ISSprOM 2019-2 symbol set

[ghost]

IOF Council meeting (187) minutes published!

New ISSOM draft (ISSOM 2018 ?) coming soon!

• Post - http://orienteering.org/council-meeting-minutes-187-published
• PDF - http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Minutes-of-Council-meeting-187.pdf

The Map Commission had prepared a draft revision of the ISSOM to align it with changes in the ISSOM 2017 and make some other necessary changes. The draft standard will be distributed to member federations and the discipline commissions before the end of January 2018. Consultation answers are expected to be received by May 1, 2018. The plan is for the Council to approve the new standard at the Council meeting in June 2018.

Update

• ISSprOM 2019-2 symbol set #1037 (comment)

[Zerbembasqwibo]

I'm not sure these are official notes, and I think final draft will differ, but anyway I put this here so you can get a hint of what we can expect. So please, use this just for information so far.

4.1 Landforms
 102 Index contour: Thinner line (0.35  0.30). Reason: reduce the impact of index contour
on small vegetation features and reduce the potential problems of gap positions.
 103 Form line: Thinner line (0.21  0.15). Reason: reduce the visual impact of the form line
and reduce the potential problems of gap positions.
 118 Prominent land form feature: Change to brown triangle. Reason: to help colour vision
impaired runners to identify the prominent features symbols.

4.2 Rock and boulders
 209 Boulder cluster: Insertion of new symbol. Reason: To allow better generalization of
parks/forest with many rocky features.
 212 Bare rock: Change in colour definition (black 20%  black 30%). Reason: Better
distinction from canopy in complex urban areas.

4.3 Water and marsh
 312 Small fountain or well: Change to blue square. Reason: to avoid issue with the green
circle for colour vision impaired runners.
 314 Prominent water feature: Change to blue asterisk. Reason: to avoid issue with the green
cross for colour vision impaired runners.

4.4 Vegetation
 402 Open land with scattered trees: Inverted (white holes in yellow. Reason: Alignment with
ISOM2017.
 404 Rough open land with scattered trees: Change in colour definition (yellow 70%  yellow
50%). Reason: Alignment with ISOM2017.
 410 Impassable vegetation: Change in semantics, now used for vegetation with running
speed almost 0%. Reason: Request from Athletes Commission, competitors are avoiding both
types of vegetation (410 and 421) on sprint events. To avoid printing and readability
problems definition of 421 Impassable vegetation was moved to 410 and 421 Impassable
vegetation was removed.

4.5 Man-made features
 506.1 Unpaved footpath or track: Distinction between urban and non-urban removed.
Reason: Unclear definition and problematic use of such distinction by mappers.
 507 Small unpaved footpath or track: Enlargement (150 %). Reasons: quite often the
footprint was smaller than width of mapped object, to improve readability in high running
speed.
 508 Less distinct small path: Enlargement (150 %). Reasons: quite often the footprint was
smaller than width of mapped object, to improve readability in high running speed.
 509 Narrow ride: Enlargement (150 %). Reasons: quite often the footprint was smaller than
width of mapped object, to improve readability in high running speed.
 512.1 Bridge: Enlargement (120 %). Reason: to improve readability and distinction of symbol
in high running speed.
 519.1 Passable wall (black 50 % variant): Removed. Reason: problems with colour fidelity and
readability in combination with other colours with use of digital printing.
 525 Crossing point (optional): Slightly wider gap for crossing point (1.0 IM). Reason: to
improve readability.
 526.1 Building: Change of colour definition to 60% black. Reason: unification, possibility to
adjust percentages of black was rarely used.
 526.2 Canopy: Thicker outline (0.07  0.1). Reason: Unification, readability improvement.
 528.1 Area that shall not be entered: Symbol renamed, specified delineation.
 529 Paved area: Distinction between urban and non-urban removed. Reason: Unclear
definition and problematic use of such distinction by mappers. Introduction of two types of
brown fill-in (brown 20% for light traffic of vehicles or pedestrians, 50% for heavy traffic of
vehicles or pedestrians). Reason: Option to better reflect real conditions of urban
environment as most of the common events is organized with traffic present in competition
area. Thicker outline (0.07  0.1). Reason: Unification, readability improvement.
 529.1 Step or edge of paved area: Thicker outline (0.07  0.1). Reason: Unification,
readability improvement.
 530 Stairway: New symbol, hive off from 529.1. Reason: Need for standalone definition.
Thicker step (0.07  0.1). Reason: readability improvement.

