Not sure if this is the right approach. Comments welcome.
Put a black line around it, 0.7mm thickness.
For clarity and simplicity, I'd be tempted to refrain from mapping these canopies at all; just show the parking lot. The runner can clearly see through at all points, and they're not going to be used as a feature that "paved area, corner" wouldn't serve equally well. Its not really very likely to confuse anybody if they are left off.
Approaching these, I'd see "pavilions" and be looking for grey on the map -- not much difference visually from a picnic pavilion.
There's no canopy symbol in ISOM 2000, you could show them as buildings or just leave it as a paved area (my preference). If there are usually cars there, then possibly building makes sense because runners will go around the cars. Picnic pavilions in ISOM should be mapped as buildings.
In ISSOM you would need to use the canopy boundary symbol, as tRicky says. But then the grey would have to be mapped over the brown, and the parts of the paving edge symbol that are inside the canopy would have to be omitted.
A building, are you mad???
Map as paved area, but show supports?
The canopy on that building is so high up that you hardly even notice when running by and it certainly doesn't affect your navigation. It doesn't need to be mapped either.
tRicky - plenty of examples on our own ISOM maps of shelters mapped as buildings. Also, in sherpes' photos of buildings above, if it were an ISOM map (eg for Metro Series) you would most likely have mapped the whole thing as a building, canopy included.
Zoom in on Jagge's mapant of Finland
, especially Helsinki. I haven't looked at google street view, but I suspect all the canopies are mapped as buildings.
I use modified ISOM for Metro mapping. ISOM permits the mapping of canopies as grey for park orienteering.
The first I'd either expect to see not mapped as all or perhaps mapped as buildings similar to pavilions. As soon as you get close to them you're going to realize you can pass under.
The second one I would expect to just see mapped as a building, with the shape as at ground level and no representation of the canopy at all. Depicting it adds no information. Also, what is the tan ladder looking thing next to it? Is that supposed to somehow depict the stepped outdoor amphitheater type thing next to the building? Because looking at that I have no idea what it is.
what is the tan ladder looking thing next to it? Is that supposed to somehow depict the stepped outdoor amphitheater type thing next to the building?
Every time I see the title of this thread I think of the problem of mapping Colorado white and yellow, which is a subtle distinction due to the rather open canopy. I've never figured out a good way to decide when to map an opening in the forest (which could almost be between every tree). But I'll start another thread for that.
I tried mapping tiny patches of thickets in a bush area on a sprint map once (I imagine this would be similar to mapping tiny clearings) and then I ran through it and realised I wasn't even looking out for them - I just wanted to get to the other side! If I had gone and stuck a control on one of them, I would have hated myself for it. The old adage of 'If you map it, someone will stick a control on it' comes to mind.
Some of the early maps near me, which had originally shown yellow in great detail, were later remapped to have fewer, larger areas of yellow, for much this reason. I have a bit of a quandary with an area that I plan to map, though. The kartapullautin of the Lidar shows all the yellow in extreme detail. When running across it, I tend to just generalise mentally...more yellow, less yellow, no yellow. Should I remap it to reduce and simplify the yellow? Or keep the yellow detail, and try to map any updates (such as newly thinned areas) to the same style? I've been looking for where jagge posted the kartapullautin of the area georeferenced to a Google satellite photo map, but my Google-fu and AttackPoint-fu aren't good enough, or I'm forgetting where I saw it.
Been spamming all too many threads (sorry) to be able to figure out what it the area you are referring to. But maybe Petrified Forest thread with pullautin map form nowhere near Petrified Forests (ouch).
I call it Dell Gulch based on a name on the government topo. It's south of the town of Buffalo Creek in Colorado, on the east side (mostly) of county highway126.
The kartapullautin on the Petrified Forest thread was Banco Bonito in the Jemez mountains of northern New Mexico. (An awesome area, but a local orienteer is checking on permissions.)
Actually, Banco Bonito plus all your Colorado kartapullautins demonstrate at least a little of the yellow versus white issue. Dell Gulch in particular seemed to show it though.
I think it all either be marked canopy (my preference), or as paved area. Mapping it as building if you could run through would
a) be confusing when you wondered where the building was
b) could affect route choice
i prefer the same like most oif the others,
canopy with 2 (ore 3 ?) pillars inside in ISSOM or only paved area in ISOM should be the best one for fast runners an for a readable map
The primary mapping surface is the ground level that competitors run on - by definition a canopy is above this, so a canopy indicates that the area below the canopy is generally runnable. I think that the important things to show "through" the canopy are the ISSOM features that affect navigation and fairness- uncrossable fences, walls, garden beds etc
This discussion thread is closed.