FISO has a positive opinion about the final draft of ISSOM. However there are major and minor points that we request to be modified.

Major points

Equidistance values
We feel that the choice of 2 and 2.5 meters for equidistance is unsatisfactory. We prefer the ISOM standards of 2,5 and 5 meters.
The reasons are the following:
1. we converted many alpine maps to the scale 1:5000 for sprint competitions and we found that the 5 meters equidistance, eventually with some more form lines, is suitable in most cases. This is not surprising: if the details of the terrain were described well with the 5 meters equidistance, it will be so with any scale. More contour lines simply load the maps with symbols that do not give any additional information,
2. we have a lot of maps in hystorical centers of rather flat towns (Torino, Milano, Venezia, Bologna, Firenze, Roma etc.). In such situations the slope never comes into consideration for route choice. Different than in forest, the more flat is the urban area, the less is the need of small equidistance interval,
3. competitors will move during the same event from middle to sprint distance: it is much better for them to find the same equidistance value if the terrain allows it. It will be much easier for them to evaluate the amount of climbing,
4. 2,5 meters and 2 meters are so close to each other that we do not see the need for both. We could accept to "sacrifice" the 5 meter if the intention was to have just one standard, but, since it is not so, we strongly demand to mantain it.

Size of symbols
In general, we think that Orienteering must be a "sport for all". In fact the problem of people with handicap was considered by developpimg the Trail-O and even the problem of colour blind people was considered (althouh not solved). We think that the problem of people with sight problems (wich are extremely numerous and are the majority after a certain age) must be addressed and solved. The considerations developped inchapter 7.3 do not take into account this problem. Although this chapetr was taken from ISOM2000, it must be considered that there the problem was partly solved by enlarging the map to 1:10000. In ISSOM however the size of the symbol is fixed. Therefore the application of the considerations developped in chapter 7.3 deeply and unduly affect people with even minor sight problems. This problem can be solved by enlarging the size of all symbols to the size of ISOM2000 1:10000 scale.

Scale of maps
We do not understand the need of two scale values so close to each other. The considerations developped in chapter 7.5 are on one side very confusing, on another side rather than explaining the reason of the two scale values contradict such a decision. Somewhere is written that the scale 1:4000 is more suitable for "southern Europe" hystorical centers. We are the country of southern Europe with more than 25 years of experience in mapping hystorical centers: such a scale is not needed. For the international meeting in Venice the town is satisfactorly mapped at the 1.7500 scale! Here again we are in favour of one single standard. But, again, if we want to give up the principle of the one single standard and we want to include for sprint-O extreme situations, then is better to use a 50% different scale (1.3333).
The decision to have 4 different standards for the combinations of scale/equidistance without significally improving the readability of the map is against the development of our sport and will be not understood outside: consider that we are inside and we do not even understand it.

The set of symbols for road and trails
We have a number o objections.
1. Symbol 506.1 can hardly occur in "urban" areas. Reasonably in "park" areas the non-urban version must be used. But we think that in parks and forests the enlarged ISOM2000 symbol 505 would be more readable than the one proposed. Moreover the size of the symbol is too small. Besides, there is a contradiction among the use of brown fill in symbol 506.1 ("without a smooth, hard surface) and the general use of brown fill for paved hard surfaces. Again, the enlarged ISOM200 505 symbol would be better (we do not think that in practical situations the use if this symbols can be confused with cliffs)
2. We think that the dimensions of symbols 507, 508 and 509 are inadequate. Symbol 507 and 509 will be perceived as a continous line by people with minor sight problems.
3. In the terrain there will be a smooth variation from minor trails to larger and larger ones. ISOM2000 addresses this situation with a graduation of symbol sizes. In ISSOM there is a jump from the tiny symbol 507 to the next obtained with to dashed lines and a filling, almost three times bigger. The cartographer will have to make a decision to the use of one symbol or the other for trails that will be slightly different on the terrain.
4. The last discussion in Helsinki has introduced a new problem: we need to use white street in dense urban areas (even because we cannot go below 50% black filling) and everybody agrees that 20% filling for roads int he non urban areas is too low. Therefore we need that a 30% increase from the urban part to the non-urban part of the map is allowed, not 20% as a maximum.

Minor points
Cliffs
The relative size of the symbols for impassable and passable cliffs (0.50/0.30) is less than in ISOM2000 and we feels is inadequate.

"Generally object smaller than 2x2 meters shall not be mapped unless they are very prominent"
This wording seems inadequate. It does not take into consideration the third dimension and the fact that object smaller than this are mapped even in scale 1.15000 (boulders, rocky pits, wells). The only argument must be the prominency, the significancy and the number (numerous objects may not fit in an urban area even at the scale of 1: 4000).