Discussion: Standards for sanctioning US A meet sprints

Sprint orienteering is a relatively new format in the US and the focus in the last few years has been on the 'sprint early, sprint often' emphasis of the Sprint Series, where pretty much anything goes as far as technical standards. And that's great.

However, when it comes to sanctioning of sprint races, the sanctioning committee is looking for guidance about whether there should be minimum standards of terrain and/or map to be met in order to be sanctioned as an A meet race. This is particularly an issue since a sprint race is often thrown in by organizers as an additional race in an area that is not so suitable for sprints. Also, it may be that standards for sprints vary more across the US than do standards for other distances, with some clubs having many ISSOM maps and some having none.

The USOF rules on this say, among other things:

• Sprints use map Scale- 1: 4,000 or 1: 5,000 with a proportional contour interval, typically 2.5m, or other intervals if explicitly approved by Sanctioning Committee. ISSOM (Sprint mapping) standards are encouraged for denser, urbanized settings. Otherwise ISOM standards shall be used.


• Sprint terrain must be very runnable, with geometry that is complex at high speed.


• The challenge should be in navigating through complex environments at high speed, to control sites which are technically easy for advanced level orienteers.

In your view, how picky should we be about these requirements (and do some matter more than others)?

To be clear, this is a general request for guidance from the US O community (and is also being posted on Clubnet), and does not refer to any particular meet. The sanctioning committee wants input on what the community views as appropriate interpretations of these rules.

You can either respond below, or by emailing me at willZhawk at gmail.com (and remove the Z from that address before doing so).

First off, for A-sprints, I see no reason to not require an ISSOM map.

I don't see why you wouldn't require IOF rules to be followed. In other words, require ISSOM standards for all sprint maps and automatically allow 2m contour intervals. The second two points seem like fairly basic concepts...

ISSOM allows for both 1:4,000 and 1,5:000 and 2 or 2.5 meter contour intervals.

Before we get too far on the ISSOM question, I just wanted to point out that the USOF rules don't require ISSOM for all sprints. Rather, ISSOM is encouraged for denser, urbanized settings, and ISOM is specified otherwise (presumably non-urban areas that still meet the complexity requirement). I assume the question is how closely to stick to the USOF rules, and not whether or not we require ISSOM maps for all sprints. From feet's post above:

Sprints use map Scale- 1: 4,000 or 1: 5,000 with a proportional contour interval, typically 2.5m, or other intervals if explicitly approved by Sanctioning Committee. ISSOM (Sprint mapping) standards are encouraged for denser, urbanized settings. Otherwise ISOM standards shall be used.

Here's a realistic example that might make clearer what we are trying to ask. Suppose a club proposes a sprint/middle/long format three race meet and requests all races be sanctioned. The terrain sounds fine for middle and long. The proposed sprint race is in the afternoon after the middle race in the morning, on a 1:5000 blow-up of the mapped-at-1:10,000, 5m contours map of the forest area the middle was held on. For all the sanctioning committee can tell, it doesn't sound like this forest is particularly technical.

The question we are asking is, do people want those kinds of sprint races sanctioned? They can be great races, sure. Nobody is saying, don't hold those races. But do we want to have them be A meets, or not?

If you want to comment on the ISSOM issue, please do, but that's not the main point here since the sanctioning committee is tasked with interpreting the existing rules, not changing them, and as Barb says, currently the rules say ISOM is ok for non-urban settings.

The question is, to make a sanctioned sprint race, used for rankings, championships, and the like, is there a minimum standard of map? a minimum standard of terrain? We are taking the temperature of the US O community's feeling on this. Clearly a 1:5,000, full ISSOM map of a complex urban area is just fine. Clearly a 1:100,000 USGS map of a bland featureless forest is not. Where do we draw the line?

Where do we draw the line?

IMHO pretty close to 1:5,000, full ISSOM map of a complex urban area. I personally never liked sanctioning or running in white woods blowup "sprints", which to me were closer to a brown course or a yellow course than a "sprint".

For a race to be sanctioned as a sprint, it should feel like a sprint. I'm not going to articulate what that means, but I hope we get it. I haven't run a sanctioned sprint in a while, but there were plenty of sanctioned white woods blowup sprints that didn't have this feel (including some championships), and these are the ones I'd like to see as B meets going forward.

Hey feet, I know you already pointed out that the sanctioning committee doesn't write the rules - but is anybody working to get the rules fixed? The first rule you printed is internally inconsistent.

Sprints use map Scale- 1: 4,000 or 1: 5,000 with a proportional contour interval, typically 2.5m, or other intervals if explicitly approved by Sanctioning Committee. ISSOM (Sprint mapping) standards are encouraged for denser, urbanized settings. Otherwise ISOM standards shall be used.

The way I read this, it says that ISOM must be used unless the setting is urbanized. But ISOM have a 5.0 meter contour interval by definition- so using an ISOM map would still require explicit approval from Sanctioning Committee. Sloppy rule I guess. If I were to rewrite the rule, it would look like this:

ISSOM mapping standards are strongly encouraged for all sprint races, and must be used for denser, urbanized settings. Such maps have a scale of 1:4,000 or 1:5,000 with a proportional contour interval, eg. 2 m or 2.5 m. In forest terrain, a high quality ISOM standard map, with scale adjusted to 1:5000, may be used only by explicit approval of the Sanctioning Committee.

ISOM says 5m or 2.5m

ISSOM says 2.5m or 2.0m

I'm a heretic in that I figure the mapper and the club should decide whether to go outside that for a specific piece of terrain. I am especially a fan of smaller intervals for very flat terrain, but I'll admit that maps start to get hard-to-use and very hard to make if the interval is too small.

