Sprint maps using ISSOM

Paths and roads

Also paths with gravel should be marked using 529. This symbol is used for any paved area regardless of it being asphalt, gravel, tiles or concrete.

It is not the width of the path that decides between 529 - paved area - or 507 - small unpaved footpath. As the name indicates it is the surface. A paved area uses 529 regardless of the width.
I have made a few exceptions where a small stone stairway is found on an otherwise unpaved footpath. There I have used 507 all way through.

Even though there is a little grass between a path and a road it can be so small that marking it on the map is awkward. In that case I have used a single edge (529.1). My rule of thumb is a division less than 40-50 cm in width - i.e. 0.1 mm on the map - is too small to mark. An edge by itself is 0.07 mm which is 30 cm in terrain.

In this case we have non-paved paths. Then 506.1 shall be used. The path to the left is small (it was smaller when then map was drawn) so 507 is used.
This also illustrates a problem with ISSOM: In forest it doesn't work very well. The difference between the two symbols (506.1 and 507) is huge even if the difference between the two paths in the terrain is small.

Having edges between road and pavement is partly a matter of taste. According to the specification they should not be represented unless they serve navigation. On the other hand I find that marking them gives the runner an indication of the character of the area, in this case a road with several independent trafic sources, i.e. a big road and not a large paved area. Furthermore I find the map more aesthetic with the edges.
But if the edges is shown in some part of the map (i.e. a big road) they should be shown in all parts - for consistency.

Colour and edges

According to ISSOM the width of the edges and the colour of the filling shall be different in urban and non-urban areas, even on the same map. It means that you have to use two diffent symbols for the same feature in different parts of the map. I find that illogic and slightly confusing - apart from resulting in very ugly maps.

As a compromise I have generally used the thick edge (0.14 mm) for edges between the filling and the outside - regardless whether this is urban area (528.1) or other area. The thin edge (0.07) mm i have used for edges within the paved area, e.g. edge between road and pavement as seen in the example to the left. The filling is also the same all over the map.
A strict observance of ISSOM means that a road or path on the border between urban and non-urban areas should use different edges on each side of the road. This is done in the example to the left. It may not be a big problem for such a wide road as this but it really looks wrong when it is a minimal path (0.35 mm filling).
More eye sore is the difference between the brown filling which must be 20% stronger in non-urban areas.
A really strict interpretation of ISSOM could mean that a road/path on the border between urban and non-urban areas should change filling when crossing the middle of the road. Well perhaps not... :-)
I have also seen other ways of using the different filling colours. A french map used it to indicate differences in level, and others use it to show where motorized traffic can occur, like I have done in the example on the left.
None of it is in conformity with ISSOM, though.

Opdateret 24-9-2007