very good  good    interm.   poor  v. poor no answer
 1 How was the legibility of the light brown for paved areas?                                     20      14       4       1                       39
 2 How was the contrast between the light brown and the dark gray of the buildings?               23      11       3       1                1      39
 3 How was the legibility of the light gray for passable walls?                                    4      11      17       5       2               39
 4 How was the legibility of the underground passages?                                             4       7      16      11                1      39
 5 How was the legibility of the canopy (light gray) respectively the passage through a building?  8      22       5       1       1        2      39
 6 How well did you recognize the difference between impassable and passable walls?                7      14      10       6       2               39
 7 How well did you recognize the difference between impassable and passable fences?              11      21       3       3       1        1      40
 8 How well did you recognize the borderline of sidewalks?                                         5      16      12       3       2        1      39
 9 Were the borderlines of sidewalks useful for navigation and map reading?                        4       8      10       9       7        1      39
10 How was the legibility of the unpaved footpath (light brown fill)?                                     17      10       3       8        1      39
11 How was the legibility of the area with forbidden access?                                      14      20       1       2       2               39
12 Are the differentiations of deep water body and shallow water body useful?                      9      13       4       4       5        4      39
13 What did you think about the contour interval?                                                  9      21       7       2                       39
14 How do you like the rule that impassable walls, fences etc. are forbidden to pass?             15       7       6       4       6        1      39
15 If streets will be white, would you prefer lighter gray for building to improve the contrast?   3       6       8       8      14               39
16 Did you like the stairs symbol, did it compromise the legibility of passable course?            9      19       8       1                2      39
                                                                                                 YES              NO      -       -
17 Would you like streets to be left white in case of pure urban area?                            10              27                        2      39
18 Did you do any mistakes because of bad legibility of the map?                                   8       4      24                        3      39
19 How did you like the line widths in general?                                                   30       2       2                        5      39
20 Did you understand the meaning of overprint symbols?                                           30       1       5                        3      39
21 Did you have any problem with the scale 1:4000?                                                 2              36                        1      39

Comments

3.: I didn't notice it was there on the way to No. 7.
4.: We knew about the underground passages. Not as easy to see them on never-seen maps in competition speed.
6.: One exception from "very good legibility" was important for the route choice between controls 9 and 10 (w course). Difficult/impossible to see the left alternative along the cemetery because of the poorly visible 2mm of light grey (passable wall) in between dark grey (impassable wall) lines.
Impassable walls were clear.
8.: I did not use these for the navigation, unnecessary!!
10.: Poor in forest (white), good on other background color.
Not so good in yellow or white to see it.
12.: If the competition is held in an area with shallower waterbodies it should be useful to know which ones are passable or not.
I didn't know there was a difference, wasn't useful here, but could be in some areas.
13.: But contours not too visible.
14.: It is OK, but only when this is shown in a clear way on the map and there is a clear obstacle in the terrain - preferably also marked with bright "streamer" tapes.
Poor in forested areas (to pass/jump small cliffs), good in urban areas.
When they are impassable on the ground or clearly marked.
15.: I do not prefer white streets in the first case, but if so maybe a lighter gray is OK.
16.: Stair symbol was good.
17.: we have to keep the same standard for all maps urban or if there is some forest
The map should have as much in common as possible with a normal orienteering map - we must have a unified sport, but of course with adjustments to allow fairness and readability in city orienteering.
Not sure, let me see the examples…
18.: But the so-called best route on the long leg was impossible to see - no runners took this route. That was a shame.
This was a special race since we knew the area as our own pockets ' hence, not a good competition example for the question.
Hard to say, actually was probably clear I just wasn't careful enough on the left route to 12. didn't notice the hedge started before the wall. When I look now is perfectly clear.
20.: Some overprint symbols were drawn by hand!
Dark pink was OK. Light pink was as far as I know introduced during WOC. In a high stress-situation (like running a WOC race) only basic information is available in the runner's head, and I know of people who forgot about these areas being forbidden. (They were not disqualified, though.) One should avoid the introduction of a new map sign in a WOC race!
If the overprint symbols equals the red areas for outdoor restaurants then I understood their meaning, but I'm not sure that I have understand this question correctly.