There are really two issues here - what makes good ('proper') sprint; and how critical is that if the US event is to be sanctioned. I would think the second question is up to the USOF BOD isn't it? the answer to the first issue can be found in the IOF rules -- appendix 6 - competition formats (excerpt below):

1 SPRINT
1.1 The profile
The Sprint profile is high speed. It tests the athletes’ ability to read and translate the map in complex environments, and to plan and carry out route choices running at high speed. The course must be planned so that the element of speed is maintained throughout the race. The course may require climbing but steepness forcing the competitors to walk should be avoided. Finding the controls should not be the challenge; rather the ability to choose and complete the best route to them. For example, the most obvious way out from a control should not necessarily be the most favourable one The course should be set to require the athletes’ full concentration throughout the race. An environment that cannot provide this challenge is not appropriate for the Sprint.
1.2 Course planning considerations
In Sprint spectators are allowed along the course. The course planning shall consider this, and all controls must be manned. It may also be necessary to have guards at critical passages alerting spectators of approaching competitors and making sure that competitors are not hindered. The start should be at the Arena and spectator sites may be arranged along the course. The spectator value could be enhanced by building temporary stands and by having an on-course announcer. Both spectator sites and sites for media/photographers shall be announced at the Arena. The course must be planned to avoid tempting competitors to take shortcuts through private property and
other out-of-bound areas. If there is such a risk, a referee should be at such locations to prevent possible attempts. Areas so complex that it is doubtful whether a competitor can interpret the map at high speed should be avoided (e.g. when there are complex three-dimensional structures).
1.3 The map
The ISSOM specification shall be followed. The map scale is 1:4000 or 1:5000. It is crucial that the map is correct and possible to interpret at high speed, and that the mapping of features that affect route choice and speed are accurate. In non-urban areas, the correct mapping of conditions reducing running speed, both to degree and extent, is important. In urban areas, barriers hindering the passage must be correctly represented and drawn to size.
1.4 Winning time, start interval and timing
The winning time, for both women and men, shall be 12 – 15 minutes, preferably in the lower part of the interval. In WOC and World Cup there is no difference between qualification and final races. The start interval is 1 minute and a time-trial, individual format is used. Timing is normally to 1 second accuracy, but in the WOC final, timing is to 0.1 second using electronic means of timing with start gates and a beam finish line. The competitor shall have passed the start gate before having access to the map.

I wonder if the original Sprint Series Finals courses at Pawtuckaway qualify as blow-up Sprints. If they do, I am all for blow-ups.

The Stockholm City Cup is a sprint series held in summer that almost always uses blown up or non-ISSOM type maps. Despite this, the race still feels exactly like a sprint - most likely due to the depth and standard of the field.

The map has to be good enough - most course setters applying for A meet status are probably knowledgeable enough to decide this. The thing more likely to make it feel like an A class sprint, is getting plenty of people there. So if it's on a weekend already with two other A class races, why not?

* I think the USOF rules need a revision so they don't imply that ISOM "shall be used" for forest-sprints. Surely, ISSOM is at least preferred for forest sprints.

* For an A-meet, I would think that a "blown-up" ISOM map should not be acceptable. This is what we used at the sprint held in conjunction with the US Champs back in 2004 - it was a fun race, but not A-meet quality. We've moved on from that time when ISSOM wasn't even in place. Strictly speaking, a 1:10,000 ISOM map blown up to 1:5,000 is no longer ISOM (i.e., the symbol size shouldn't increase from the 1:10,000 size).

* Having said the above, it seems that an A-meet quality sprint really needs to have a map that is drafted explicitly at 1:5000 (or 1:4000). If someone is spending the time to re-map (however quickly) at the increased scale, it would seem that using ISSOM symbols (instead of ISOM) would be a relatively easy switch.

The disagreement between people who think like bmay and people who think like Becks is exactly why we are trying to get the sense of people's preferences here. Please have your say.

So, do people feel that ISSOM maps in forested terrain is actually an enhancement over ISOM for sprints? If so, why? What aspects are better? (And this is independent of correct symbol/course overprinting sizes—that is a separate issue that also sometimes bedevils 1:10,000 and 1:7,500 conversions.)

As a person that was consulted regarding map drawing specifications for the sprint race ROC hosted last autumn (US Champs I think) I would just add that this process Feet has outlined is a valuable one. I think last autumn's ROC sprint was a wonderful event. Like Feet states it is a good exercise to get views regarding 'interpretation of the rules' and from that determine what works best for the US O community (albeit the current rules being a deviation from IOF map standards). With tongue firmly in cheek I am sure Canadians will respect the US' interpretation and application of these rules in a friendly, supportive and tolerant way. ie., no personal attacks akin to those regarding Canada's rule deviation from IOF on crossable water bodies thread (and elsewhere on AP) please.

With regards to the part that the sanctioning committee has control over, I agree with bmay that the map should be drafted at sprint scale. I'm not sure how I feel on the ISSOM vs ISOM question for forested sprints.

Excuse my ignorance, but what would be the point of having a national rule that explicitly forbids ISSOM for forest maps?

The reasons I believe to be why the mapping committee was behind the no-ISSOM rule are (1) that the IOF made a mistake in applying ISSOM to non-urban terrain where it is unnecessary and arguably inferior in its depiction of trails in particular, and (2) that under the status quo, yes, those who compete internationally have to learn ISSOM, but if the US used ISSOM we would just confuse local participants by having two different symbol sets with slightly different meaning (see: uncrossable features debate), and orienteering is confusing enough already without giving newbies two symbol sets to learn. Why would a little gain for the WOC team in more practice with ISSOM outweigh the nuisance to everyone else?

(I report these two arguments, hopefully fairly to those who put them forward: they are not my arguments.)

I'd like the sanctioning committee to encourage ISSOM (I suppose it would be ok to allow exceptions). I would also encourage diversity of terrain and course setting. I'd rather see general guidelines for terrain and technical difficulty than "musts."

So, do people feel that ISSOM maps in forested terrain is actually an enhancement over ISOM for sprints? If so, why? What aspects are better?

