ISOM 2017-2 #1184
Comments
|
Also here is original post by IOF:
And here is discussion in Orienteering Mappers Int. group on Facebook: Additionally here are notes from Minutes – Foot Orienteering Commission – Meeting 4-2018 (Scandic Plaza Borås, Sweden)
|
|
As to my understanding the changes to ISOM2017 affect primarily Mapper data sets. I.e. no programming skills are required to make the changes. Any volunteers to tackle the topic so that your friendly programmers have more time for hacking on the code? |
|
I could (try to) do that, but would need more specific instructions. |
|
I'll be ready to commit to this task in a few days. |
ghost
mentioned this issue
|
@mlerjen, @yevhenmazur I'm glad for your offer of help! Symbian9 already started work on the symbol set adjustment. Please download and review changed files from his GitHub repository. The raw symbol set file is now at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Symbian9/mapper/patch-2/symbol%20sets/src/ISOM2017_15000.xmap (click on the link and save the file into permanent storage). More detailed view of the changes can be seen in pull request #1187 - Commits tab and Files changed IMHO review focus should be put on color table, dropped and changed symbols, changed symbol descriptions and their minimal sizes. However, I believe that this is your domain of expertise and you perhaps know better than me what to watch for. Thanks! |
ISOM 2017-2@krticka said that next ISOM spec would be named as «ISOM 2017-2»
P.S.: IOF MC resources |
|
Please stop the noise. No need to copy FB or link the IOF page. |
|
@yevhenmazur: Note, that this issue is still open. I am off for two weeks now. If you did not fix it until then, I'll try to. https://orienteering.sport/iof/resources/mapping/ |
IOF Map Commission meeting minutes 2019-2 has just been published with new addition and changes, and I don't know when finally final versions of specification would be released. That is one of reasons why I paused updating symbol sets. Still waiting for freezing IOFs' specification development until MC will release final version of ISOM and ISSprOM specifications. There are many issues with adaptation of specifications that are in "rolling release" stage. |
|
You are wrong. There were not any changes since the publication of ISOM 2017
-2 and ISSprOM 2019.
Please read the documents of MC properly.
LK
…---------- Původní e-mail ----------
Od: app4soft <[email protected]>
Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper <[email protected]>
Datum: 26. 8. 2019 18:16:30
Předmět: Re: [OpenOrienteering/mapper] ISOM 2017 rev. 2018-11 (#1184)
""
If you did not fix it until then, I'll try to.
"
IOF Map Commission meeting minutes 2019-2 has just been published with new
addition and changes, and I don't know when finally final versions of
specification would be released.
That is one of reasons why I paused updating symbol sets. Still waiting for
freezing IOFs' specification development until MC will release final version
of ISOM and ISSprOM specifications. There are many issues with adaptation of
specifications that are in "rolling release" stage.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
(#1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGTYHZRY65UVP2H2YO3QGP6VRA5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5E3PHQ#issuecomment-524924830)
, or mute the thread
(https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGVIA3YA2W5ZSOPG5UTQGP6VRANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ)
.
"
|
If so, it is so much the worse, as there are many issues with colors and symbol numbering already reported by many mappers since ISOM 2017-2 and ISSprOM 2019 specifications released. |
|
OK. Please, @krticka, provide email for contact with MC. |
|
Web page of IOF contains contacts to every member of every commission.
Here is the Map Commission:
https://orienteering.sport/iof/mapping/map-commission/ [Edited: 2019-09-19 dg0yt]
…---------- Původní e-mail ----------
Od: app4soft <[email protected]>
Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper <[email protected]>
Datum: 26. 8. 2019 20:24:52
Předmět: Re: [OpenOrienteering/mapper] ISOM 2017 rev. 2018-11 (#1184)
""
If there are any inconsistencies you don't understand or you think they are
not correct please contact MC officially via email and explanation will be
given.
