Filey Urban Event

[awk]

I think this may be a result of the map being printed at 1:5,000 rather than 1:4,000. My (slightly) younger eyes also stuggled to read the finer detail.
Anyone know why they went for 1:5 rather than 1:4,000? To fit the map onto A4?

I did hear there that there had been a bit of a mix-up on scales which was picked up at a fairly late stage, entailing a 1:5k map being needed to fit everything onto the map. But don't quote me (!!).

And on the self-disqualification theme, I think it's all a sneaky plot by Spookster and Lost Again to make sure the rest of us get fewer ranking points.

[MAPS]

I also went through the barriers on the route from 4 to 5, as did another runner in front of me. That makes at least 6 people, probably more who did the same thing. This suggests that the map was not clear enough at this point (for those aged 40+). I wasn't aware that I may have done anything wrong until after the event. Urban/sprint races are run at a very fast pace, and efforts should be made to try and stop these issues from occurring. 1:4000 would have helped. I don't believe anyone was trying to cheat, and rather than DQ everyone who went through the barriers, I think Martin and Dean should be reinstated.
The same also applies with Martins 8-9 leg which looks like a viable route on my map.
I did enjoy my run along the beach, which I found to be very readable.

[yted]

What a lot of interest in the Filey event - here are a few answers:
Self-disqualifiers on 4-5 should be commended. There are 4 uncrossable barriers albeit a bit thinner than usual (due to the difficulty of fitting 2 pavements, a road and 4 thick black lines into a few mm I guess) but still significantly thicker than uncrossable boundaries. I do think that if a fence has been specifically and obviously put there by the council to stop people running from a park onto the road then it is only sensible and logical for mappers, planners and runners to treat it as uncrossable or to at least have a good look at the map to assure themselves it is crossable. In this case there was also a significant step down onto the road coinciding with the fence. One runner told me he'd crossed the first fence before realising and then ran round the other and I told him not to dq himself as he hadn't gained any time - but I feel those who crossed both should be dqed as they have saved time (I accept it was a genuine mistake).
The very short fence between the 2 buildings was inked in on course 2 maps as the circle for their control obscured it. It was a gate that was always (whenever I visited, including when I hung the control) closed and bolted.
The map was A3 and would have had to be one and a half times bigger in area at 1:4,000 though personally I think that would have been clearer - however, I asked many of the older competitors and they said it was ok for them as they always carry magnifiers! The detail was not as fine as that on my JK sprint map!

[Paul T]

Having just clicked into this thread and looked at the map for the first time since the race day, I find myself in the good company of Spookster et al and willing to suffer the same fate! I crossed both those slightly-thicker-than-pavement-edges-but-surely-not-thick-enough-to-be-uncrossable lines. Leaving the previous control, I had decided the outer pair of black lines were only crossable at gates but that the inner pair were deliberately thinner and therefore crossable. I went under the first , spotted Ed sitting on a bench taking in the sun, checked the map again, came to the same conclusion and crossed the second one. Not sure it saved any time but am happy to abide by whatever is ruled.

Great planning from yted again, and good to have a run on the beach even if I now think it was a poor route choice. And thanks once more to the EBOR crew - I'm looking forward to York. I'm sure most clubs could find two or three towns of similar interest and put on worthwhile urban races. Well done EBOR for getting on with it

[Paul T]

There's a general point about urban mapping to be discussed. Both the Filey examples mentioned here relate to map details which appear quite different when magnified on a routegadget screen than they did when printed at 1:5000 on the day. People looking at a screen must be wondering how a competitor could make such crass mistakes. Another example is around #2 on the A course - while running that leg I couldn't make out much in the area around #2 on the map and still can't in good light with glasses. I just ran to an entrance to that small section of park and luckily spotted the control. The contours (darker on the printed map), control circle (larger on the printed map) and fine-ness of the detail, when combined, are just enough to be an issue. And I'm not picking on this particular map - it just happens to be the most recent one to hand. As yted says, some details on the JK sprint map were even finer.

Having drawn a couple of urban maps now, I think the skills are slightly different to those for forest surveying and cartography (of which I have done little). With excellent base maps, surveying is quite mechanistic and seems to need far less judgement and interpretation than forest surveying.
Urban mapping judgements are mostly cartographic in that it is easily possible to draw a level of detail on the screen that turns into illegible clutter, useless for navigation, when printed on a competition map. Some narrow paths and alleyways, if drawn anything like to scale, are not legible enough for the sport of running navigation. It's so tempting to draw all those tricksy details and so easy to do. And neither does the ISSOM standard strictly prevent it - the minimum separation distances specified (0.15mm, about the width of a contour) are very small.

But just because it's possible and *legal* doesn't make it sensible. How do people who do this well manage these judgements? What are the rules of thumb?

[distracted]

But just because it's possible and *legal* doesn't make it sensible. How do people who do this well manage these judgements? What are the rules of thumb?

From my experience of urban mapping, I find it essential to exaggerate detail in some areas. Not sure if you can call it "a rule of thumb", but I always print out the completed map on whatever printer is to hand and check the detail. If something looks unclear/difficult to read when printed and I'm sitting down looking at it, then a competitor won't be able to determine what's going on in a race. So the offending feature/s get distorted until they are clear to read/as clear as is possible. As long as the map is correct in a relative sense it shouldn't matter.

Had my first look at the JK sprint map this past weekend - found the path/flowerbed detail around the buildings almost unreadable even when stood still. No wonder those who had maps where some of the colours on the litho print had slipped had difficulty making out what was/wasn't a legal route! Some small changes to the cartography would have made the map much more readable. A little surprising at a Level A event where there is meant to be a map adviser too, but I don't think there is enough (any?) expertise in this country when it comes to sprint mapping to ensure we're getting a good, consistent product.