I like ISSOM's depiction of crossable versus uncrossable features and that trails in rocky areas don't look like rows of outcrops.

When I first looked at ISSOM maps, my eye didn't pick up the trails very well. But with a little experience I haven't had that problem.

Given the choice of a map made at ISSOM versus an enlarged ISOM map, I'd pick the ISSOM version.

I agree with Spike

(though I wish I too had advanced to the stage of being able to pick up the trails on the ISSOM maps ;-( I had a horrible time with a huge trail at the NAOC sprints. Hopefully I've learned that lesson).

Wait long enough and your view will surface. I completely agree with the thoughts in "Spike's" post.

Unlike an earlier post, however,I do think we should consider our A Meets as a training opportunity for our elites. There are not going to be very many uniformed walk-ins at an A Meet so I don't see a worry about confusing them with ISSOM.

I loved the post that said a sprint should feel like a sprint. The actual venue can certainly vary. I would not have expected a park venue to be very good, but agree that the Rochester sprint was one of the best - and great for the PR of public viewing. My ideal would be a mix of urban and woods - hard to find in the US. A college campus is probably the best bet for an urban feel without traffic problems.
Just deciding which way to go around the single building at the College of the Rockies gave a fun extra twist to that race.

LouP: I would not have expected a park venue to be very good.
Funny you should say that considering the origins of sprint orienteering. Ever heard of 'Park World Tour' or the early predecessor to ISSOM, which was "Mapping guidelines for Park Orienteering" :)

J-man: Do people feel that ISSOM maps in forested terrain is actually an enhancement over ISOM for sprints?
I definitely favor of ISSOM. I've never had trouble seeing the trails. As a mapper, I think the symbol set is both more flexible and unambiguous. The trail symbol's area property lets you easily show wide spots and complex trail junctions, and I really appreciate that it's a gapless symbol. Plus, you reduce the issue of short roads posing as tagless cliffs or small buildings.

In many forest settings, you still have some limited constructions (resorts, campgrounds, etc...) and when those get mapped for sprints, the mapper will often adopt bits and pieces of ISSOM to get the job done. I've seen too many weird hybrid maps over the years, where I don't know which standard takes precedent.

Wait long enough and your view will surface. Thank you blegg!

Living near Vancouver, I think I'm biased towards ISSOM, since a majority of the sprint maps in my collection are from there, and they are all ISSOM, urban or forested. In Seattle, conversely, I don't think we have any ISSOM maps.

And jumping on the "a sprint should feel like a sprint" sentiment... if we're talking about a sanctioned sprint race, then it should be on a sprint map standard. For a local race or a bonus race during a weekend, I don't mind if you use ISOM, or blow up a 1:10k to a 1:5k. You use what you have...

But there should be a standard at the national (A-Meet) level for sprints, and such a standard exists and it's ISSOM. Map it like a sprint, set it like a sprint, and then it will feel like a true sprint.

Ideally, it would be nice to have one mapping standard that applies for all types of orienteering, but I just don't see how that would work.

A few years back there were no sprints at US A-meets. Many members of the US community saw that this was putting US Orienteers at a competitve disadvantage and encouraged Sprints to be offered. It now is commonplace for a sprint to be tacked on to an A-meet. Although many if not most of these events are not held on ISSOM maps drafted at 1:5000.
The tightening up of these standards is good for the quality of these races, but will surely result in fewer sprints offered at A-meets. Many clubs will look hard at the additional mapping and venue expenses involved before adding a sprint to the weekend. So the result will be higher quality sprints but fewer opportunities to run them. About where we were before. I am not saying this is good or bad but just defining the issue from a meet organizers perspective.

If ISSOM is required for A-sanctioned sprints, there can still be a non-sanctioned sprint on an ISOM blowup in conjunction with an A-meet, which is most often what we have now, so it's not clear that anything would be lost by such a requirement.

Agree w/ jjcote.

Just adopt IOF rules and guidelines. Including mapping specifically for 1:5000 or 1:4000 scale and using ISSOM symbol set.

There is unproportionately large number of "forest" sprints in NA. Please encourage more in urban setting! Going to Europe NA athletes are at big disadvantage right now.

If a club does not want to invest a little bit into more sprint specific mapping and planning organizers always can choose a low cost "fun" sprint option as JJ rightfully pointed out.

Sergey has hit the nail on the head:

Just adopt IOF rules and guidelines.

This applies to the US with regards to clinging to archaic formats (2-day classic vs SML) and mapping standards (ISOM for sprints) equally well as Canada for its national rule on uncrossable features.

Agree w/ Cristina.

Agree w/ barb

Just a few comments:

I really dislike the "crayon width" contours and other very wide lines in a blown-up ISOM map. But many of our local sprint events use exactly that. One of the stated goals of the ISSOM is map legibility, but a 1:10000 ISOM map printed at 1:5000 (with the "crayon contours") is actually much easier to read at speed, with two exceptions: 1. I personally think the crayon contours make it harder to see the terrain shapes. 2. It's also easier with smaller lines to show intricate areas, especially intricate urban areas. With those two exceptions, I think the ugly-huge-ISOM map is actually easier to read. Aesthetically, I like the look of ISSOM maps, but I like the comments I hear from older competitors after events with larger-than-ISSOM symbology.

I'm a little concerned about nomenclature---Many of OCIN's small maps are mapped at 1:5000 with ISOM symbols at a size that approximates ISSOM. There is a big difference between mapping at 1:10000 or higher and mapping at 1:5000. Most of OCIN A-meet sprints I'm aware of (which is a small portion of the total) are a sort of ISSOM-lite, where we take an ISOM map (often 1:10000) and dink with the scale and symbol sizes to approach an ISSOM look, and then we actually change a few symbols like 506.1, "unpaved foot path or track", and change the color of the paved brown for roads. (Some of the screens, like rough-open-scattered-trees have circles that are too big and need to be changed---although you really need the spec out when you do this. The vegetation boundary and dry ditch dots have been a problem area for me because of multiple symbol numbers on our maps.) It's not a huge time commitment to do all this---say an hour give or take---but you've got to print out the map as you go and really look at it for rogue symbols. Whether that makes it an ISSOM map is debatable. It certainly resembles one, but it's really not in my opinion. (Reading this after I wrote it makes me think that one area I'm neglecting is the crossable/uncrossable feature colors and line widths.)