"
OK. Please, @krticka(https://github.com/krticka), provide email for contact
with MC.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
(#1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGWCV2BANTOS5MWTAFLQGQNWTA5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5FHBRY#issuecomment-524972231)
, or mute the thread
(https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGVKEORLREY36QDXWULQGQNWTANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ)
.
"
|
|
I'm ready with ISOM 2017-2. You can get current version from this page. There were much more changes than I expected... |
|
For ISOM 2017-2 I was not checking all dimensions and colours but it looks very good. For 532 Stairway I would recommend also to add variant without borderlines (just steps) as specification says: |
|
Add Stairway without border lines - done. |
|
Good. Just it is needed to adjust the width for both stairway symbols and make them slightly wider as minimum width is 0.4 mm (inside measure). |
|
Adjust the width for stairway symbols - done. I think you should add (IM) on the illustration as it is done for other symbols. I'll add this point to feedback from our federation. |
|
Thanks Yevhen. Still I think, we should try to get further to regive ISOM in its entirety. Not just symbol and colors but also section 2.11. The Symbols of our Standard Symbol Set should contain buffers to represent minimum gaps, lengths and widths.
Part we could solve with buffers as shown in fig.1. Here the introduction of helper colors (not on the final map, easily to be switched on and off) would be helpful. (Now they are just white and at the bottom of the color table). Other parts (minimal size) would be more complex to achieve as discussed earlier #1021 #610 |
|
I concur. I don't see a minimum gap checker coming into Mapper anytime soon therefore I'd love to see the symbol set support visual checks. Not only as a "good idea" but also for my work. |
|
The symbol setts in here only do work with MAPPER 0.9 or also 0.8.4? https://github.com/yevhenmazur/mapper/tree/issprom2019/symbol%20sets/src |
We has separate issue for legibility checker: |
@valdisj, You could just try open it in FTR, You should download and open described symbols manually, because it not distributed with Mapper |
|
The symbol sets designed for Mapper 0.9, however, no 0.9-specific features are used here. So you may ignore the warning and test symbol sets with Mapper 0.8 safely. If you face a problem please report - it is always welcome. |
|
@krticka Symbol 408 "Vegetation: Walk" mentions "white / green 20% stripes". Is this level of green intentional, or the last remainder of what is now "green 30%"? |
|
@krticka Symbol 404 "Rough open land with scattered trees" mentions "yellow 35%". Is this level of yellow intentional? It is not referenced anywhere else. |
|
@krticka Cultivated Land (412): "For agroforestry, symbol Forest (405) or Open land with scattered trees (402) may be used instead of yellow." This specification is inconsistent: it mixes color and symbols. Either
I always tended to assume the latter, which would let me adjust the black dots pattern independently from the yellow background, esp. close to roads, or to match seasonal changes. However, this POV seems to have no tradition, and if implemented, this approach would need to be extended to the other symbols which build on yellow background (Open land with scattered trees (402), Orchard (413), Vineyard or similar (414)). |
|
@krticka Symbol 407 is listed as "Vegetation, slow running, good visibility" but referenced as "Vegetation: slow running, good visibility" in Orchard (413). |
|
@krticka Distinct vegetation boundary (416): The dashed variant is to use "Colour: green and black 50%". Is this meant to be Green 100% now? AFAIU this mixed color is no longer used, at least after removing the ISSOM-style impassable vegetation. |
|
@krticka Prominent vegetation feature (419): "White mask is used under the green cross, to improve readability in yellow and green (line width of white mask 0.36 mm, and it shall be 0.18 mm longer in the ends of the symbol)." |
|
@krticka Major power line (511): The specification for the large carrying mast says 0.8 mm outer measure, 0.2 mm line width. However, the picture looks like the outer measure is 5x the line width, with the gap width being equal to the line width. When implementing the explicitly given values, the gap is just 0.1 mm, i.e. 0.5x the line width. This looks quite different. |
|
This was request from countries where agroforestry is quite frequent
(Denmark etc). Inconsistency is sometimes needed, as there are different
legal issues in every country for entering such areas or they can vary
during the season because of mixed use. We should take this as optional and
I do not expect this to be very frequent symbol combination.
