap (or 0.24 mid-to-mid).
or
407: 0.10 line width, 0.20 gap
409: 0.10 line widht, 0.10 gap
or
407: 0.15 line width, 0.30 gap
409: 0.15 line widht, 0.15 gap
A problem with this is that 409 on yellow could be confused with 527.1

421 "Impassable vegetation".
A very useful symbol.
However, it is not suitable for small / narrow areas due to the distribution of the black dots.
One solution could be to use a combination of green and gray (50%) to make narrow impassable vegetation (e.g. hedges) clearly visible. This was tested in the 2004 Norwegian sprint championships (offset printed map samples are available).

512.1 "Footbridge".
This is a very dominating symbol if it is to be used for small footbridges. Perhaps the thickness of the black lines could be reduced and the minimum gap between the black lines reduced (e.g. 0.25 mm -> 0.16 mm for the lines and 0.40 mm -> 0.30 mm for the gap?).
A "Footbridge" is most often passable in all directions, so the black lines do not need to be thick.

519.1 "Passable stone wall".
If this symbol is still a problem, an alternative representation could be to use a thin black outline (0.07 mm) in addition to the gray fill without increasing the
minimum width of the complete symbol (0.35mm). Perhaps the gray percentage will have to be adjusted a little down (40%)? It must still be possible to distinguish it clearly from canopies!
Should 519.1 mask out the contour lines in order to make the symbol more clearly readable?

526.1 "Building"
What about a thicker outline for buildings to emphasize their impassability?

527.1 "Area with forbidden access".
For large areas, the symbol is OK.
However, the symbol is not visible enough for small areas!
Flower beds represented as 527.1 can be very difficult to visually differentiate from "green" areas (406, 408) when they appear within open areas (e.g. 401). (this is serious because it can affect route choice)
One way to deal with this is to use a thick black outline for 527.1 (when there are no other symbols delineating the area). Another possiblity is to use a more visible / more black colour.
It is also important that some more guidelines are given for what to represent in these areas.
In particular: How much of private roads should be represented?
It can be useful to be able to show where a private road enters an area with forbidden access whithout having to represent the complete road.
We propose that roads into forbidden areas (and also larger "parking places") are drawn about 2mm into the forbidden area, and that the "end" is drawn without the black line, communicating its "open-endedness". This can be *very* important for navigation in some circumstances.

529 "Paved area".
The name "Paved area" is a little too restrictive. Could "Hard surface area" or something similar perhaps be used instead?
The brown path/road system can be difficult to see on the map in areas with a lot of contours and where the path / roads go along the countours. Complex green and yellow does not improve the situation. It is therefore important that it is legal to use a dark brown here (40%-50% for extreme situations), and that the black edges can be made as wide as 0.10 mm.

529.1 "Step or edge of paved areas"
Could be changed to "Step or edge of paved area" as there should not be a need for plural here.

Symbols 536-540 give too much of a barrier impression. A little bit thinner lines for 536-540 should be tried (for example 0.16mm, as in the ISOM?).

2) Some issues with the present ISSOM:

A way of representing the outlines of large and medium size bridges (where the running level /level of interest is the ground below the bridge) could be useful.
The pillars will of course be represented, but in addition, the outline of the bridge should be indicated (for instance using the same symbol as for 518.1 "Underpass/tunnel"
(black dots). Normally this in not a problem but there are cases (Fredrikstad, and Brevik - NOC 2005) where this could be useful.

A need has come up for a symbol for trenches.
Such features can occur in many terrains with a high potential for interesting sprint orienteering.
The trenches are not naturally represented with symbol 109.
Perhaps another brown symbol could be found for these kinds of features (hollow brown linear symbol, edges 0.07 mm or 0.10 mm thick, total width 0.35, ends rounded or square)?
The map group is not totally convinced that this is a necessary symbol (it is also important to keep the number of symbols down).

There is some differences in opinion regarding the use of purple overprint to indicate forbidden areas. By using purple overprint instead of 527.1, the "life" of a sprint map can be prolonged, and it can also be possible to show the nature of the forbidden area in more detail.
The opinion of the NOF map group is that purple overprint should be avoided, and 527.1 used instead. For each international competitions a new map will have to be made, so the reuse issue should not be given too much weight.
For national or local events, the use of purple instead of 527.1 could be allowed, but that is up to the national federations anyway.
We also think that it is very important that the map is easily readable for the runners, and the use of purple to indicate forbidden areas can be *very* confusing.
It is also very difficult to accurate borders for overprint symbols. If overprint is to be used, the negative consequences can be minimized by restricting the use to large areas with regular shapes. For small areas and areas with very irregular shape, purple overprint will generally lead to confusion for the runner (what is course marking, what is forbidden area, what is passages, ...).

3) Map scale and contour interval:

Map scale - 1:5000 would probably be OK for most Norwegian sprint terrains, but we have had reports that 1:4000 is much better suited for some coastal villages (ports) with very narrow "roads" in a complex pattern.

Contour interval must be such that the steepness of a slope can be readily observed by the runner. To make life easier for the runners, the "brownness" of an ISOM map and an ISSOM map shall be about the same for the same terrain.
To accomplish this, a 2-2.5 meter contour interval *must* be used for ISSOM (maps in scale 1:4000-1:5000) when the width of the contour lines in ISSOM is 150% as wide as in ISOM.
For pragmatic reasons we would like to be able to choose between 2 meters and 2.5 meters contour interval. The Norwegian official basemaps for urban and suburban areas have very good 1 meter contours, so the 2 meter ISSOM contour interval is perfect for these kinds of basemaps.
Orienteering maps have 5 meter contour interval, and for this kind of basemap, a 2.5 meter ISSOM contour interval is perfect.

4) Control descriptions (to be forwarded to the rules commission?):

We also miss some symbols for control descriptions:
527.1 "Area with forbidden access"
526.2 "Canopy"
529.1 "Step or edge of paved area"

Good luck with the final editing of the ISSOM!

The Norwegian Orienteering Federation
Technical committee
Map group

Dag Olav Rønning
Kristen Treekrem
Håvard Tveite (chairman)