@bmay: The problem I have with a simple "Use IOF rules and guidelines" is that I see them as intended for WREs, World Cups, and WOCs. They limit contour interval to a small range regardless of terrain, which means people who want to use some oddball interesting area are forced to be labeled "outside of IOF rules" even if they have no intention of ever hosting an IOF-sanctioned event. I believe clubs and national organizations need to be open enough to consider innovative ideas and expand the allowable terrains beyond some Scandinavian ideal. A rule that says "ISOM or ISSOM shall be used" would throw out a map that is identical to spec in every way except contour interval. I'm very much in favor of weasly-worded rules---things like "exceptions must be approved by the sanctioning committee".

@feet: Are there a lot of A-meet sprints that don't even attempt to modify the ISOM map? Me personally, I'd rather have an A-meet sprint than a B-meet sprint. I like forested sprints as well as urban ones. I'm much more concerned about the course design and interesting navigation problems (??) than the map appearance. I'd rather that a small club have a marketable event than enforce a specific restrictive rule.

Agree w/ cedarcreek

@feet: Are there a lot of A-meet sprints that don't even attempt to modify the ISOM map?

In the last twelve months, the following clubs have held A meet sprint races
ROC, Sep 2009 (US champs): park / forest blow up of ISOM, 1:5000, 2.5m
LAOC, Dec 2009: 'forest' (Vasquez Rocks), ISOM modified with some ISSOM trails, 1:5000, 15 feet
BOK, Feb 2010: forest / camp area, ISOM modified with some ISSOM trails, 1:5000, 3m.
SLOC, Mar 2010: urban park / forest, ISSOM, 1:5000, 2.5m
USMAOC, May 2010: forest / camp area, ISSOM, 1:5000, 2.5m
COC, Jun 2010 (US champs), forest with many trails, ISOM, 1:5000, 2.5m

What strikes me most looking at this list is the absence of A-meet urban sprints, where ISSOM is actually important. ISOM would have worked fine for every single sprint on this list, I think.

On the schedule for the future already sanctioned are 2* BAOC and 1 * BFLO. All will be forested sprints. BFLO is ISOM blown up to 1:5000, 5m contours (forested park with many trails). BAOC's sprints are both forested areas, I believe also both at 1:5000 with 5m contours and ISOM. Sanctioning omitted to clarify the situation with these meets when they went through.

Disagree with cedarcreek.

Agree that evolution comes from going beyond the official standards to try different ways of doing things. So do that at B meets. But for A meets it is important for map interpretation to be uniform. There are so many problems that come from non-standard rules. Obviously one problem is a rules-violation issue (such as the uncrossable marsh issue at the COCs that came from such a small map interpretation variation). Another is the advantage it gives to local runners familiar with the "local" mapping standard - as Spike said above, some map symbols take a while to get used to.

I believe using IOF rules only for WRE events and "local rules" for other events is no good for orienteering in North America. For one thing it requires a whole load of volunteer effort to make up these rules and educate people about them. And what runner wants to have to learn local rules for everyplace s/he runs?

As for the IOF rules limiting the amount of available terrain - I think this limitation is very small. I've been on all kinds of spectacular and fun terrain and only once or twice can I recall that the IOF mapping standards were "violated" and this has generally been either scale or color of vegetation (eg: no yellow on a completely open area, or open rock mapped using yellow for legebility)..

So, for example, if I got to an OCIN sprint race and come across a fence line with double ticks on it - "high fence" in ISOM, "forbidden fence" in ISSOM, can I cross it or not? Having to even ask that question is a bad thing for the sport.

What strikes me most looking at this list is the absence of A-meet urban sprints

That's quite true, though I think it's apt to continue be the case, both because it's easier to hold a sprint near the same venue where the other races are held, and because unless you're dealing with some sort of a campus, there are challenges with logistics and permission associated with holding a race in an urban setting in this country.

Agree w/ cedarcreek
AZ's problem "can I cross it or not?" isn't solved by using IOF rules only: there are two IOF mapping guidelines. And, not even two mapping guidelines can encompass all the terrain types in the natural world. That should be left to the mapper and the "exceptions must be approved by the sanctioning committee".

Really? If that example problem isn't solved by using IOF rules, then I'm missing something. The way I understand it:

ISOM - yes, you can cross it but it will be difficult or perhaps dangerous
ISSOM - no, you are forbidden to cross it
OCIN Sprint Map - I don't know. Maybe I'm allowed to cross it, maybe it is forbidden.

Using IOF rules all I need to know is what mapping standard was used (and it would be typical to assume ISSOM for Sprint and ISOM for non-sprint - and the meet info should tell me this in anycase).

Not using the IOF rules - well, what then? How do I know what the symbols mean.

Well, using Canadian rules how do you know how long a course is? And why can a rule like that be ignored while a unique local one must be followed?

The point was that imposing a rigid standard on natural terrain doesn't work - IOF already has two standards. Wriggle room should be left for exceptional terrain.

>Well, using Canadian rules how do you know how long a course is?

Isn't that what the 'expected winning time' information is for?

To me, whether a map is ISOM or ISSOM has nothing to do with whether I'm allowed to cross an uncrossable feature. If it is a sprint event, you can't.