4.6 Technical symbols
 601 Magnetic north line: Distance between magnetic north lines adjusted to 30 mm (120 m).
Reason: Adjustment related to change in scales.
 602 Registration marks: Symbol removed. Reason: Very rarely used and redundant
nowadays.
 603 Spot height: Symbol removed. Reason: Very rarely used and redundant on sprint maps.

5.7 Overprinting symbols
 Overprinting colour shall be under black 100%.
 When a map is enlarged, all lines, symbols and screens shall be enlarged proportionally and
this also applies to the overprint symbols.
 701.1 Map issue point: New symbol. Reason. To show position of map issue point on marked
route, alignment with ISOM 2017.
 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.
 707 Uncrossable boundary (forbidden to cross): Thicker line (0.7  1.0). Reason: to improve
readability in high running speed.
 708 Crossing point: Slightly wider gap (1.0 IM). Reason: to improve readability, alignment
with definition of 525 Crossing point (optional).
 709 Out-of- bounds area (forbidden to cross): Change from single hatch to cross. Reason:
Alignment with ISOM 2017.
 712 First aid post: Symbol removed. Reason: Very rarely used and redundant on sprint maps.
 713 Refreshment point: Symbol removed. Reason: Very rarely used and redundant on sprint
maps.

[ollesmaps]

Is the document available somewhere?

[Zerbembasqwibo]

No since it's not official. I think it will change a bit before it gets official. 2018-01-29 9:23 GMT+01:00 Aleš Hejna <notifications@github.com>:

…

Is the document available somewhere? — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1037 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APa4D2GEFM4jdLgtGwuRsF00yLKj4ELeks5tPYALgaJpZM4RvqpU> .

[ollesmaps]

http://orientering.no/media/filer_public/13/25/1325239f-046e-420d-a410-3dda6c562454/iof_issom_201x_draft_a5_310118.pdf

[dg0yt]

This still needs work to align with ISOM2017.

• 104 Slope line is part of Contour/Index contour/Form line in ISOM2017.
  On the other hand, this change made effective code numbers for slope line symbols non-standardized.
  (I start to believe that we should turn slope lines into a "dash symbol" feature of the contour lines, i.e. maintained by marking dash points on the contour.)
• 105 Contour value is part of Index contour in ISOM2017.
  As with slope line, this made the effective code number non-standardized.
• Cave become part of Rocky pit in ISOM2017.
  On the downside, the symbol alone no longer carriers the full information. While it must not be rotatable for Rocky pits, it must be rotatable for most caves.
• Major power line got an alternative representation of carrying masts in ISOM2017.
• Pipeline is no longer just pipeline in ISOM2017.

Extra remarks:

• 108.1 is a number with decimal point. It shouldn't be used in the standard.

I would very much appreciate if the same code number would not have a different meaning in ISOM vs. ISSOM. Code numbers offer unique identification independent of time and language. In that sense, the renumbering in ISOM2017 was a mistake. I would even appreciate an ISOM2018 restoring old numbers where appropriate ;-) Don't mind the gaps.

Most significant change is that the the levels of brown for paved area now indicate the level of traffic. Still a quite subjective measure. And narrow footwalks along busy roads (or parking cars) cannot be mapped to scale, anyway.

@krticka You should be subscribed to this issue.

