Triple Gloucester

[babs f]

Is there an issom symbol for Moral high ground ?

This forum needs a "like" button.

[MJG]

But the organisers can have no complaints if anyone climbed one of the many (ISOM) mapped High Fences - it you use that symbol, even with a slightly different line thickness, it is reasonable for competitors with the ability to cross it to do so if optimal for them, and I don't think relying on a non-standard map legend is a sufficient defence.

I am puzzled now. There are plenty of "forbidden to cross" fences shown with the double tag which looks to my eyesight as the ISSOM symbol 524. There are other fences shown with the single tag - ISSOM 522 "passable fence or railing". It seems exceedingly picky to object to the use of ISSOM symbol 519 "passable stone wall" just because the specification says it should only be used in non-urban areas. The problem leg clearly shows an "impassable wall" ISSOM 521.1. Competitors seen crossing that deserve to be disqualified, but you could argue that planning a leg like that when the wall is physically crossable is tempting fate unless you are prepared to marshall it. I had no problems on my course and was happy with taking it as an ISSOM map.

The organisers coped well with having the swing bridge just after the start being unexpectedly swung and the resulting restarts and delay to the starts.

[andypat]

2/ Many physically uncrossable fences not mapped.


The second I find annoying because it leads to people straying into out of bounds. Everywhere else in the world uses a strong feature to show a large boundary between OOB, but another (lazy) habit in the UK is to use the thin "road-edge or step" when there's actually a huge great obstacle. You get weird effects like the carpark off Barbican road, which is surrounded by a high fence, being shown with a high fence on only three sides.

That's interesting you should say that. I spent some time removing the not to be crossed fence symbol surrounding the garden areas on our Houston map because of advice from an elite orienteer who said it was too cluttered and was effectively redundant. We now have a( admittedly tidier and cleaner looking) map with OOB marked with thin road edge black line, but it certainly wasnt lazy as it took me several hours to fill in all the wee gaps!

[Snail]

You are right - I didn't explain that very well.

The issue is the mix of symbols. If it is ONLY an ISSOM map then you are right - the double tag fence is not to be crossed. But once you start to find ISOM symbols, such as the wall earlier in the course, things become less clear. How are you supposed to interpret those symbols that occur in both ISSOM and ISOM but with different meanings?

(FWIW I think this will continue to cause problems at urban events until IOF remove the anomalies, and ideally return to a single common symbol set. To have the same symbol meaning "must not be crossed" in ISSOM and "may be crossed" in ISOM is always going to cause problems, particularly with newcomers to the sport and/or people only doing the occasional event on a different map: either forest or sprint).

But to support Mrs H, everyone I have spoken to thought the weekend was excellent.

[graeme]

That's interesting you should say that. I spent some time removing the not to be crossed fence symbol surrounding the garden areas on our Houston map because of advice from an elite orienteer who said it was too cluttered and was effectively redundant. We now have a( admittedly tidier and cleaner looking) map with OOB marked with thin road edge black line, but it certainly wasnt lazy as it took me several hours to fill in all the wee gaps!

http://www.clyde.routegadget.co.uk/rg2/#12

I completely fail to see what is "cluttering" about your map. To me, the high fence helps to emphasize the various cutthrough alleyways which are crucial information on this type of area. It also reassures me that the open ground ends at the big fence, not some mown area extending further out.
I also like the way you use non-urban road edge black line, even if ISSOM doesn't really allow it.

[MIE]

The issue is the mix of symbols. If it is ONLY an ISSOM map then you are right - the double tag fence is not to be crossed. But once you start to find ISOM symbols, such as the wall earlier in the course, things become less clear. How are you supposed to interpret those symbols that occur in both ISSOM and ISOM but with different meanings?

(FWIW I think this will continue to cause problems at urban events until IOF remove the anomalies, and ideally return to a single common symbol set. To have the same symbol meaning "must not be crossed" in ISSOM and "may be crossed" in ISOM is always going to cause problems, particularly with newcomers to the sport and/or people only doing the occasional event on a different map: either forest or sprint).

In ISSOM (2007) there are 2 crossable wall symbols -- The thick grey symbol (519.001) AND the black line with dots on it (519.000) (as per ISOM).
Once again,I think this is a case of people not being aware of the available symbols and the full (? intended) meaning and intended uses.

The definitions given are:
519.000 = passable stone wall (for use in non-urban areas)
519.001 = passable wall

It could be argued that the use of symbol 507, which is defined as "small unpaved footpath or track, not to be used in urban areas" has the same/similar problem.

Is a park/grassed area on an urban map a non-urban area -- discuss

[graeme]

Is a park/grassed area on an urban map a non-urban area -- discuss

This is under fairly active discussion ahead of our next sprint WRE at Bannockburn. It's important to remember that the purpose of the map is to convey the information the runner needs to know as quickly as possible. We're going to make the map as clean as possible: once we decide how to do that we'll know if the park is urban or not

The most important information to convey is "can I go that way"?.
So the objection to the black line with dots is that it can be confused with the thicker
"uncrossable" symbols.

The most important difference between ISOM2000 and ISSOM is that thick black lines are now only used for uncrossable features.

The problem with the grey line is that it takes up a lot of space: 1.7metres on the ground. Almost always this means it has to be displaced from its actual position (consider e.g a typical 1.5 m wide path between low walls).

The path issue is different. In urban areas the path is just a continuation of the "normal" running terrain: paved area. No need to emphasize it and hence light brown. In a forest you need to contrast it with the white of woods, hence darker brown with thicker edges.

PS I'm sure Gloucester was jolly nice, so please feel free to cut this to a separate thread.

[MikeShires]

Just on another (minor) point - whilst I thought the Gloucester City Race was excellent, I wasn't too impressed by having to wait 20 mins at the start, after my start time, to get a map from a finisher, as they'd run out. I thought the idea of pre-entering was that you were guaranteed a map, and any EOD entries were stopped when maps ran out. No harm done though in this case, as I didn't really mind, but some other people waiting for maps with me weren't too happy and I doubt an elite competitor would have been too impressed.

[mikey]

Reading the planner's training blog on Attackpoint, I think there was an issue with the print run for one course.

[buzz]

I suppose it's predicable that the G. O. M. will do an ISSOM hatchet job but I don't much like my congratulatory thread hijacked for that purpose. Start your own.

I rarely find myself disagreeing with your posts, but I feel compelled to take exception to this one. I don't think you can dictate the content or tone of a thread just because you started it - indeed threads would be very boring if they didn't weave their way in and out of the issues raised. I also think its reasonable to criticise an aspect of an event without being overly concerned about the feelings of the organisers. If they're not interested in the views of others then they don't have to read the thread. If there's one thing I really hate its people accusing nopesters of moaning every time they critisise something.....

End of rant!

[babs f]

Comments are now up on the NGOC website. Well done to the young man most affected by those crossing the uncrossable wall:
"the competitor most disadvantaged by the errors has requested that no action be taken to disqualify them".

I like the bit about the Course 1 maps blowing into the dock before the event started.

[andypat]

Comments are now up on the NGOC website. Well done to the young man most affected by those crossing the uncrossable wall:
"the competitor most disadvantaged by the errors has requested that no action be taken to disqualify them".

I agree - thats a particularly good sign at that age!

However thats now two events out of four in the UKUL (Crewe and Gloucester) where people who shouldn't have scored UKUL points have done so. My own personal opinion is that in order to protect the integrity of league competitions like the UKUL we need to:

A - Learn our uncrossable features
B - Expect to be DQ if we cock up

I'm constantly amazed at how many experienced forest orienteers dont know how to recognise ISSOM uncrossable features.