I tell people my goal in setting courses is to prepare orienteers, especially juniors, for elite competitions. In other sports I've been involved with, there was a very strong anti-élitist bias against international events (such as using an easier domestic event rather than a significantly more difficult Olympic-rule event). They liked scoring higher on the domestic event and felt no need to compare themselves to the world. Anyone who knows me knows I tend to go too far in my strict interpretation of rules. If I'm an elitist, I want to be an Élitist with a little stress mark over the E.

A few years back, I went to a DVOA training weekend, and I was just amazed that almost every map was offset (spot color) printed, and seriously *expertly overprinted*. I remember running along and thinking, "Why is this map just popping off the page?" I really like that we sort of feed off each other's elitism and just keep pushing the bar higher.

But there is a limit. You can't just expect new clubs and new people to think all of this we agonize over is as important as we think it is. Sure, they'll come around, but not if we can't say, "This is good enough" when they're starting out.

Have you ever taken a look through the IOF Mapping Commission's comments on IOF event maps? It's fairly common for these guys to not be satisfied with IOF event maps (specifically World Cups and WOCs). Check out this, or this, or this (pdf). (Unfortunately they don't seem to be keeping this up-to-date. The latest comments are from 2008.)

My point is that you can get incredibly picky about tiny details, and there is benefit in that {edit: but there is a limit}. One of my first events as setter was was on a map where the minor trails were drafted too small. Swampfox said, "The rat trails are too small." I still laugh about that, but to this day I notice the size of the smaller trails when I look at a map closely.

ISOM 2000 says, "Spot colour printing is recommended for IOF events. Other printing methods may be used, if colours and line width have the same quality as printing with spot colours." Now really---How often does CMYK have "the same quality as printing with spot colors?" And would you rather have the absolute amazing visual clarity of offset-printed spot colors or the convenience and event quality that comes from updating maps on short notice and printing a clue sheet on the actual event map so there is virtually no chance of giving someone the right course map with the wrong clue sheet (or worse, the right clue sheet and the wrong course map)?

I'm going to try to bow out of this by saying I think sprints are a primary growth mechanism for orienteering and I want to see a lot of them at A-Meets. I've heard randy and eddie express that the sanctioning committee should be a tool for improving meet quality. I'm very comfortable with that regarding middles and longs, but less so with sprints.

Unfortunately this thread combines the question of sanctioning sprints (strict vs flexible) with the strengths and weaknesses of the ISSOM. And the even broader issue of "what is a sprint?"

Someone alluded to the origins of the sprint in the Park World Tour, and to me the delight and the special nature of the sprint is the setting in an urban park, campus, old city with alley-ways, etc. If you are mostly using a corner of a rural area chosen for longer distance orienteering, you are missing out on (a) training for the top level (b) fun and (c) visibility of the sport.

To me, whether a map is ISOM or ISSOM has nothing to do with whether I'm allowed to cross an uncrossable feature. If it is a sprint event, you can't.

Excuse my ignorance, but is this true? It was my understanding that the sprint prohibition was a direct result of the ISSOM prohibition; therefore, you could cross just about anything if the sprint used ISOM. I was trying to stay out of that question, but I think that is a good argument for insisting on ISSOM -- to eliminate this possible confusion.

I'm going to try to bow out of this by saying I think sprints are a primary growth mechanism for orienteering and I want to see a lot of them at A-Meets.

I think the focus of the federation going forward is recreational orienteering, and IMHO, a proper sprint is the least recreational of the formats, so I would have to respectfully disagree. That said, I'm not advocating less sprints, or less sprints at A meets, simply that those things that don't look like proper European-style sprints be B meets. You may even end up having more of them, and they certainly will be cheaper, so it is speculatively possible that positioning that product thusly may increase growth. I'm aware of people who don't like paying A meet prices for 12 minute runs thru white woods on a blowup of a 10 year old map; OTOH, some people will go out of their way for a proper sprint in an urban or campus setting using modern sprint symbology and mapping. Different products need different designations.

Well, I think I've said way to much as well, so I'll bow out also :)

BOK, Feb 2010: forest / camp area, ISOM modified with some ISSOM trails, 1:5000, 3m

Hey, all the buildings on this map are fully ISSOM. I'd say the only things that stand out as obviously non-ISSOM are the 1.5× contours. During that memorable day of 01 March 2007 that the area was resurveyed (in the afternoon) and drafted (8 pm through maybe 4 am?) by Eric Bone and me, we nitpicked over a number of symbols ("6 PRECISE DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS"). I recall we decided to let the fat contours stand.

Cedarcreek - Randy is quite right, the crossable/uncrossable features are defined by the map, not by the type of race.

Walk - which rule are you referring to as being ignored?

I've been thinking about this since Randy posted. I was hoping someone would jump in on my side...

First, let's look at the "Rules and Guidelines", which is the name of a website page at the IOF site. I checked back to two earlier rules documents (back to 2005), and there is no change I can see in this specific rule.

From the 2010 Competition Rules, dated 1 July 2010 (pdf):

17. Restricted areas and routes

17.1 Rules set by the organising Federation to protect the environment and any related instructions from the organiser shall be strictly observed by all persons connected with the event.

17.2 Out-of-bounds or dangerous areas, forbidden routes, line features that shall not be crossed, etc. shall be marked on the map. If necessary, they shall also be marked on the ground. Competitors shall not enter, follow or cross such areas, routes or features.

17.3 Compulsory routes, crossing points and passages shall be marked clearly on the map and on the ground. Competitors shall follow the entire length of any marked section of their course.

17.2 is the pertinent rule. Now I will admit there are two ways to read this. To me, though, it is clear that this is about overprint markings, and it is not about the map as it exists prior to a course being drawn on top of it.

For the ISOM and ISSOM, I usually use the IOF Mapping Commission website.

I also checked several old ISSOM copies (back to 2005, the oldest I could find), and the language in the ISSOM has been changed slightly as time went on. I'm not talking about the feature definitions, although those certainly changed. I'm talking about the preamble portions. The newest has the best language, specifically:

2.3 Barriers that are forbidden to cross

To make sprint orienteering fair to all competitors, features that are represented on the map as impassable, independently of their effective passability, shall not be crossed.

