I think I have seen examples from an ISOM compliance tool, i.e. a piece of software that will analyze the cad file and highlight points of non-compliance, but I'm not able to find anything now...
If one can't be found, maybe one can be created, perhaps as part of OOM or am add on. I'm guessing that you're meaning not just checking for correct symbol sizes, but also minimum separations, minimum sizes and so forth?
I'm not sure this is the one I saw... perhaps there is something else out there too?
Maybe this could be turned into some sort of metric that event organizers could advertise, to let orienteers know what style of map it will be (ISOM, versus high density)?
Organisers around here like to trumpet the detailed nature of the terrain, which is the opposite side of the spectrum from "compliance", heh heh.
I don't know about "opposite side of the spectrum"... you can make a pretty darn detailed map that is still compliant. And even if you do break the rules, on purpose or unknowingly, it can still be interesting to see it automatically highlighted on the map.
I suspect most orienteers are unaware of the compliance issues, and if a tool makes them more obvious, and makes the terrain biases of the existing spec more obvious, it may result in pressure for change. I see gold mining sluice terrain in Australia as an obvious example.
I think that measuring compliance will lead to more awareness on the issue. I think that there's a lot of terrain that can be rendered just fine with ISOM2017, there's some interesting terrain that cannot (I've given some examples I've noticed in the past), and a fair bit of terrain that could be, but isn't, due to the choice to map yet more detail beyond what's needed to navigate at orienteering speeds. There's still a discussion to be had about the latter, but at least perhaps we can have that discussion, which at present is a little bit of a hidden topic. I might see a map clipping of an upcoming event on its website, but not quite be able to tell how blown up it is. There might be post race discussion about legibility, but no metrics. And a lot of participants might have no idea about compliance or even the spec...but might find they prefer one way or the other, if it were visible. At present, a mapper decides to map four times as much as previous maps in the area, perhaps in discussion with a mapping director, but the orienteer (and typically even the organizers other than setter, vetter and controller) don't have a clear idea of the mapping style (and degree of difference from the spec) until the event. More info on this can only be good.
I strongly suspect some comments here are overrating the value of this software. Look, my Swedish could use some help, but I'm rather sure this software only checks for compliance to the latest drafting specifications, which is rarely a problem issue with map quality. In fact it will lump well considered de minimus tweaks for readability, terrain, or printing purposes, right together with the crudest mistakes.
This makes it very easy for a map-ignorant controller or website poster to wag their finger and make headlines about "illegal mapping", but it does nothing for the main factors that determine map quality or readability, such as selection of details, missing details, and appropriate use of symbols, to say nothing of drawing shapes and smooth lines or simply locating things in the right place.
I was going to write something similar to what EricW is saying, but I wanted to test the tool first.
Of course this is not going to give a metric on the "quality" of the map or give any indication on the level of generalization within the specification. A recent example here on AP was the sand dune map in Manitoba. The new map has much more details on it compared to the old, but as longs as it does not break rules (e.g. minimum gaps etc) then this tool will say nothing. This will remain a matter of style and opinion.
However, I do find it personally interesting for me as a mapper. It highlights all areas smaller than minimum size, all places where contours and point symbols are too close together, where area symbols which are not supposed to overlap are still overlapped, even where a small form line hill was missing a gap so it looked like a full contour. Even though I really try to stick to the rules it pointed out many places on the map where I could tweak to make a more legible map.
Simply put, this is a drafting aid, not a mapping aid.
Flagging up where symbols are too close is useful. This is a better than nothing measure of generalisation. Part of the consequence of less generalisation is closely packed objects and lower legibility. Right now we have no info at all. I'd prefer a drafting metric than none.
This discussion thread is closed.