Discussion: what map feature to choose for springhouse

Springhouse. Should this be mapped as

1) spring
2) man-made ffeature (x)
3) building structure pic.twitter.com/zMM416mpv8

— West PA Orienteering (@wpaorienteering) October 31, 2016

* ISOM, ISSOM or ISMTBOSMSmebaby?
* What on earth is a springhouse? *googles* You Americans are crazy. :)

As a competitor, I'd say if it's very small an X would be sufficient (that's the symbol I would expect for, say, a chimney in the woods with no surrounding ruin). Definitely not the spring symbol which to me indicates a seepage from the ground.

What do the specs say for minimum building size?

I have seen blue circle on a local map by professional mapper

Looks like a building to me.

Paved area.

Minimum size building.

@Erik... Good call; the control description spec (3.9) for a blue-circle/well (312) describes it as "often with a man-made surround".

Still, if it looks more like a building than a spring I think the building symbol would convey better info.

What does it look like from afar. From the pictures, depending on the approach, a building from the front, but from above it is more of a low foundation. I would go for either a man made (X), that can cover most anything, or the symbol for a cellar hole IE a foundation.

http://goldengatepark.com/conservatory-of-flowers....

(A) 528.1 (Flower Bed)
or
(B) 526.1 (Building)

Make sure you put a dimension in the CP descriptions just to confuse the orienteers.

Building 0.5/1.5

The minimum size ruin (open black square) is an option, but it takes up more space on the msp than the minimum building. Primarily, though, the water factor is pretty irrelevant, and don't overthink it.

Minimum size building. It has a roof and walls on all sides. To me it's a building and nothing else.

If it looks like a building, it is a building. I remember asking once whether a fake boulder covering utilities should be marked as a boulder or as a man-made feature, and the answer was that if it looks like a boulder, it should be a boulder on the map, as the runner only goes by the visual impression and does not investigate what's inside.

building - who would know what was underneath.... why overthink it or attempt to mislead competitors?

In most cases when I have seen these they've been mapped as tiny buildings

Looks like the entrance to an underground bunker. Perhaps should be mapped as a cave.

The following map has numerous such structures mapped as black x's:

http://www.cadesign.cu.cc/rmoc/images/ManitouLake2...

They have the identical characteristic of looking like a small building from down the reentrant, but more like a buried structure from above.

I agree with mapping what it looks like, on a first impression. From the same viewpoint, there's no need for symbol 312 Well. Does it appear in 201X? If its still there I'll try and remember to bring it up for 203X. (I'm expecting that 202X will be fully occupied with the sprint revision.)

This looks like a "thing to find" rather than a "thing to navigate by".

I expect to see buildings from quite far off, so I'd go for X.

It's the last thing you want from ISOM201X.

I expect to see buildings from quite far off, so I'd go for X.

I like that logic. On the Manitou Lake/Park maps (see above), the black x's have worked well, as the structures look odd enough (and small enough) that on seeing them I don't necessarily expect them to be mapped as buildings. (The structures there are actually for research, not springs, I believe, but look almost identical, and are always at the bottom of reentrants.)