This rule is essential for two reasons:

It is impossible to declare an exact height when an obstacle becomes impassable. Effective passability depends very much on the physical characteristics of the competitors such as body height and strength.

If features represented as barriers on the map are declared as forbidden to cross, the conditions are the same for all.

Running and navigational skills should be the success factors for competitors in a race, rather than luck when it comes to climbing or jumping barriers or violating public law.

Crossing of certain areas and linear features in parks and urban terrain may be forbidden by law.

Consequently, competitors who do not obey this rule, which is part of the IOF competition rules, must be disqualified.

To me, this both says it all, and proves that the rules need a revision.

It says, "To make sprint orienteering fair...", not "On ISSOM maps..."

It says that this rule is a part of the IOF competition rules. It says itself, in the ISSOM, that the IOF rule applies. (I'm going to maintain that the 17.2 rule is poorly written and really does need to be revised to say whatever it is supposed to say. I can't find any other rule that might be the one they mean, but maybe someone else can.)

I've heard people say that ISOM maps should be fieldchecked at 1:7500 so much I was actually surprised to read how open the ISOM is to other scales:

In the ISOM, paragraph 3, it states:

The scale for an orienteering map is 1:15 000. Terrain that cannot be fieldworked at a scale of 1:7 500 and legibly presented at a scale of 1:15 000, is not suitable for international foot-orienteering.

Maps at 1:10 000 may be produced for relay and short distance competitions.
The scale 1:10 000 is recommended for older age groups (age classes 45 and above) where reading fine lines and small symbols may cause problems or for younger age groups (age classes 16 and below) where the capacity of reading complex maps is not fully developed.

Maps at 1:10 000 must be drawn with lines, line screens and symbol dimensions 50% greater than those used for 1:15 000 maps.

Where practical the same dot screens as used at 1:15 000 will give the most legible map and are therefore to be preferred.

In education there is usually a progression of scales from 1:2 500 to 1:5 000 to 1:10 000. Maps at very large scales such as 1:2 500 will clearly contain additional detail such as playground equipment. Line dimensions for these maps should also be enlarged by 50%. {cedarcreek: That is, they should have the same feature sizes and line widths as a 1:10 000 map. This means printing a 1:10 000 map at 1:5 000 without changing its feature sizes and line widths is not a recommended practice.}

Other scales may be produced for other forms of orienteering.

To me, the ISOM's failure to mention a prohibition on crossing features mapped as uncrossable coupled with the ISSOM's mention of it as a rule necessary to make sprint orienteering fair is strong proof that the ISSOM writers erred. If rule 17.2 applied prior to ISSOM as a prohibition on crossing impassable features, "
independent... of their effective passability", then why did the ISSOM writers point it out as a rule necessary to fairness? If it already existed, wasn't such a discussion unnecessary?

So here's how I see this.

If you believe that 17.2 is "strong", meaning that it prohibits crossing impassable features, "independent... of their effective passability", then you must believe that that rule applies to both ISOM and ISSOM, in which case the prohibition is not a question of which mapping standard was used.

If you believe that the map standard does define the legality of crossing impassable features, then you must also believe the ISSOM is self-contradictory and that 17.2 is "limited". This "limited" interpretation means the ISSOM writers erred by not getting the competition rules to match their spec. They don't specify 17.2, so it's possible they intended for another rule number to be used.)

Personally, I believe 17.2 is limited, and that crossing impassable features is allowed under non-sprint events, and prohibited under sprint events. I further believe there needs to be a 17.x rule that states, "For sprints, it is prohibited to cross features mapped as impassable, independent of their effective passability." And I would like it a lot of they added a 17.x rule that states, "For middles, longs, and relays, it is not recommended for the competitor to cross features mapped as impassable, but it is not a cause for disqualification." (This 2nd new rule needs some work to mention or somehow exclude that 17.2 prohibitions *are* cause for DQ. It's not clear enough.)

I believe they should add a new rule to section 17. It should read something like ...

17.4 In Sprint Orienteering, which SHALL take place on a map drawn to ISSOM standards, crossing features marked as uncrossable is expressly forbidden. Crossing such features will result in disqualification.

I think this is pretty much the international orienteering community's view on the issue.

Okay - are you trying to confuse me ;-)

Rule 17.2 is quite important. It says (basically) that all forbidden areas shall be marked on the map. But how do you mark them on the map? Well, it depends on if you are making an ISOM or an ISSOM map. In ISOM there are only 6 symbols available to do this marking (dangerous area, out of bounds, permanently out of bounds, cultivated land, uncrossable boundary, and forbidden route). In ISSOM there are many symbols that can be used.

In other words, I disagree with you that the rule only applies to overprinting.

Why does ISSOM emphasize this "forbidden" symbol interpretation? I don't see this as contradictory - I see it simply restating something that is seen to be very, very important in sprint orienteering.

Why doesn't ISOM have some preamble stating that it is forbidden to cross certain features? I don't think it needs to - especially if this is stated in the actual rules.

@bmay: The rule for maps is in the number 15.x rules. The first two are:

15.1 Maps, course markings and additional overprinting shall be drawn and printed
according to the IOF International Specification for Orienteering Maps or the IOF
International Specification for Sprint Orienteering Maps. Deviations need approval
by the IOF Council.

15.2 The map scale for Long distance races shall be 1:15000. The map scale for Middle distance races and for Relays shall be 1:15000 or 1:10000. The map scale for Sprint shall be 1:5000 or 1:4000.

The IOF rules don't seem to specify that ISSOM shall be used for sprints. I scanned the map and terrain area of the WOC Guidelines and it doesn't say anything about this. The whole document has no instances of "ISSOM".