23.: Underpass is not that visible.
1-Passable wall in some small parts influence the choice , (between control 9-10, 7mm south from the middle of the line- a corner of the cemetery-passable, but not visible from the map-probably due to the small thicket and contour crossing this wall -route choice to No.11)
2-Small path in the north of the map, in forest and open area - very bad legibility - should be darker to normal street, at best using different-darker brown
3-triangle symbol,- should be as a ground plan
The smiley !!!, the restaurant colour and the underground passage
Impassable Walls and passable walls.
Impassable walls.
Impassable vegetation
Kafe', Restaurant (purple colour)
light brown paths

• One mistake I made was because of the poor legibility of the "tree-fence", the dark-green line that somehow disappeared next to the black line. Once on the wrong side of the fence, I was not allowed to cross it.
• Why not to use the X sign? On the area around controls 7-8-9 the contours were too thick (it was difficult to read the road network). My overall impression was good.
• Knowledge of the terrain should be forbidden - try to find suitable terrains not open for the runners before but fair for everybody - as in classic race
• I think that especially the distinction between passable and impassable fences and walls is perfect. It is not necessary to see walls which are e.g. just 50cm high, you jump over anyway. But it is of main importance that you see right in the front, where you have impassable features on your way! Streets which are paved should be brown, paths with are not paved should stay as they are (black with different wide and length of lines).
• I got the feeling that lots of work had been done on the map and planning and it was a very fair race!
• At the event I didn't have to make difference between passable and impassable walls but at a table it seems quite difficult.
  I don't like the light brown fill for unpaved footpaths.
  The borderline of the sidewalks and footpaths sometimes seems to be thin.
  The overprinted symbols are understandable on the map but at the event they were difficult to see because of the public. Mostly they were related to the audience activity.
  It is hard to say if the mistake was because of the legibility of the map or because of the lack of concentration.
• I think it is very important to make sure the course is easy to see on the map, that means a lighter grey for buildings or a darker red/purple for the course. I think the thick lines for impassable was very good.
• I think it was en overall good sprint map. You could see the symbols quit clearly. Maybe the course was a little bit hard to see in the urban areas and the footpath as well in the more lighter areas.
• The underground passage, the lines are too thin to read in high speed. My final opinion is that the new sprint map norm is very good.
• Northern part of the hill: difficult to read paths. Problem to read: green line (hedge) combined with black line (unpassable wall) like between competition center and railway station. I would prefer a colour difference between paved and unpaved footpaths (different runability)
• General the Sprint map during WOC was very good. Very important was the contrast all colors. I had any problems with read this map.
  I want get You some opinion about another sprint maps.
  The PWT-final 2004 map (Eksjo City) another ISSOM map was very bad. I had problem with good reading the course and some elements during fast running.
  For me important is good contrast between elements during fast running. I use road, path and walk area. This elements I must good read during competition. I prefer more the proposal "park map standard by Peter Hranicka"
• On one hand, it is good that insignificant objects (the borderlines of sidewalks etc.) are drawn with thin lines, but on the other, they make the map loosely readable ("too soft").
  When running the course, I easily feel careless and I don't want to orienteer accurately and carefully. The contrast between impassable and passable fence/wall is necessary, but the softness of the map causes above mentioned problems. In other words, the map doesn't look "cool".
  I got the same feeling when I ran in Sweden with the model event maps of the WOC 2004. Those maps do not contain yellow or grey, and the fine Finnish style of drawing slopes is lacking. In Finnish maps the contours go nicely round the knolls but in Sweden the knolls are just splashed to the map. In Sweden maps don't inspire me, because they are so damned sterile. I hope you understood my point.