[Zerbembasqwibo]

I agree that numbers still need some work. I think it would be good idea to give subnumbers, as for the parts in a cliff for example. Today it's ot standardized fully, so interpreting it in programs might be done in different ways. 2018-02-06 18:19 GMT+01:00 Kai Pastor <notifications@github.com>:

…

This still needs work to align with ISOM2017. - 104 Slope line is part of Contour/Index contour/Form line in ISOM2017. On the other hand, this change made effective code numbers for slope line symbols non-standardized. (I start to believe that we should turn slope lines into a "dash symbol" feature of the contour lines, i.e. maintained by marking dash points on the contour.) - 105 Contour value is part of Index contour in ISOM2017. As with slope line, this made the effective code number non-standardized. - Cave become part of Rocky pit in ISOM2017. On the downside, the symbol alone no longer carriers the full information. While it must not be rotatable for Rocky pits, it must be rotatable for most caves. - Major power line got an alternative representation of carrying masts in ISOM2017. - Pipeline is no longer just pipeline in ISOM2017. Extra remarks: - 108.1 is a number with decimal point. It shouldn't be used in the standard. I would very much appreciate if the same code number would not have a different meaning in ISOM vs. ISSOM. *Code numbers offer unique identification independent of time and language.* In that sense, the renumbering in ISOM2017 was a mistake. I would even appreciate an ISOM2018 restoring old numbers where appropriate ;-) Don't mind the gaps. Most significant change is that the the levels of brown for paved area now indicate the level of traffic. Still a quite subjective measure. And narrow footwalks along busy roads (or parking cars) cannot be mapped to scale, anyway. @krticka <https://github.com/krticka> You should be subscribed to this issue. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1037 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APa4D9s6o6g7DyKrgphKfT8MZ5JZ5Yv3ks5tSImngaJpZM4RvqpU> .

[ghost]

Discussion on ISSOM 201X in "Orienteering Mappers Int." group on Facebook

• https://facebook.com/groups/485564718218028?view=permalink&id=1576255405815615

As addition, there is issue with color naming in all standarts, as discussed under this image published in "Orienteering Mappers Int." group

• https://facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2473271799565483&id=100006480614910&set=gm.1574777852630037

[ghost]

ISSOM 201X final draft (ISSOM 20XX/2018?), as published above:

• http://orientering.no/media/filer_public/13/25/1325239f-046e-420d-a410-3dda6c562454/iof_issom_201x_draft_a5_310118.pdf

What has changed from ISSOM 2007:

• http://orientering.no/media/filer_public/e3/82/e38215f9-232d-4bef-b4e3-66764d19b4ab/what_has_changed_from_issom_2007.pdf

ISOM 2017 Appendix 1 -- CMYK printing and colour definitions:

• http://orientering.no/media/filer_public/60/6a/606ad3d8-7d38-4b1e-9c9c-db08adbc73de/isom_2017_draft_appendix_printing_180125.pdf

[ollesmaps]

Regarding the numbering. I suggest to make a formal proposal and give it to MC IOF (from OOM developers). It can concern both ISSOMxx and also ISOM2017 (there shall be also an update of this one). What do you think? Or is a discussion here as a form of feedback to MC IOF enough? Could you scrap it from here Luděk? @krticka

[Zerbembasqwibo]

Good idea to send a proposal.
And we must agree on decimal point, needed or not? If to save as many old numbers as possible decimal numbers should be necessary.
108.1 should in ISSOM be 108, I agree, but the line and the dot could be named 108.1 and 108.2? If necessary in software to use the decimal maybe 108.0 should equal 108 without decimal.

[wanacode]

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 Appendix does suggest how to achieve a pseudo effect but it seems a bit dirty. You obviously need to also move the framing colour track accordingly:

The easiest way to do this is to place the purple track colour in the colour order below black, brown and blue 100% colours

I highlight this so everyone is aware of the implications of this proposed change.

I would not like to see framing introduced at the expense of proper overprint simulation. It is still important, even for numbers.