I'm not sure whether sprints should only take place on ISSOM. I would agree that any area with intricate urban maze-type areas should be. But for forested areas or "boring" universities, does it really matter? I know for local events when we've used ISSOM, it confused the heck out of some of our regulars.

Two more things. Sorry.

Having thought about it a few days, I feel like I need to pull back on my elitism remarks. My point really was that I, and a lot of people reading this, care a lot about the events we put on. I don't take kindly the insinuation that I am not paying attention to international orienteering. I study most WOC and WC courses. I love the big relays. It's been about 2 years since I read the IOF rules cover to cover. It's been even longer since I've read the WOC Guidelines and the World Cup Special Rules. I actually open up the ISSOM 2007 before every race I run with an ISSOM map, which is woefully and regrettably seldom. My basic claim to elitism is that I actually read the rules. The biggest reason my claim is hollow is that I feel like I ignore more than I follow.

When was the last time you put on a sprint where the runner gets the map a few steps after starting? I never have. But I have actually talked it over with my event director and club to see how difficult it would be, and if it's something we want to attempt. How about the rule that all sprint controls need to be attended? In all honesty I pay attention almost exclusively to the courses, control locations and descriptions, and the map. In the last few years I've spent a lot of time talking with the event director about the start area and procedures because it seemed to be a problem area.

Which brings me to the second comment. When I read through the IOF Competition Rules, there are a lot of things we in the US just don't seem to do. Just as the IOF rules have a little "WOC" or "WRE" out to the side of rules for those specific events, should a similar thing be done with the US Rules? What would those categories be? Standard A-meet, Team Trials, Championship (lesser), NAOC, Championship (the big one)?

Should we try extra hard to make sure the Team Trials has an ISSOM sprint map on a suitably complicated non-forested area? Should we require organizers to publish specific bulletins at certain dates prior to the event? Should we push for "run-in timing" for certain events, rather than punching a finish box? Would OUSA be interested in buying a run-in device and the gear necessary to make it work with our sportident software? Should we try to impose graphic continuity (visual standards) and even specify font usage like the PWT organisation manual? Or should we back off from that and work on defining and improving event quality (whatever that means)?

AZ: From a different thread: COF 5.5.2 The course lengths shall be given as the length of the straight line from the start via the controls to the finish deviating for, and only for, physically impassable obstructions (high fences, lakes, impassable cliffs etc.), prohibited areas and marked routes.

Sorry for the diversion from this overall topic.

I think tnipen's August 30th post (from a different thread) is a better means to answering walk's question.

"Personally I think we should change the rules to force course setters to also indicate: 1) the number of logs one needs to jump along the route with minimum creek crossings 2) the distance spent in medium green forest along the route of maximum average humidity. These metrics, along with precise measurements of the course distance and climb are very important to me in a race situation so that I can properly pace myself through the course, since looking at the map does not reveal any clues about the distance and climb that you are about to face."

Oh no, there go my eyes! ;)

OK, as the thread starter and the one trying to get useful information for the sanctioning committee, before this thread degenerates completely, I'd like to summarize where I think we are.

• Given the (US) rules we have, there are two camps, the 'if we hold sanctioned sprints to higher technical standards, we'll just get fewer sanctioned sprints held' camp and the 'higher technical standard lead to higher quality, more international-competition friendly races' camp.


• Some people think that less technical sprints ('short middle' races, if you like) on ISOM maps should not be sanctioned, some prefer to have more sanctioned events.


• There is substantial disagreement within the US about whether ISSOM is appropriate for forested sprints, but in many terrains it doesn't really make that much difference. Therefore, organizers should consider when in the mapping phase, before the event ever gets close to sanctioning, what mapping standard is going to be used.


• People on Attackpoint are very good at taking threads off topic.

What I take from this for the sanctioning committee is the following.

• At least some people are a little unenthusiastic about add-on sprints on simple terrain, but there is little consensus on how simple is too simple, and no sensible ideas about how sanctioning would be able to tell in advance. Provided the event is within the basic technical rules, the easiest option may be to leave it to organizers to understand what is appropriate and the competitors to decide whether they are interested in attending. The sanctioning committee might want to suggest to some organizers that their terrain may be inappropriate for a sprint and that they consider some other race format, but that should be as far as it goes.


• Sanctioning should probably revisit this in a couple of years after what people are prepared to accept as A meet sprints becomes clearer.


• If you use a scale of 1:4,000 or 1:5,000, ISOM still requires symbol sizes the same as 1:10,000, not further blown up. Sanctioning should require this for forested sprints using ISOM.


• Sanctioning should routinely grant waivers to non-urban sprints using ISSOM. Sanctioning should not routinely grant waivers to urban sprints using ISOM.


• It would be a positive change if A meet organizers in the US were to try to hold more 'proper' sprints using complex, perhaps urban terrain, and if doing so, ISSOM is definitely appropriate. Sanctioning should encourage this whenever possible (although it is basically up to clubs what event proposals come forward).

Would anyone conclude differently?

1. The "orienteering law" as represented by inter-referenced rules and specifications and a hierarchy of international, national and regional documents, and local un-written interpetations, is inconsistent. Of course. In spite of employing law drafting experts, my elected politicians create inconsistent law. Is anyone surprised?

2. "Gray areas" that are uncovered can be ruled on by the controller (or whatever your rules call the person in charge) with fairness to the competitor in mind, and promulgated in event information.

3. If sprints were in urban terrain a lot of this would go away.

(Written before I saw Feet's useful summary. Bullet point #4 is very apt:-))

Would anyone conclude differently?

I don't think so, it is an excellent summary and plan. The only caveat is that prospective registrants must continue to DYODD on the add-on sprint, which is fine, I suppose, considering at least better understanding of the issue has been brought forward, and most who care are already in the habit. Hopefully, the phrase "add on sprint" will be out of our lexicon in 5 years. We'll see.