Correct is:
Cultivated land (412) is just the black dots pattern, and it must to be
combined with either Open land (401), Forest (405), Open land with scattered
trees (402).
If there will be need for other combinations in future, we will discuss it,
but for now we should stick with 401, 405, 402.
…---------- Původní e-mail ----------
Od: Kai Pastor <[email protected]>
Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper <[email protected]>
Datum: 21. 9. 2019 17:37:05
Předmět: Re: [OpenOrienteering/mapper] ISOM 2017-2 (#1184)
"
@krticka(https://github.com/krticka) Cultivated Land (412): "For
agroforestry, symbol Forest (405) or Open land with scattered trees (402)
may be used instead of yellow."
This specification is inconsistent: it mixes color and symbols. Either
* Yellow is to be replaced with another color, or
* Cultivated land (412) is to be replaced with the named symbols, or
* Cultivated land (412) is just the black dots pattern, and it must to be
combined with either Open land (401), Forest (405), Open land with
scattered trees (402).
I always tended to assume the latter, which would let me adjust the black
dots pattern independently from the yellow background, esp. close to roads,
or to match seasonal changes. However, this POV seems to have no tradition,
and if implemented, this approach would need to be extended to the other
symbols which build on yellow background (Open land with scattered trees
(402), Orchard (413), Vineyard or similar (414)).
And this would offer a different route to changing dominant Yellow 100% to
Yellow 70%: Just choose a different yellow in Open land (401), the only
remaining use.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
(#1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGVHMFQ5GXCCHUGRTU3QKY5RXA5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7IUBHY#issuecomment-533807263)
, or mute the thread
(https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGXUOAYHSOP4FTPWW4DQKY5RXANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ)
.
"
|
Hm. I though I learned that the legal aspect of "entering such areas" is no longer relevant for "Cultivated land" as such, or for the map standards . It needs to be given separately, by Out-of-bounds area (709). And 709 doesn't care at all what other symbols it is covering.
So we are to remove the yellow background from Cultivated land, from Orchard, and from Vineyard, for consistency. |
|
Using OOB is not the option in cases where agroforestry covers big areas,
sometimes more than half of the map. Possibility to use cultivated land for
orienteering really vary during the year and quite often it is defined in
bulletin if it is allowed to use cultivated areas or not.
Removing yellow background from cultivated land, orchard etc. would be not
practical, as this case is special and 99% of users will use symbols as they
are defined now. Adding separate symbol with dot pattern is better solution,
but I recommend to clearly differentiate icon look from stony ground to
avoid confusion.
…---------- Původní e-mail ----------
Od: Kai Pastor <[email protected]>
Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper <[email protected]>
Datum: 25. 9. 2019 7:33:08
Předmět: Re: [OpenOrienteering/mapper] ISOM 2017-2 (#1184)
""
Inconsistency is sometimes needed, as there are different
legal issues in every country for entering such areas or they can vary
during the season because of mixed use.
"
Hm. I though I learned that the legal aspect of "entering such areas" is no
longer relevant for "Cultivated land" as such, or for the map standards . It
needs to be given separately, by Out-of-bounds area (709). And 709 doesn't
care at all what other symbols it is covering.
"
Cultivated land (412) is just the black dots pattern,
"
So we are to remove the yellow background from Cultivated land, from
Orchard, and from Vineyard, for consistency.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
(#1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGSNFD627LG4RLSC7ALQLLZY5A5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7QVBBQ#issuecomment-534859910)
, or mute the thread
(https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGXOMVPNCYZZGOFWULLQLLZY5ANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ)
.
"
|
|
Thanks, I made a record about this.
…---------- Původní e-mail ----------
Od: Kai Pastor <[email protected]>
Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper <[email protected]>
Datum: 21. 9. 2019 17:47:33
Předmět: Re: [OpenOrienteering/mapper] ISOM 2017-2 (#1184)
"
@krticka(https://github.com/krticka) Symbol 407 is listed as "Vegetation,
slow running, good visibility" but referenced as "Vegetation: slow running,
good visibility" in Orchard (413).