[ghost]

Agnar Renolen posted in "Orienteering Mappers Int." group on Facebook

• https://facebook.com/groups/485564718218028?view=permalink&id=1590731751034647

Here is my response to the ISSOM final draft, hope I'm being constructive.

Generally positive on most changes. Here are the issues that I'm reacting to (positively and negatively):

• 310-311 Marsh
  • Personally, I'd like a lighter marsh symbol with more spacing between the lines. Dense, 1:15000-like, marsh hatches are not necessary on large scale maps.
• 406, 408 Dense vegetation
  • Color shades (30% and 60%) differ from ISSOM 2017 (20% and 50%). Should they be the same?
• Impassable vegetation
  • I'm puzzled why this is removed from the ISSOM draft (where it made sense), but recently introduced in ISOM2017. There is critical difference between hedges you can cross, and hedges you are not supposed to cross (even if they are technically crossable). In my opinion, the most important aspect of a sprint map is to show where you can go and where you cannot go; as legibly as possible. Green/black combination helps increase contrast and legibility on this.
• 506.1 Unpaved footpath or track
  • The proposed symbol had poor contrast in non-urban areas and can be hard to see; yet they are the most important features for choice of route and navigation (I've seen several examples). Consider thicker casing.
  • Same applies to 529. Alternatively a symbol corresponding to ISSOM2017 symbol 505, footpath could be introduced for non-urban areas.
• 509 Narrow ride
  • Should have same definition as in ISOM2017 (Linear trace). Include variants to show runability.
• 519.1 Passable wall
  • Agree with draft - the old symbol was hard to see. I've experimented showing this symbol using overprint to increase contrast, but it didn't really work. Using crags for passable retaining walls and stone wall in stead makes sense.
• 525 Crossing point.
  • In my opinion, the problem with the old symbol was not the width of the gap, but the length of lines, which could obstruct passages perpendicular to the gate.
• 529 Paved area.
  • Distinction between heavy and light traffic supported. However, I'm skeptical to it's use. Is it supposed to warn runners about the traffic, or is it there to allow organizers to declare the heavy traffic areas forbidden. Maybe we need a third paved area symbol: one that is forbidden to enter (such as a motorway).

Missing.

• Definition of unpaved areas (gravel) which are common features.
  • Suggest they can be outlined with dashed lines as in 506.1
• 533 and 544 Pipelines (prominent line feature)
  • Should have same definition as in ISSOM 2017
• 526.1 Building
  • I think the 60% black is too heavy in downtown areas where buildings dominate. Makes course overprinting less legible. 50% is better.
• 701-714 Course overprinting.
  • I suggest that course representations/course printing symbols should be taken out of all map specifications and implemented in one specification of its own.
• 709 vs 714
  • Both symbols mean the same to the runners. Do we really need both?

General remark: It doesn't hurt that corresponding symbols in ISSOM and ISOM (and other specs) have same symbol number.

[ghost]

Many interesting details published in IOF Meetings minutes (January 19-20, 2018)

• http://orienteering.org/iof-meetings-minutes-summary/

Read this first:

• Council meeting minutes:
  • http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Minutes-of-Council-meeting-187.pdf
• Map Commission minutes:
  • http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/MinutesVarsaw_20180120.pdf
• Foot Orienteering Commission minutes:
  • https://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FOC-Minutes-1-18-external-for-publishing.pdf
• MTB Orienteering Commission minutes:
  • http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-1-MTBOC-minutes.pdf
• Ski Orienteering Commission minutes:
  • https://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Minutes-of-SkiO-commission-meeting-Bulgaria-Velingrad-Feb-2018.pdf

Also published invitation for ICOM'2018 in Prague, Czech Republic (October 5, 2018)!

• http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/18_ICOM_Invitation.pdf

P.S.: @dg0yt, what you think about presenting current state of OpenOrienteering Mapper on ICOM'2018?