Is DYODD currently in our lexicon? Admittedly, I am on the fringes of the technorati...

I assume it means 'do your own due diligence.'

I gathered as much, but I just wasn't aware it was a common term.

One point I was trying to make (in there somewhere) was that the sanctioning committee might allow "add-on sprints" for vanilla A-meets, but would require a higher standard for the sprint in the SML "Individual Champs" (for example).

My brain hurts.

Add-on sprints, if I understand the term correctly, require no approval from Sanctioning, any more than a Saturday night dinner does.

JJ, I think others are using the term to mean sanctioned sprints that are held on terrain chosen for other reasons (such as, its suitability for a different race). Anyway, your point that no approval is required for non-sanctioned races is correct, of course.

Well feet, I agree with almost everything you have stated above, but I have to take issue with the point about ISOM symbol sizes for non-urban Sprint events.

First I can agree with everybody(?) than proportional enlargement of 1:10 000 symbol sizes for 1:4,000/5,000 is not desireable. However my objection is only for aesthetic reasons, not readability reasons. I think it is fair to say that however distasteful they are, large fat symbols do in fact enhance readability, and this applies even in most detail-dense, Sprint-appropriate non urban terrains.

To my eye, the ideal symbol sizes (readability + aesthetics) for 1:5000 maps are the 1:10k symbol specs plus 20 - 33%. This has been my practice with all of DVOA's recent 1:5000+ maps that I've dealt with, except for Lehigh Campus which is ISSOM (or at least close). If there have been complaints about the symbol sizes on these maps, I haven't heard them.

From the top of my head, this map list would include Norristown Hospital, and Hickory Run-Daddy Allen, both used for high profile, well received(?) Sprint events, as well as Green Lane Nature Center, Delmont Scout Res, and others, all of which can be seen posted around the internet.

I'm hoping that these maps would be convincing evidence for Sanctioning Committe to ease up on this 1:10 000 symbol size criteria, and accept variation to bolder symbols. I agree that 1:10k sizes should be the minimum, but I would hope that stronger symbols would be tolerated, if not encouraged, in the name making the best map possible for the terrain.

Agree with EricW.

I think blow-ups of 1:10 000 maps are ugly, but they have two big advantages:

1. They contribute to "sprint feeling" because you don't have to slow down to read the map. As long as the details are legible, it's easier to outrun yourself.

2. It gives older, experienced runners a chance against fast and clear-eyed youngsters.

I haven't kept records like EricW has with the 20-33% enlargement, but that matches my recollection. I change the map scale in OCAD, uncheck the "enlarge/reduce symbols" box (I'm going on memory here). Then I print out the map and say, "That looks terrible!", and start enlarging stuff a little.

If we follow the letter of ISOM when converting a map from 1:10,000 to 1:5,000, we should blow it up by a factor of 2 and then reduce all the symbol sizes by a factor of 2 to keep the symbols size constant. This will yield a lot more white space on the 1:5,000 map than on the original 1:10,000 map. What to do with the white space?

* Should this white-space be filled with additional features? i.e., Is it common practice to map more detail on a 1:5,000 map than on a 1:10,000 map?

or

* Should this white-space be left as is?

If the answer is the former, than it does argue for keeping the symbol sizes the same in 1:10 as in 1:5 (as it allows more stuff on the map). If the answer is the latter, then there should be a fair bit of leeway on symbol size (i.e., aesthetics might be the dominant reason for wanting to go with a smaller size).

With respect to blow-ups, I've long thought that course 1 should be on a blown-up map for all events (sprint, middle and long). For kids, having bigger features is definitely an advantage when learning to orienteer.

Some of the white space is supposed to be filled with the extra 2.5m contour lines and the spurs and reentrants that they contain. The boundaries of green areas can also be less generalized. Some boulder fields can be shown as individual boulders. But there should probably not be much in the way of showing features that are otherwise not worth showing just to take up space.

OFF ISSUE

Here, here to bmay's final point. The blow-ups for the novice will only help their motivation. "Look how much of this map I covered in my first orienteering event!"

I certainly like he point about enlargements for Course 1 (Canadian, right?), equivalent to White (US, right?). We've done this, not by principle, but when it most fit the printing and terrain circumstances. I believe all 3 White courses at our upcoming A meet (H Run Rocks) will be on 1:5000, but don't take this as official info.

On white space, I generally agree with JJ's comments, but perhaps with a different emphasis. I agree there is certainly no reason to fill the extra space, just because it is there, but I'll add, do take advantage of it, first by emboldening the symbols, not proportional to scale, but a little bit, like I mentioned above. For me, 1:10 symbols look too delicate and weak on an enlarged map, and disconcerting in regard to scale.

Even after symbol enlargement, there is still plenty of extra white space. Yes, shapes can be sharpened if desired, which has almost no effect on white space.

Perhaps unlike some others, I'll tend to say, yes, its fine to add more objects, keeping in mind their map rreading utility, for walking beginners, and running vets. I'll agree that usually there are not many details worth adding, and they are almost always point features. Granted, many point symbols (U, V, X, &O's) take up a disproportionate amount of space on the map, so think twice before squeezing them into tight spaces, but when there is space available, no problem. The total impact of the extra point features on white space should be minimal, not worth stressing about. The result can and should still be a map that is good looking and extra easy to read.

In case there is any question, I think these points apply to all enlarged maps, whether they are made for Sprints or educational purposes.

Yes, I would strongly agree with use of 1:5000 for white/course 1.

If you do the math, you will notice that a 2 km course on a 1:10,000 map is only 8 inches of course. If the course happened to be a square it would be only 2" on each side.

I believe all 3 White courses at our upcoming A meet (H Run Rocks) will be on 1:5000, but don't take this as official info.

That would be great! Right now the meet website says: There is a possibility that White and/or Yellow may be laser printed at 1:5,000 for the middle and long. Sprint is listed as 1:5000 for all courses.