Hi Dr Syn, here's the first inevitable reply......
I wasn't saying that two different publishers will apply different standards to their charts for the same airfield - however, having until recently used SAS charts, I'm not sure about that! A country will either use TERPS standards (N and S America, Canada, Japan, Taiwan and S Korea) or PANSOPS standards (rest of the world. They are essentially the same with a few minor differences - one being the hdg/track after takeoff and another which you will be familiar with being holding speeds.
I must admit to not being too familiar with the AIPs of all the nations I fly to, I tend to rely on the national or local differences as published in Jepps / AERADs for that. I also, like most pilots, tend to follow the published charts on departures without questioning them too much - as I do with the FMC database. However, sometimes this doesn't always work - The Taipei case being one. The Jepp FMC database does not correspond to the SID plate, so the depareture was flown in HDG rather than LNAV. The text of the departure stated runway heading, not track as it was written using TERPS. If we had maintained runway track, we would have been incorrect despite Taipei having high ground in proximity.
My point is that rather than following your instincts (which a lot of posters on this thread seem to) be aware of which system the airfield uses and apply. That is not to say that a published departure won't vary the standard. If in any doubt, he text should make you aware of this.
That BTW, (the SU1M Rw05 SID at Taipei) is your example of a published procedure which specifies runway heading.
And also, while the USA is a ICAO contracting state, it is not ICAO compliant. Just look at the airfield markings at EWR (or any other US airfields) next time you're there if you don't believe me.
And, yes I am enjoying the new environment. Many thanks for asking.
Dan