[EddieH]

I remember in one major international race a runner was reinstaed because he had crosses an "uncrossable" barrier that was in fact drawn a fraction of a millimetre thinner than the ISSOM spec.

It seems clear that the fences were thinner than ISSOM spec in this case.

[awk]

Great planning from yted again, and good to have a run on the beach even if I now think it was a poor route choice.

As I've said somewhere else, I ran both choices, and there was approximately 10 seconds difference between the two (beach being slower), easily accounted for by the fact that I took slightly the wrong line out of 18 when running the beach route in the race. Rather than it being a poor route choice, I reckon it was at least as fast as the alternative, and for a strong hill runner would have been quicker.

I find myself disagreeing with yted on the disqualification issue. The thick lines were virtually impossible to read as such unless significantly magnified, and even then they were thinner than the specification. On that basis, I don't think it reasonable to dq or to expect self-dq. I respect those who did, but that doesn't mean I agree with them! (Nor do I think the council put the fences there to stop people crossing - they stopped immediately the pavement reached the same level as the road - they were a protective measure, not a preventative one).

[dustytoo]

Really enjoyed the Filey event - so much so that I took a conscious decision to run from 18 to 19 (course 2) along the cliffs. Not the fastest route, but what a delight!

I must confess that at the time I didn't notice the variation in the thickness of the 'uncrossable' lines when going from 4 to 5. Not being quite as lithe as I would like, I went round anyway, as the quicker option, but that was a rather worrying fluke, not an informed decision! As for the reported inked in bit between buildings, I can't identify that on my map. Where was this?

[Mrs H]

I still can't get the file to load on routegadget and would really like to see at least an extract of the area in question, as, if I had managed to make it all the way to Filey, which I certainly would have had it not been the week before BOC, I'd have been a bit miffed to have been disqualified over a questionable bit of mapping.

[Spookster]

The main discussion is about this:

fileymap-road.JPG (28.99 KiB) Viewed 4607 times

Courses came south out of the ornamental park, crossed the road, and into the other park. It's a 1:5000 map, so already smaller than a normal 1:4000 ISSOM, and in order to squeeze four parallel thick lines in, the inner ones have been thinned slightly.

Here's what it looks like (view west up the road):

fileystreetview-road.JPG (29.74 KiB) Viewed 4605 times

As you can see, as you leave the park there is actually no fence (it ends) before you are in the road. On the left (south) side, you do need to step over a 2-stone retaining wall and through the railings (which is what I did, illegal).

I also had a problem with this:

fileymap-park.JPG (13.31 KiB) Viewed 4605 times

Between the two park buildings is a very short length of thick black line. On the maps it is less obvious than on the routegadget image, and this image. I didn't even see the gate as I ran between the two buildings.

Overall I thought it was a good map, and great course, so I'm not criticising. I enjoyed it and I'd certainly run there again.

[awk]

Thanks for all that Spookster - I'm not good at getting stuff like that on here, must suss it out. To me, it underlines the thrust of the points I was making:

To have a kerb as an uncrossable barrier is, to be frank, not viable. If the road is to be uncrossable at that point, it has to be marked as such (see graeme's post). That barrier is a mapping mistake in my mind (no map is perfect, and this was a good map). It also underlines to me that the intention of the fences was protective, not preventative. Coupled with the non-standard symbol, I really see no alternative but to acknowledge the honesty of those who declared themselves crossing the barrier but retain them in the results (which I hope will at some stage soon reach the BOF results pages).

Incidentally, the clip of the map showed is far easier to read than the map at 1:5000.

[Homer]

Thanks for the images Spookster.

Interesting that the fence on the north side of the road doesn't extend past the entrance to the park. I couldn't remember crossing a fence, but assumed I must have done (without thinking) as there is one on the map. So I'm in the clear then!

I still feel there is no need for you to self-disqualify for this transgression, but combined with your other mistake, can understand your decision.
Now with the error in the mapping highlighted I think anyone who has transgressed at the four parallel boundaries can excuse themselves.

[SYO Member]

Heading down the steps to the gardens containing control 4 on B, I missed the NW most entrance so carried on down to the entrance on the seafront. Never saw Ed anywhere but there was a woman in a fluorescent jacket here and wondered if she was from 'parks and gardens' checking that we weren't running across the grass?

So assuming everyone on B was entering the gardens here, and that the route to 5
wouldn't backtrack us past the woman again, I went up steps and along to the exit shown in the photo.

A quick check of the map showed me that the inner 2 were thinner than the 2 not to be crossed (even though the N most was a kerb in part - maybe that's why there were no single tags on either of the inner ones), so I crossed to enter the gardens on the
other side of the road, passing through the S most railings to do so. On my way up to 5 I looked again and reckoned that the tags were just omitted for clarity.

Looking at them now on the map or RouteGadget, I'd say they're the same thickness as the passable fence symbol showing in the legend but without single tags. So
notwithstanding the above and Awk's and Homer's postings, I have unwittingly
transgressed and would accept disqualification.

Despite this, I did enjoy the course which for me included the beach run which fortunately wasn't soft sand.

[andypat]

I was disappointed to miss the Filey event but did have the bonus of a family holiday there by coincidence a few weeks earlier so I recognise spooksters photo!

Looking at the map excerpt put on by spookster I'd suggest (with the benefit of hindsight) overprinting the road in between the two slightly thin thick black lines as OOB with red hash. This would effectively remove the need for the inner "kerb" to be mapped as uncrossable which would be more legible if technically inaccurate. Alternatively plan to avoid the issue since its a bit ambiguous.

DQ seems a bit harsh given its clearly perceived as ambiguous by a few. Its a shame there isnt a 3rd option for controllers to penalise competitors the 10s they gained by their unwitting error in the event the map is not 100%.