• Maps made in CZE have better symbols, easier to read and with more detail. I agree with all their comments on ISSOM!
• Optical minimum dimension of solid line should be 0.1mm (not 0.07mm).
  304.1 - fill in for impassable water should be 100%.
  421 - Impassable vegetation (forbidden to pass) is not necessary.
  418, 419 - the thickness of trunk should not be the general criterion.
  506.1, 529 - 15% brown fill is too light.
  For roads with traffic I recommend to use darker brown fill (e.g. 50%) or special colour (e.g. light red or red).
  For all unpaved footpaths to use only one symbol 506.1. Unpaved footpath in the forest (507) is not necessary.
  There is no symbol for benches!
• I would make street areas white to increase legibility, especially important around narrow passage ways or paths, and have open forest some other colour such as light green. I would also possibly increase most line widths very slightly so as to increase the definition. The legibility of light grey passages through buildings was tolerable but could be improved by making them a lighter grey, assuming the streets are white and the buildings are left the same shade as they are now.
  Otherwise I thought the maps were pretty good.
• Paths in the forest or rough open were terrible.
  The big complaints about the WOC map were:
  1. The paths around #8 and #9 were unreadable
  2. The rule about uncrossable walls was very confusing. For example the wall between #12 and #13 N of the building was actually easily crossable but it was shown as forbidden to cross. What made it worse was that many people did cross it and there was no action taken about these. The old uncrossable wall symbol is easier to read.
  3. N of #15 was a circus that should have been indicated with overprint. Not knowing it was there made the N route appear better than it was.
• 10: ? on North side of Castle
  13: caused some confusion
  15: the buildings and their shapes are very important and the darker grey is good
  17: it would be yet another colour
  I was happy with the Rapperswil map. There just needs to be good clear instructions on what is crossable, what is not beforehand. Which there were.
  The WOC sprint finish area was very confusing though.
• All was good
• I think the contrast between the buildings (dark grey) and passages through a building (light grey), and the contrast between passages through a building (light grey) and the paved areas (light brown), preferably would have been more clear.
  But also, I think that it is very important to enhance the black symbols for impassable and forbidden objects. Darker grey on buildings would make these objects less clear on the map.
• I answered the questionnaire because I ran the courses in Rapperswil. I have also orienteered in different countries and the quality of the maps has varied a lot. My opinion is that the map in Rapperswil was good. I did not like the course, but that´s another story.
  There has been a lot of discussion on paths. The light brown colour of the paths doesn't work in the forest areas (white) if there are a lot of contours. The traditional black colour will work better, but then it is maybe too similar to walls and fences? More contrast needed?
  The tunnels have often been drawn with so light a colour that it has been impossible to read it in full speed. In Rapperswil everybody knew all the tunnels beforehand!
  My opinion is also that cobbled streets (the streets covered with natural stones) in old cities like in Porvoo, Finland and Lund, Sweden should be drawn somehow different because they are clearly slower to run than the asphalt streets with even surface.
  One very difficult thing to show and understand is the different levels and heights in castles, in castle areas (for instance World Cup sprint in Czech Republic last year), in huge buildings and in tunnels In the case of stairs you have to read the total climb with help from the length of the stairs.
• In an urban area like Rapperswill the representation is good but the legibility of foot tracks on white and semi open area must be improved. What happen when this mapping system is adopted in park/wood area? In my view the example in O-sport 3/2003 shows well what is better
• I did a big mistake going to the first control: only 40 meters after the start on the right at the end of the yellow with 3 trees there was a BIG STAIR NOT DRAWN! Unbelievable in a WOC map.

22:
Only at WOC: 7
Yes: 2
2 trainings: 2
2-3: 1
3-4 times: 4
5: 6
6: 1
8-10: 1
10: 2
12: 1
15: 1
few times: 1
several times: 1
They are never always the same but have some small differences: 1
Not enough: 1
I don't know: 1