Norwegian suggestions - ISOM2000

These are the official comments and suggestions from the Norwegian orienteering federation for the first phase of the ISOM2000 project.

General

The ISOM version of 1990 was translated into Norwegian and published as the official national standard for orienteering maps. The publication also contains some comments from the map committee (in italics). ISOM has been adopted "as is" in Norway, and all Norwegian maps should now be produced using ISOM.
Over all, NOF is satisfied with the ISOM as it is now. We do not want the ISOM to change radically, and feel that the ruling principle of symbol economy should be obeyed when ajusting the ISOM. We do, however, have some comments.

Allowable combinations

The current ISOM only allows certain combinations of rasters (section 3.2). We feel that combinations should be allowed if there is not very strong arguments against it (e.g. contradictary symbols). In Norway, the combinations: 310+401 and 310+402 are relevant for very easy runnable grass marshes in many parts of the country. Why should these combinations not be allowed?

Computerised production of orienteering maps

There is a difference between producing an orienteering map using traditional techniques (pen) and using computers.
The 1990 ISOM, and its predecessors has been tailored to the traditional techniques.
It is now time to ajust the symbols to the new technology.
Our examples only include example sizes, the new sizes should be tested before they are determined.

The line and dot widths should be increased for some of the symbols in order to get the same end-result as before. Examples:
210-Stony ground - increase to 0.2. Use fixed size
306-crossable small watercourse - increase to 0.15.
307-minor water channel - increase to 0.15.
308-narrow marsh - increase to 0.3, keep 0.5 as dot distance
415-cultivated land - the dots should be smaller
416-distinct vegetation boundary - increase to 0.2

Vegetation

Green

We feel that the class boundaries for green classification is artificial. We would be much more comfortable with class boundaries of 25%, 50% and 75% instead of the 10%, 50% and 80% that is specified in the current ISOM.
An argument for the current classification scheme is that the dark green can be used to show vegetation barriers. But, green should show runnability, not barriers.

The symbols for undergrowth, reduced runnability (407+409) tend to interfere with underlying symbology, particularly contours. Can a better solution be found??

Yellow

The circles in 402 and 404 should be ajusted. It will be necessary to do experiments to find the "best" sizes.

One could question the distinction in ISOM between full yellow and rastered yellow. It is not completely logical. Should yellow indicate runnability in addition to openness?

Cliffs and rock faces

The definitions of cliffs and rock faces in the ISOM are not good. The ISOM could be read so that 201 should be used for impassable cliffs while 203 should be used for cliffs that are passable in any direction. If this is the right interpretation, what do we do with cliffs that are passable downwards, but not upwards?
In Norway we have recommended that the following definition of 203 be applied "203 should be passable by 'normal' elite runners going down, but should be impassable or to a great hinderance when going up".
It is very important to have the possibility to show these kinds of rock faces, as they have a real impact on route choices in many types of terrain. Rock faces that are passable in any direction may be of interest, but they should not come instead of the "passable down, impassable up" rock faces. Should rock faces be clearly definable.

Individual symbols

102-index contour: The use of index contours should be mandatory for maps with more the 25 meters of elevation variation.
201-impassable cliff: natural impassable cliffs should be shown with rounded edges (there are very few sharp edges in the nature). Man-made cliffs could be shown using sharp edges
203-passable rockface: natural passable rockfaces should be shown with rounded edges. Man-made rock facess could be shown using sharp edges
209 -Boulder cluster: Is there really a need for this symbol? 208-boulder field is very similar. 209 could be dropped by including its intended usage in the specification of 208.
402-Open land with scattered trees: The dimensions, spacing and percentage are contradictory
515-wide ride: there is clearly no need for this "symbol".
531-ruin: The minimum size of a ruin is rather large. Is it necessary to use a full line for the "small ruin"?
539-cairn: This symbol is very dominant. Is it possible to reduce the line thickness (eg to 0.08) and the diameter of the ring?
601-602: a symbol for the line between the control points is missing (not that big a problem, though).
415-cultivated land: Cultivated land does not have to be open (yellow). Many places in the world (e.g. Tanzania), they practice agro-forestry (growing crops in the forest).

Four colour printing

The current ISOM does not seem to allow four colour printing. Four colour printing is very difficult to get right, and the quality is very dependent on the capabilities of the equipment and the expertise of the involved. Specifications are needed.

The ISOM should specify technical requirements to 4-colour printing. This should include colour mixes (CMYK-values) for the colours of orienteering maps, requirements to the rasters (density, angles and special effects such as frequency modulated rasters).

Håvard Tveite