[ghost]

IOF Council Meeting Minutes 189 Published

• http://orienteering.org/iof-council-meeting-minutes-published-3/
  • PDF - https://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Minutes-of-Council-Minutes-189.pdf

...
20 Report from MC

20.1 Status of ISSOM 201x revision

TH reported on behalf of the MC that 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. MC noted that many comments were related to the issues about moving the definition of forbidden areas from the map specification to the rules and asked for Council guidance. Council guidance remains that the definitions of forbidden areas should be in the rules.
...

[ghost]

Presentations from 18th ICOM now available for downloading as PDFs:

• https://orienteering.org/presentations-from-icom-2018/

Major addition is that official IOF School-O symbol set would be part of upcoming ISSOM 2018 (ISSOM 20XX)

- https://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ICOM2018_Schlatter_Symbol_set_for_school_maps.pdf

[dg0yt]

Major addition is that official IOF School-O symbol set would be part of upcoming ISSOM 2018 (ISSOM 20XX)

This is wrong. It is neither backed by the presentation, nor the talk at ICOM 2018.

[krticka]

It will be not official part of ISSOM. It will be published separately as recommended use for school maps. We don't want to make any clash with the existing  school specifications which are used in many countries like sCOOL etc. More it should serve as a guide for new member countries and for those who wants to use it.Dne 17. 10. 2018 6:45 dop. napsal uživatel Kai Pastor <notifications@github.com>: Major addition is that official IOF School-O symbol set would be part of upcoming ISSOM 2018 (ISSOM 20XX) This is wrong. It is neither backed by the presentation, nor the talk at ICOM 2018. —You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[ghost]

This is wrong. It is neither backed by the presentation, nor the talk at ICOM 2018.

It will be not official part of ISSOM.

Sorry me, I was wrong.

It will be published separately as recommended use for school maps.

OK. Lets discuss Indoor-O, School-O and Park-O symbol sets in #613 :

• Add Indoor-O, School-O & Park-O symbols sets #613 (comment)

[ghost]

ISSprOM 2019 published by IOF and would be valid since January 1, 2020

ISSprOM 2007 (corrected in November 2012) valid until December 31, 2019.

TODO

• Keep ISSprOM 2007 symbol set (for compatibility reasons;
• Create and add new ISSprOM 2019 symbol set.

[krticka]

For old sprint specification I think it is good to keep valid name ISSOM 2007.

…

---------- Původní e-mail ---------- Od: app4soft <notifications@github.com> Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper <mapper@noreply.github.com> Datum: 18. 4. 2019 19:24:21 Předmět: Re: [OpenOrienteering/mapper] ISSOM 2018 (draft) symbols set (# 1037) " ISSprOM 2019 published by IOF and would be valid since January 1, 2020 ISSprOM 2007 (corrected in November 2012) would valid until December 31, 2019. TODO * Keep ISSprOM 2007 symbol set (for compatibility reasons; * Create and add new ISSprOM 2019 symbol set. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub (#1037 (comment)) , or mute the thread (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGVOZKCNDEEAN5ODYILPRCVDZANCNFSM4EN6VJKA) . "

[ghost]

So, I just reproduce "Appendix 1 - CMYK Printing" instruction for colors in OpenOrienteering Mapper, but how should I design colors for "ISOM2017-2" and "ISSprOM2019"? (currently I'm working on both latest symbol sets for Mapper)

[ghost]

FTR, Orienteering South Australia published on own site symbol sets in OCAD12 format:

May 2019: OCAD announces that it no longer provides support for OCAD 12 & earlier. This includes the provision of the latest symbol sets. If you have OCAD you can unzip & copy the following current symbol sets into you symbol directory (a sub directory of OCAD). This included ISOM 2017.2 & the latest sprint template ISSproM2019

• 2019OCAD12MapTemplates.zip

Below is a link to the Print Test Sheet that matches ISOM 2017.2 & ISSproM2019 May 2019

• PrintTestSheet_2019.pdf

[yevhenmazur]

Hello! I've finished to implement ISSprOM 2019 symbol set. I'm going to test the implementation on our local events in the beginning of September. You are welcome to join to testing and send me feedback or make a commit by yourself. You can get file here.