The other variants all use "Vegetation: ...".
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
(#1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGRAT637KQ6KK57QMHTQKY6Y3A5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7IUHIQ#issuecomment-533808034)
, or mute the thread
(https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGVOYEUFUPLRCY3VQ7TQKY6Y3ANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ)
.
"
|
|
Green and black 50% for 416 is correct because of readability reasons of
boundaries used with 100 % green. It is the only symbol where such colour is
used.
…---------- Původní e-mail ----------
Od: Kai Pastor <[email protected]>
Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper <[email protected]>
Datum: 21. 9. 2019 17:51:28
Předmět: Re: [OpenOrienteering/mapper] ISOM 2017-2 (#1184)
"
@krticka(https://github.com/krticka) Distinct vegetation boundary (416): The
dashed variant is to use "Colour: green and black 50%". Is this meant to be
Green 100% now? AFAIU this mixed color is no longer used, at least after
removing the ISSOM-style impassable vegetation.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
(#1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGQO5IGBQNJMXRD43SDQKY7HXA5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7IUJMY#issuecomment-533808307)
, or mute the thread
(https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGSSWECZ2USCNOXXEHLQKY7HXANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ)
.
"
|
|
Yes, it means total length (0.09 mm in each end). I will take the note about
this to make the text clear.
Thanks.
…---------- Původní e-mail ----------
Od: Kai Pastor <[email protected]>
Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper <[email protected]>
Datum: 22. 9. 2019 10:00:58
Předmět: Re: [OpenOrienteering/mapper] ISOM 2017-2 (#1184)
"
@krticka(https://github.com/krticka) Prominent vegetation feature (419):
"White mask is used under the green cross, to improve readability in yellow
and green (line width of white mask 0.36 mm, and it shall be 0.18 mm longer
in the ends of the symbol)."
I think the last part is misleading: For a constant width white frame, the
total length of a mask line is to be 0.18 mm longer. This is only 0.09 mm in
each "end".
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
(#1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGWMALLFBOZ5CYGHJGLQK4Q23A5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7JAVRA#issuecomment-533859012)
, or mute the thread
(https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGVQBAMZZHEKIQWHJT3QK4Q23ANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ)
.
"
|
|
Agree. Illustration can be adjusted.
…---------- Původní e-mail ----------
Od: Kai Pastor <[email protected]>
Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper <[email protected]>
Datum: 22. 9. 2019 11:22:09
Předmět: Re: [OpenOrienteering/mapper] ISOM 2017-2 (#1184)
"
@krticka(https://github.com/krticka) Major power line (511): The
specification for the large carrying mast says 0.8 mm outer measure, 0.2 mm
line width. However, the picture looks like the outer measure is 5x the line
width, with the gap width being equal to the line width. When implementing
the explicitly given values, the gap is just 0.1 mm, i.e. 0.5x the line
width. This looks quite different.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
(#1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGTFHQGPSABU5LKZECTQK42LPA5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7JB62Y#issuecomment-533864299)
, or mute the thread
(https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGSN37RUVTNALOREP53QK42LPANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ)
.
"
|
Another issue with the color documents... |
Required for dashed variant of Distinct vegetation boundary (416), cf. GH-1184.
|
I see. MC will do an update of colours document quite soon as ISSkiOM is finished and ISMTBOM is in the final stage. |
If the MC defines the "order of main colour shades", it must be complete and consistent because then we must implement it in this way. The colour documents are of limited value unless there is no doubt which particular colour a symbol refers to. There is no room for "(will evt. be changed)". |
I just curious, how many issues still not fixed in official IOF specifications? (that now used for real orienteering competitions) |
IOF MC will update ISOM 2017. Find document on decided changes and status of discussion right now here.
https://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ISOM-2017-corrections-approved-2018-11.pdf
"These updates are approved and should be implemented for ongoing mapping projects using the ISOM 2017 standard."
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: