search

OpenOrienteering / mapper

OpenOrienteering Mapper is a software for creating maps for the orienteering sport.
https://www.openorienteering.org/apps/mapper/
GNU General Public License v3.0
402 stars 106 forks source link

ISOM 2017-2 #1184

Closed Zerbembasqwibo closed 5 years ago

Zerbembasqwibo commented 5 years ago

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."

ghost commented 5 years ago

Also here is original post by IOF:

The most significant updates to the ISOM 2017 standard are

  • The removal of symbol 411 Vegetation, Impassable
  • The inclusion of a new symbol for Stairway

These updates are approved and should be implemented for ongoing mapping projects using the ISOM 2017 standard.

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)

Mapping issues

The IOF Map Commission proposed to publish a revision of ISOM 2017. According to AL, the biggest proposed change is to terminate using the impassable vegetation (100% green, 50% black) symbol.

FOC supports this change. PM noted that the new forbidden area symbol hides too many features on the map. This is in particular a problem when the border of the forbidden area is not marked in the terrain. No further action required from FOC.

lpechacek commented 5 years ago

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?

mlerjen commented 5 years ago

I could (try to) do that, but would need more specific instructions.

yevhenmazur commented 5 years ago

I'll be ready to commit to this task in a few days.

lpechacek commented 5 years ago

@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!

ghost commented 5 years ago

Should we rename this issue to «ISOM 2019» according @krticka's comment?

At least you have to wait with ISOM 2019 for official PDF where dimensions of new symbols will be defined.

ghost commented 5 years ago

ISOM 2017-2

@krticka said that next ISOM spec would be named as «ISOM 2017-2»

Busy days for Map commission on IOF Joint Meeting in Warsaw, Poland. Just short information what we were working on:

  • We finalized update of ISOM 2017 (there were many discussions about the name in IOF and it will be ISOM 2017-2)
  • We discussed development of new ISMTBOM with MTBO Commission
  • We finalized update of ISSkiOM
  • We finalized most of the issues with ISSprOM
  • We updated some information in new WRE manual regarding maps
  • Long discussion about map quality for major IOF events and role of SEA in assessment of map quality
  • Map quality and technical desk-review process for IOF major events - tasks for next 2 years were distributed within commission members
  • Symbol set for school orienteering maps is ready and will be published on IOF webpage
  • New PrintTech Sheet was discussed and some issues must be fixed

IOF MC, 2019/01/19

P.S.: IOF MC resources

dg0yt commented 5 years ago

Please stop the noise. No need to copy FB or link the IOF page.

mlerjen commented 5 years ago

@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/

ghost commented 5 years ago

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.

krticka commented 5 years ago

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 notifications@github.com Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper mapper@noreply.github.com 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 (https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/issues/1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGTYHZRY65UVP2H2YO3QGP6VRA5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5E3PHQ#issuecomment-524924830) , or mute the thread (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGVIA3YA2W5ZSOPG5UTQGP6VRANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ) . "

ghost commented 5 years ago

There were not any changes since the publication of ISOM 2017-2 and ISSprOM 2019.

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.

krticka commented 5 years ago
  1. Not sure what you mean by the "issues". 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.
  2. Once again, there were no new changes to the specifications (last change was publication of ISSprOM and small corrections of few unimportant details in ISOM2017-2 in April)
  3. Since the middle of June colour order (and colour shades for offset) are published on MC pages for both specifications, see "Other mapping related documents" section
ghost commented 5 years ago

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, provide email for contact with MC.

krticka commented 5 years ago

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 notifications@github.com Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper mapper@noreply.github.com 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 (https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/issues/1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGWCV2BANTOS5MWTAFLQGQNWTA5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5FHBRY#issuecomment-524972231) , or mute the thread (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGVKEORLREY36QDXWULQGQNWTANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ) . "

yevhenmazur commented 5 years ago

I'm ready with ISOM 2017-2. You can get current version from this page. There were much more changes than I expected...

krticka commented 5 years ago

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: "A stairway going through rock passages or between impassable objects may be drawn without border lines."

yevhenmazur commented 5 years ago

Add Stairway without border lines - done.

krticka commented 5 years ago

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).

yevhenmazur commented 5 years ago

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.

mlerjen commented 5 years ago

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.

image fig.1 Minmum gaps and -length for 203 cliff and minimum width for 403 rough open land.

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

lpechacek commented 5 years ago

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.

valdisj commented 5 years ago

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

ghost commented 5 years ago

I don't see a minimum gap checker coming into Mapper anytime soon

We has separate issue for legibility checker:

ghost commented 5 years ago

The symbol setts in here only do work with Mapper 0.9.x or also 0.8.4?

@valdisj, You could just try open it in 0.8.4 — if there are some problems Mapper will show you warning message with details.

FTR, You should download and open described symbols manually, because it not distributed with Mapper 0.8.4 and 0.9.xyet!

yevhenmazur commented 5 years ago

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.

dg0yt commented 5 years ago

@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%"?

dg0yt commented 5 years ago

@krticka Symbol 404 "Rough open land with scattered trees" mentions "yellow 35%". Is this level of yellow intentional? It is not referenced anywhere else.

dg0yt commented 5 years ago

@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)). 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.

dg0yt commented 5 years ago

@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: ...".

dg0yt commented 5 years ago

@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.

dg0yt commented 5 years ago

@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".

dg0yt commented 5 years ago

@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.

krticka commented 5 years ago

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 notifications@github.com Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper mapper@noreply.github.com 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

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 (https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/issues/1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGVHMFQ5GXCCHUGRTU3QKY5RXA5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7IUBHY#issuecomment-533807263) , or mute the thread (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGXUOAYHSOP4FTPWW4DQKY5RXANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ) . "

dg0yt commented 5 years ago

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.

krticka commented 5 years ago

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 notifications@github.com Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper mapper@noreply.github.com 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 (https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/issues/1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGSNFD627LG4RLSC7ALQLLZY5A5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7QVBBQ#issuecomment-534859910) , or mute the thread (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGXOMVPNCYZZGOFWULLQLLZY5ANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ) . "

krticka commented 5 years ago

Thanks, I made a record about this.

---------- Původní e-mail ---------- Od: Kai Pastor notifications@github.com Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper mapper@noreply.github.com 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 (https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/issues/1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGRAT637KQ6KK57QMHTQKY6Y3A5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7IUHIQ#issuecomment-533808034) , or mute the thread (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGVOYEUFUPLRCY3VQ7TQKY6Y3ANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ) . "

krticka commented 5 years ago

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 notifications@github.com Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper mapper@noreply.github.com 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 (https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/issues/1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGQO5IGBQNJMXRD43SDQKY7HXA5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7IUJMY#issuecomment-533808307) , or mute the thread (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGSSWECZ2USCNOXXEHLQKY7HXANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ) . "

krticka commented 5 years ago

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 notifications@github.com Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper mapper@noreply.github.com 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 (https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/issues/1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGWMALLFBOZ5CYGHJGLQK4Q23A5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7JAVRA#issuecomment-533859012) , or mute the thread (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGVQBAMZZHEKIQWHJT3QK4Q23ANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ) . "

krticka commented 5 years ago

Agree. Illustration can be adjusted.

---------- Původní e-mail ---------- Od: Kai Pastor notifications@github.com Komu: OpenOrienteering/mapper mapper@noreply.github.com 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 (https://github.com/OpenOrienteering/mapper/issues/1184?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZ2ZGTFHQGPSABU5LKZECTQK42LPA5CNFSM4GGTHTQ2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7JB62Y#issuecomment-533864299) , or mute the thread (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZ2ZGSN37RUVTNALOREP53QK42LPANCNFSM4GGTHTQQ) . "

dg0yt commented 5 years ago

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.

Another issue with the color documents...

krticka commented 5 years ago

I see. MC will do an update of colours document quite soon as ISSkiOM is finished and ISMTBOM is in the final stage.

dg0yt commented 5 years ago

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)".

ghost commented 5 years ago

MC will do an update of colours document quite soon as ISSkiOM is finished and ISMTBOM is in the final stage.

I just curious, how many issues still not fixed in official IOF specifications? (that now used for real orienteering competitions)