[dg0yt]

Thanks @yevhenmazur. I will try to merge this in smaller pieces.

• We can take the CMYK values from the IOF docs, but the layers "proposed" by IOF might neglect aspects which are important to us (upgrading of older maps, reusing existing translations, overprinting/non-overprinting equivalence).
• We may need to carefully review which numbers we are going to use. The IOF standard merged multiple symbol variants or aspects into a single code number.

[Zerbembasqwibo]

Possible to suggest good numbers to IOF MC? måndag 19 augusti 2019 skrev Kai Pastor <notifications@github.com>:

…

Thanks @yevhenmazur <https://github.com/yevhenmazur>. I will try to merge this in smaller pieces. - We can take the CMYK values from the IOF docs, but the layers "proposed" by IOF might neglect aspects which are important to us (upgrading of older maps, reusing existing translations, overprinting/non-overprinting equivalence). - We may need to carefully review which numbers we are going to use. The IOF standard merged multiple symbol variants or aspects into a single code number. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1037?email_source=notifications&email_token=AD3LQD3TMPKG6XKUKCNAN6LQFL3KXA5CNFSM4EN6VJKKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD4UDUXI#issuecomment-522730077>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD3LQD5PXSAB446K7CJVT6TQFL3KXANCNFSM4EN6VJKA> .

[dg0yt]

Possible to suggest good numbers to IOF MC?

Probably not in another form than our implementation. I cannot do that work twice.

[Zerbembasqwibo]

Good enough. Den mån 19 aug. 2019 kl 23:45 skrev Kai Pastor <notifications@github.com>:

…

Possible to suggest good numbers to IOF MC? Probably not in another form than our implementation. I cannot do that work twice. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1037?email_source=notifications&email_token=AD3LQD4N4IUVVYHX5GSNVFTQFMIBJA5CNFSM4EN6VJKKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD4UMRTY#issuecomment-522766543>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD3LQD3LVAJDKNWWTBVWRU3QFMIBJANCNFSM4EN6VJKA> .

[yevhenmazur]

upgrading of older maps

As far as I understand CRT support resolve this problem regardless of symbol set properties. If I am wrong, please specify which properties to pay attention to.

reusing existing translations

As a person who responsible for IOF docs translation in our Orienteering Federation I want to say it is bad idea. Almost every symbol description has small update. Technical committee of our federation decided to translate the whole document. Also it is chance to make the translation more solid. I'd recommend to stick to this approach and don't reuse existing translations.

overprinting/non-overprinting equivalence

It is implemented according to App.1 and my personal experience where App.1 leaves white spots. However, I agree that additional testing is needed here.

[ghost]

I don't know how to contribute directly to the implementation.

1. Go to: https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/blob/master/symbol%20sets/4000/ISSprOM%202019_4000.omap
2. Click "Edit" file;
3. Open your local modified ISSprOM 2019_4000.omap on PC with any text editor;
4. Copy text from it and paste into file editing page on GitHub;
5. Click "Propose Changes" on GitHub and create pull request.

[eolmapper]

I dont now how to create a pull request. Sorry i totaly discover how it works.

[ghost]

I dont now how to create a pull request. Sorry i totaly discover how it works.

Ok, don't worry!

I will check your attached updated symbol set & will create pull request myself ;)

[eolmapper]

I finally managed to publish one but I'm not sure I did it right.

[dg0yt]

1. Go to: https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/blob/master/symbol%20sets/4000/ISSprOM%202019_4000.omap

Don't edit the per-scale files. The symbol set source files are located in:
https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/blob/master/symbol%20sets/src/

[mlerjen]

ISSprOM v2.2022_4000.xmap.zip

Based on the work of @eolmapper and combinded it with the IOF color appendix I present my proposal for the ISSprOM,

May I ask one of the experienced contributors to push and moderate the process in a way we can get out not only this one but of course also ISOM and ISMTBOM updated soon? thx.

[ghost]

May I ask one of the experienced contributors to push and moderate the process in a way we can get out not only this one but of course also ISOM and ISMTBOM updated soon? thx.

@mlerjen, I will try to pull it in, when get a little bit more time.

TL;DR: I'm Ukrianian livine in Ukraine.

[mlerjen]

Some small fix here: Inner radius for 530 must be 0.56mm. Thanks @krticka for reporting.

ISSprOM v2.2022_4000-2.zip

[krticka]

@mlerjen After some days working with ISSprOM symbol set I have 2 proposals for symbols:

• Add 3 and 4 meter variant for 505
• Add 505 side line, what can be valuable for larger junction of rough tracks (now I received map from one mapper and he was using incorrectly Step or edge of paved area at lower level for this).

[mlerjen]

ISSprOM v2.2022_4000-3.zip

added.

[krticka]

I think we need to set up knockout for White stripes for area passable at two levels (appears this way after hitting F4).

[mlerjen]

Adjusted.

What is the practical use of the k.o. setting?
ISSprOM v2.2022_4000-4.zip

[dg0yt]

What is the practical use of the k.o. setting?

It had practical use with overprinting. Now it is either pointless or abused: No overprinting means knockout everywhere.

[mlerjen]

Thus .pdf export and print do not "simulate" overprinting...

[krticka]

It is pointless or abused on IOF maps. Some users still prefer overprinting for national/local events (for example here in Czechia it is still common). Two-level white hatch with simulation went into very bad result, thus KO is needed. For example in OCAD there is separate symbol for every two-level situation what is not very elegant solution but white stripes are not overlaying underlying colour and problems with simulation cannot occur.

[oiLvAcciNe]

Do we have this symbols in oMapper?

• 541 - Playground equipment]
• 542 - Table
• 543 - Bench, seat
• 544 - Pole, small pylon
• 545 - Lamppost

[jmacura]

Do we have this symbols in oMapper?

* 541 - Playground equipment]

* 542 - Table

* 543 - Bench, seat

* 544 - Pole, small pylon

* 545 - Lamppost

I guess you are referring to the "SYMBOL SET FOR SCHOOL ORIENTEERING MAPS 2019". This is not yet implemented in OO Mapper. Please follow discussion in #613

[bujke018]

ISSprOM v6.2024_4000.zip

[mlerjen]

@bujke018 Thank you. Next time we could coordinate efforts better. :-)

[PskovFF]

ISSprOM v6.2024_4000.zip

533 should be transparent, not white

[bujke018]

I corrected the mistake. pet, 01. mar 2024. 10:02 PskovFF ***@***.***> je napisao/la:

…

ISSprOM v6.2024_4000.zip <https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/files/14371652/ISSprOM.v6.2024_4000.zip> 533 should be transparent, not white — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1037 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANGT5AJDGRKSTM3Z3LQF7E3YWA72LAVCNFSM4EN6VJKKU5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TCOJXGI3TQNZRGMYA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[bujke018]

ISSprOM v6.2024_4000.zip

[krticka]

@bujke018 I'd just like to point out that the 533 pattern can be rotated. So option adjustable per object should be checked on. Such option allows to better draw smaller and narrow areas of 533.

[bujke018]

Thanks for the advice. You are right about the rotation of the 533 symbol.

[dg0yt]

ISSprOM v6.2024_4000.zip

For review: Report on colors and symbols

[dg0yt]

715 seems to lack the property to change the orientation. (714.1 has it.)
Well, course setting isn't a key feature at the moment.

[eolmapper]

For 714.1 the IOF Spécification does not specify which purple to use.
My choice would be the lower purple, because the upper one can hide important black fitures.

Yes 715 must be able to rotate you must uncheck "oriented to the north"

[dg0yt]

My choice would be the lower purple, because the upper one can hide important black fitures.

The report should probably list symbol colors with full name. Need to move them to the other column then.